Klytemnestra in The Agamemnon of Aeschylus

KLYTEMNESTRA I N T H E AGAMEMNON OF A E S C H Y L U S
By
LAUREL MARJORIE BOWMAN
B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1981
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR T H E D E G R E E OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA
August 1986
© Laurel Marjorie Bowman, 1986

In p r e s e n t i n g this thesis in partial f u l f i l m e n t of the
r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the University
of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make
it freely available for reference and study. I further
agree t h a t permission f o r extensive copying of this thesis
for s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the head o f my
d e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s or her representatives. It i s
understood that copying or publication of this thesis
for f i n a n c i a l gain shall not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my written
permission.
Department of
The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia
1956 Main Mall
V a n c o u v e r , Canada
V6T 1Y3
Date ^ /"''^
«1 N.
ii
ABSTRACT
In the last eighty years a great deal has been written
about the character and s y m b o l i c s i g n i f i c a n c e of Klytemnestra i n
Aeschylus' trilogy, the O r e s t e i a . These s t u d i e s have contributed
much that i s useful t o the understanding of Klytemnestra's char-
acter and her r o l e i n the t r i l o g y . However, by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on
her position i n the O r e s t e i a , some aspects o f her r o l e i n the
first play ( t h e Agamemnon), o f which she i s t h e p r o t a g o n i s t , have
been neglected because they a r e not a b s o l u t e l y relevant to the
themes o f t h e whole trilogy. Equally, t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f some
aspects o f her c h a r a c t e r and r o l e i n t h e Agamemnon have frequent-
ly been blown o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n i n that play simply because they
become i m p o r t a n t later i n the t r i l o g y .
This t h e s i s a t t e m p t s , by c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the text
of t h e Agamemnon alone, to a r r i v e at a balanced view of Klytem-
n e s t r a 's character and r o l e i n that play. Her p e r s o n a l charac-
teristics, and her r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e themes developed and
images u s e d i n t h e Agamemnon, are discussed i n the order i n which
they a r e revealed i n the t e x t .
Appendix A traces t h e development of the O r e s t e i a myth i n
literature and a r t b e f o r e Aeschylus, and d i s c u s s e s t h e c h a n g e s he
made i n t h e s t o r y a s he r e c e i v e d i t .
Appendix B analyses t h e arguments surrounding Klytemnes-
t r a ' s stage movements i n t h e Agamemnon, and s u g g e s t s a sequence
of e n t r a n c e s and e x i t s which s a t i s f i e s most o f t h e p o i n t s raised.

iii
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i v
INTRODUCTION 1
KLYTEMNESTRA I N T H E AGAMEMNON 7
NOTES 109
APPENDIX A: The O r e s t e i a Tradition and Aeschylus'
Innovations 118
NOTES TO A P P E N D I X A 129
APPENDIX B: K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s Entrances and E x i t s 132
NOTES TO A P P E N D I X B 148
BIBLIOGRAPHY 150
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like t o thank my advisor, Dr. P o d l e c k i , and Dr.
Edinger, for their thoughtful advice and a s s i s t a n c e i n this the-
sis, and f o r t h e i r unfailing patience. I am a l s o grateful to
R o b e r t , C a r o l and Edward f o r t h e i r cheerful help i n proofreading,
and f o r allowing me to discuss problems i n the text at length
with them i n t h e c o u r s e o f my work on t h e t h e s i s ; a n d t o Matthew,
for showing me what graduate students are really supposed t o be
doing. Finally, I would particularly like t o thank my parents
for their unceasing moral (and f r e q u e n t financial) support over
the l a s t three years.

1
INTRODUCTION
To interpret properly Klytemnestra's r o l e i n the Agamemnon
one should keep two p r i n c i p l e s i n mind. First, she is a person , 1
not m e r e l y an expression of a p o l i t i c a l or social theme. Second,
she i s not the point of the play. Neither of these principles
has been a m a t t e r of common agreement among c r i t i c s ; in fact, one
or the other i s usually ignored, by omission or deliberate neg-
lect. For this reason, I would like to discuss my reasons for
holding them b e f o r e going on.
In the Oresteia, Aeschylus attempts to resolve abstract
questions of justice and divine will, which he explores through
the conflict of male versus female, oikos versus society, and
parent versus child. These issues are expressed one way or an-
other i n a l l three plays, but they become c l e a r e s t i n the Eumen-
ides, where they are i s o l a t e d from human activities and judged
rather than enacted. (The fact that many c h a r a c t e r s i n the Eumen-
ides are divine is indeed a sign that the issues in that play
have become more abstract than they were in the first two plays
of the trilogy.) In the Agamemnon, however, the characters are
human, and the issues are not as well-defined or as abstract as
they later become. It i s a mistake t o t r e a t them as i f they are.
It i s equally a mistake to treat the issues developed and
resolved i n the Eumenides as the only questions of any importance
in the Agamemnon. The conflict and trial i n the Eumenides stands
on a basis of personal, human, c o n c r e t e actions and events which

2
was e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e Agamemnon. The e v e n t s of the f i r s t play
are not simply examples o f t h e work o f f o r c e s r e v e a l e d a n d i s s u e s
addressed i n the t h i r d . Rather, the events o f t h e Agamemnon a r e
the reality from which the Eumenides' abstract, intellectual
principles are derived. The p e r s o n a l and t h e c o n c r e t e form t h e
core o f t h e Agamemnon. I n t h e Eumenides the personal and c o n -
crete aspects have been p a r t l y s t r i p p e d away; b u t t o i g n o r e them
in t h e Agamemnon f o r t h a t reason, or to d i s m i s s them a s u n i m p o r -
tant, i s t o miss a l a r g e part o f the t h r u s t o f the f i r s t play.
Thus, t h e c h a r a c t e r s found i n t h e Agamemnon a r e n o t m e r e l y
the v e h i c l e s o f a theme, however much t h e t r i a l i n t h e Eumenides
might tempt one t o t h i n k they are. They cannot be l i n e d up a s
neatly a s one m i g h t wish t o do on one s i d e or another of the
conflicts defined i n t h e Eumenides . They a r e n o t s i m p l y devices
to move the p l o t , or the e l a b o r a t i o n of the c o n f l i c t , forward.
The lines
You make t r i a l o f me a s i f I were a s i l l y woman;

b u t ... w h e t h e r y o u p r a i s e o r blame me, i t ' s t h e
same. T h i s i s Agamemnon, my h u s b a n d , and a c o r p s e ;
t h e work o f t h i s r i g h t hand, a j u s t c r a f t s m a n . So
things stand.
(Ag_. 1401-1406)2
are n o t d e l i v e r e d by an a b s t r a c t symbol of matriarchy, a passive
vehicle o f the workings of j u s t i c e , o r an example o f e a r l y femin-
ist thought. They a r e spoken by a specific, powerful, self-
aware, blood-spattered woman standing over a bleeding corpse.
They were spoken, moreover, before an a u d i e n c e which had n o t t h e

3
advantage later critics d i d o f knowing what was g o i n g t o happen
in t h e Eumenides l a t e r on and i n t e r p r e t i n g a c c o r d i n g l y .
This i s not t o say that the plays of the O r e s t e i a a r e not
connected. Of c o u r s e they a r e ; and o f c o u r s e the issues resolved
in t h e Eumenides a r e f i r s t r a i s e d i n the a c t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n o f
the Agamemnon, i n which they a r e indeed important, i f not as
clear-cut as i n the l a t e r play. But not a l l o f t h e information
given or questions asked i n the f i r s t play are treated i n the
third; a n d t h o s e w h i c h do have been r e d u c e d and s i m p l i f i e d .
It i s necessary to say t h i s because i t has s o o f t e n been
forgotten. Winnington-Ingram's article (1948: p a s s i m ) , i n which
he proposes that Klytemnestra be s e e n as a r e b e l l i o u s f e m i n i s t
who resents male power, fits her p o r t r a i t i n t h e Eumenides i n
some ways, b u t s u i t s the Klytemnestra o f t h e Agamemnon h a r d l y a t
all. Zeitlin's theory (1978: p a s s i m ) t h a t the O r e s t e i a i s one o f
a c a p a c i o u s g e n r e o f myths c o n c e r n i n g the overturn of matriarchal
rule again suits only the t h i r d play of the t r i l o g y . Her theory
arises from themes strongly stressed i n t h e Eumenides, Winning-
ton-Ingram's from more m i n o r pointers i n the text; but n e i t h e r
theory c a n be r e a d back into t h e Agamemnon and h e l d to "fully
explain" Klytemnestra, or the a c t i o n of the f i r s t play. As A y a
Betensky (1978:11) p o i n t s o u t , t o make o f A e s c h y l u s no more than
a feminist, an e c o n o m i s t or a housekeeper trivializes the p l a y s .
One must ignore a good d e a l o f t h e t e x t o f t h e Agamemnon i n order
to make the Klytemnestra of that play no more than a symbol o f
something else. She i s p e r h a p s "depersonalized" ( B e t e n s k y , 1978:

4
12), and certainly one-dimensional, in the third play of the
trilogy, but not i n the first. In t h e Agamemnon, K l y t e m n e s t r a is
the character through whom v a r i o u s themes and forces are foc-
ussed; she i s not h e r s e l f only an expression of one ( o r more) of
those themes.
The other principle, equally important, is rather the
reverse of the first. Klytemnestra i s so striking and dominant a
character i n the Agamemnon t h a t one i s sometimes tempted to find
the rest of the play no more t h a n a reflection of, or a reaction
to, her. As Gould (1978: 59) expresses this view, "the structure
of the play i s such that i t s other f i g u r e s are seen i n the half-
shadow o f h e r aura". Her p o r t r a y a l i s so v i v i d , in fact, that i t
can lead the unwary to think that Aeschylus' primary purpose, in
the Agamemnon a t least, was to build up a strong human character
and allow the plot and action to d e v e l o p more or less as a con-
s e q u e n c e o f her nature; but the subjects of the c h o r a l odes - the
gods, the past, justice, and hubris, and only occasionally the
Queen - should tell us otherwise. C e r t a i n l y the character of
Klytemnestra dominates and carries the burden of the action in
the first play; and, equally certainly, the play is not about
her, nor i s her psychology the focus of Aeschylus' attention.
Klytemnestra's personal character, or "psychology", helps to
humanize and make p a r t i c u l a r the general issues Aeschylus treats
in the Agamemnon. Equally, the focussing of the themes and for-
ces i n the play through her character and actions helps to make
that character stronger and more vivid. The reader should not
5
dismiss either o f these f a c t o r s as t r i v i a l . Her p e r s o n a l c h a r a c -
ter does exist, and i s t o some e x t e n t independent of the a c t i o n :
one can imagine a less complex and c o l o u r f u l creature performing
the same a c t s and a c t i n g a s an exejnplujn o f t h e same issues as
Klytemnestra does. But the f o r c e s revealed later i n the play
which only indirectly concern Klytemnestra and w h i c h do n o t d e -
pend entirely on h e r c h a r a c t e r f o r t h e i r expression demonstrate
Aeschylus' concern with issues other than h i s p r o t a g o n i s t ' s psy-
chology. Aeschylus d i d not i n v e n t the p l o t o r t h e themes he a d -
dresses i n t h e Agamemnon i n order to illuminate different facets
of her psychology. Klytemnestra i s a vivid and u n i q u e indivi-
dual, b u t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e theme o f t h e p l a y .
In this discussion of Klytemnestra i n t h e Agamemnon, a n
attempt will t h e r e f o r e be made t o keep to the middle ground.
This c a n be done by s t i c k i n g closely to the text of the play,
asking those questions which the text prompts us t o ask and
avoiding the i n v e n t i o n of thoughts, past events, or doings behind
the scenes t o which the text never alludes. By e x a m i n i n g her
speeches and a c t i o n s , t h e way o t h e r c h a r a c t e r s s e e and r e a c t to
her and t h e imagery associated with her, step by s t e p from be-
ginning t o end o f t h e p l a y i n the order i n which the l i n e s were
originally presented, I will attempt to present a b a l a n c e d and
comprehensive view of Klytemnestra and her role i n the
Agamemnon.
The text o f t h e Agamemnon is itself notoriously difficult
and i n some p l a c e s h o p e l e s s l y c o r r u p t . Great efforts have been

6
made i n this century to reconstruct i t i n i t s entirety, for in-
stance by F r a e n k e l (1950) and by D e n n i s t o n and Page (1957). The
products o f such attempts, however careful and s c h o l a r l y , are of
course always s l i g h t l y suspect, as they must t o some e x t e n t d e -
pend on what the editor feels that Aeschylus is likely t o have
written. In both the above-mentioned e d i t i o n s , however, t h e
editors have made e v e r y e f f o r t t o keep t h e i n f l u e n c e of their own
prejudices t o a minimum i n t h e i r decisions on t h e t e x t of the
play, and t h e r e s u l t s of their efforts a r e as t r u s t w o r t h y as such
things can p o s s i b l y be. In t h i s thesis I have relied without
comment on t h e e d i t i o n o f t h e Agamemnon p u b l i s h e d i n 1957 by J o h n
Denniston a n d Denys Page. Any d e v i a t i o n s from their text will be
noted.
7
KLYTEMNESTRA IN THE AGAMEMNON
Aeschylus drastically changed the earlier versions of the
myth of the Oresteia in histelling of the story of the death of
Agamemnon . 3
Before Aeschylus, Klytemnestra was seen as a sha-
dowy, secondary character who stood i n the background of the
hereditary feud between the king and h i s c o u s i n Aegisthus. The
reader i s e a r l y warned that she w i l l not occupy t h e same p o s i t i o n
in this play. In l i n e s 10-11, t h e watchman explains that he i s
on the roof watching f o r the beacon-fire from Troy because "thus
rules(KpafVR )/ the man-counselling (^ôpouXos) ) expectant heart
of a woman". " K p * T £ ( <• i s thus the f i r s t action associated with
Klytemnestra. "CW^>OJ3OU\O\) " , a rare word probably coined by Aes-
chylus f o r this line (Fraenkel 1 9 5 0 : n. a d l o c . ) has several
possible connotations, b u t must convey at least the idea o f mas-
culine intelligence or planning. The p o s i t i o n of this word be-
side yîiXOs ("YIAULKOS UO'dpopoiAoy) ") casts immediately into
relief one o f t h e p r i n c i p a l themes of the play, the opposition of
male and female, as w e l l as t h e p r i n c i p a l oddity of Klytemnes-
tra's own character - that she i s a woman, but has q u a l i t i e s of
mind which properly belong to a man. I t i s not necessary to
translate "f W l j ^ " (11) as "ambitious", as Winnington-Ingram
(1948: 130) does, t o understand that an u n u s u a l woman rules the
household t o which t h e watchman belongs. Winnington-Ingram
(1948: 130) goes too f a r i n seeing a clear reference to Aegisthus
in line 18. T h e watchman i s unhappy with hisposition, fearful,

8
and mourns the m i s f o r t u n e o f a house w h i c h i s not as well cared-
for as i t was (15-19); but no more can be understood from his
words a t t h i s time than that a l l i s not w e l l under the roof this
woman rules.
The watchman now hails the beacon. The s t r a n g e woman, who
is now (26) identified as the wife of Agamemnon, i s bidden to
raise a "woman's c r y of joy" (b\oXuy/Uod i 28), because Troy has
been taken - i f , the watchman a d d s , the beacon i s correct. His
speech concludes i n fear, doubt and silence. He hopes he may see
his master again, but does not trust that he will (34); and he
will say n o t h i n g more o f what i s wrong w i t h the household. Some
know a l r e a d y and understand his hints; to o t h e r s , he refuses to
clarify the matter. (37-39).
Of course the watchman hints here at the presence of
Aegisthus as his mistress' lover, as the reader later - much
later - d i s c o v e r s ; but i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e p l a y many p r o b l e m s of
this house w i l l be d i s c l o s e d , and t h e watchman's vague f e a r s hint
at a l l of them. A l l that has been revealed at this point in the
play i s that a woman commands i n t h e h o u s e h o l d and that something
is b a d l y wrong, so wrong t h a t even t h e good news from Troy, if it
is true, i s not sufficient to d i s p e l the gloom.
The chorus enter at line 40. They speak of the departure
of the A r g i v e f l e e t f o r Troy, t e n y e a r s ago. Agamemnon and Mene-
laus are d e s c r i b e d as the "strong yoke of the Atreidae" (ovupdO
,44) and t r e a t e d as a unit, with common concerns.

9
They are described as vultures mourning the loss of their young
(49-54), whose cries are heard by a god who pities them and sends
the "late-avenging Erinys" (fartpottodoJ ... E.pa)oJ ,59-60) on the
transgressor. In the same way Zeus Xenios sends the Atreidae, as
Erinyes, against Alexander, the t r a n s g r e s s o r , over a "many-
manned" or "much-married" (TToXiMi)op<*5 , 62) woman who will be the
cause of many deaths. The woman i s of course Helen, the daughter
of Leda and Tyndareus, though she is not yet named. Thus the
f i r s t image used in the ode concerns an Erinys who avenges,
though late, the loss of children; and while i t is used only of
the Atreidae here i t should be remembered. Metaphors in Aes-
chylus should never be assumed in advance to hold a single or a
simple meaning.
They now (83-103) turn towards the palace and apostrophize
its inhabitant, who i s not yet on stage . 4

The first reference to
Klytemnestra was as the wife of one of the Atreidae. Now the
chorus' address "daughter of Tyndareus" ( T^'d^t^ QO^<AT^ , 83-84)
links her with the other Tyndarid, her sister Helen, wife of the
other Atreid and just now d e s c r i b e d as faithless and the cause of
war. 5
The address i s formal and respectful, calling her by pat-
ronymic, name a n d rank as Queen.
The chorus ask here by what message she has been persuaded
ilUos kjjp\Us laeoc , 86-87) to order sacrifices throughout the
city. The altars of a l l the gods are ablaze with offerings (88-
90); torch-flames everywhere rise up to heaven, "medicined" or
" a n o i n t e d " ((j)APM,<A6$ of*€\)n , 94) with " s o f t , non-deceptive

10
persuasions" (JU,A\<AM?5 U'd6\oc6C Wdyoyjroy?ie(ts , 95) of holy ointment
from the inner store of the palace (94-96). These lines are
significant. Their primary meaning is clearly that sacrifices
are being performed everywhere, which consume v e r y valuable off-
erings (i.e., the p r e c i o u s ointment kept i n the inmost store of
the palace for use on special occasions). Some special event
must have o c c u r r e d , some news have been received, t o prompt such
extravagance; at least, so the chorus infer (85-87). But<j)<*f>f<.u-
660f.li}fj means also "adulterated" or "poisoned"; and as Goldhill
(1984: 17) shows, " / ^ / W ^ i ", w i t h i t s c o n n o t a t i o n o f womanish or
Oriental luxury, stands almost i n c o n t r a d i c t i on to n

clôhoLft "•
"$o\o$ " i s commonly a s s o c i a t e d with f e m i n i n e or b a r b a r i a n c h a r a c -
teristics. P e r s u a s i o n , 7Tec0^> , i s i m p o r t a n t throughout the play,
usually associated with Klytemnestra. Already Klytemnestra, hav-
ing been "persuaded" by a message, i s shown as adulterating with
perhaps deceptive " p e r s u a s i o n s " the blazing t o r c h e s whose kind-
ling she commanded and which the chorus have seen as symbols of
hope (99-103). This renders ambiguous the significance of these
triumphantly blazing torches; The ambiguity i s stressed by the
chorus' own doubt o f t h e t o r c h e s ' meaning; t h e y end their address
on a note of uncertainty, unsure that they should trust the sac-
rificial fire as the watchman was unsure of the beacon, both in
existence by command o f Klytemnestra.
It should be noted (Zeitlin, 1965: 463) that Klytemnestra
has been shown as a sacrificer in this scene, in that she ar-

11
ranged the s a c r i f i c e s throughout the c i t y . The m o t i f of sacri-
fice will appear throughout the p l a y .
The chorus now turn from their apostrophe t o the palace
and break into strophic song. The f i r s t strophe (104-121) speaks
of t h e omen o f t h e two e a g l e s which a t t a c k and e a t t h e p r e g n a n t
hare. The a n t i s t r o p h e (123-129) g i v e s C a l c h a s 1

interpretation of
this event. The A t r e i d a e a r e t h e e a g l e s ; the hare i s Troy; the
omen t h u s predicts that the Greeks will capture Troy. But A r t e -
mis pities the hare with h e r young and may h o l d up t h e c a m p a i g n .
The epode (140-159) e l a b o r a t e s t h e p r o p h e c y : Artemis i s kind to
the young of a l l creatures - lions are s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned.
Calchas prays that s h e may n o t keep t h e Danaans i n port with an
adverse wind, i n anger at the eagle's feast and eager f o r an-
other sacrifice, a l a w l e s s one (k\)op.6\) , 150), " i n b o r n worker o f
feuds that does not f e a r a husband ( o r "a man")" (^ cK£o>i) TfcWtfiU
St/f-fiu'roJ , ou $ic6rj0op*. , 151-2) ; f o r t h e i r abides a " t e r r i b l e , ever-
recurring, deceitful housekeeper, u n f o r g i v i n g c h i l d - a v e n g i n g (or
child-avenged) Wrath" {(pOfHp* TT*\ci)opTos OLKO\)6ÔS $o\t<* , ûi/ûo\)
(IrjJlS TtuJoiTOiJoS , 152-155).
There follows (160-183) the p u z z l i n g hymn t o Zeus. For
our purposes i t need only be m e n t i o n e d that he i s d e s c r i b e d a s
the u l t i m a t e v i c t o r i n any c o n t e s t (no m a t t e r what human seems t o
win), as those with understanding k-now. Zeus i s also associated
here w i t h (j)prj) , intellectual understanding, and c o g n a t e words
(<fyx>\)rt§os , 16 5; fosJuJ , 17 5; To <f)pohl\) , 17 6; <$OJÔOJ> 181.)
He h a s a l r e a d y been allied with the A t r e i d kings i n their quest

for vengeance f o r a woman. "(f)pj) " g e n e r a l l y seems t o be a char-
acteristic a s s o c i a t e d w i t h males i n t h i s play.
At 184 the chorus r e t u r n to the narrative. Gales sent by
Artemis hold the ships in port, as Calchas had feared. The
storm, which wears away the "flower of the A r g i v e s " (
Wi), 297-98), can be halted by a more g r i e v o u s remedy (than the
disease?) - the sacrifice o f Agamemnon's d a u g h t e r , SO^-UA) kyAji** ,
at her father's hands. After deliberation, Agamemnon d e c i d e s to
commit the act. At the moment o f his decision, the wind of his
(fipjH veers and blows ill, like the gales from the Strymon; his
thinking (To fataJtci) ) becomes JAh6'To\j+c\) . He sacrifices his
daughter i n a i d of a "woman-avenging" o r "woman-avenged" (JvddL -
HoTTOiJcui) , 226) war. Thus comes a b o u t the second sacrifice narr-
ated in this play.
Calchas' prophecy has so f a r , then, been fulfilled. What
of the rest of it - the c h i l d - a v e n g i n g , housekeeping Wrath which
does not fear a husband? Will the war be avenged by_ a woman?
The p o w e r f u l man-minded woman whom t h e watchman s p o k e o f comes to
mind; she i s the mother of the sacrificed girl, and has so far
kept to t h e house i n the p l a y . The chorus warn "ItyJdt- $( A<*A^ ~
yos ouiA afuftfjyoc "( 2 4 9 ) , and show a general fear of the future
(251-253).
Klytemnestra now appears i n t h e doorway o f t h e h o u s e . The
chorus refer t o her respectfully as the "ût)iJoâouô\) YptAOZ " (257)

13
of the land and a s s u r e us (or t h e m s e l v e s ) that her wishes f o r the
outcome o f t h e s e t h i n g s a r e b e n i g n (255). 6
It is significant that the chorus specifically state that
they r e v e r e h e r KÂ-Tot, w h i c h d e r i v e s , they e x p l a i n , from the fact
that she i s t h e w i f e o f an a b s e n t male r u l e r (258-260). The word
used f o r "male" h e r e ('Ap6(}) ) i s the m e d i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l and gram-
matical t e r m meaning "male p r i n c i p l e " (Goldhill, 1984: 34). They
acknowledge her authority only because i t derives from male
power, which shows a g a i n the opposition between male and female
w h i c h has a l r e a d y been s e e n i n the p l a y . They e x p r e s s no loyalty
to her personally; in fact, their care in explaining that what
they r e s p e c t they show f o r her i s based o n l y on her position is
so p o i n t e d as t o appear almost rude. As Denniston, Page (1957:
n. ad loc.) point out, "... i t i s not thus that the senators
address Atossa i n the P e r s i a n s " (at Pers. 150-158). That greet-
ing could be e x p l a i n e d away as Oriental extravagance; but the
Argive elders themselves g r e e t Agamemnon q u i t e differently, when
he arrives, a s s u r i n g him of their heartfelt friendship and good
will (805-806). That greeting shows that they are capable of
displaying affection towards a ruler; but here, they are polite,
if that, and no more. They repeat their questions about the
sacrifices, a s k i n g i f K l y t e m n e s t r a has heard good news, o r sacri-
fices i n hope of i t . They add a polite formula to the effect
that she need not answer i f she does not wish to. Their tone is
formal, very respectful, and h o l d s no warmth t o w a r d s her.

14
Klytemnestra s 1
first two lines cite a proverb which i n -
volves a maternal figure; she hopes t h a t m o r n i n g , "from (or "tak-
ing after") i t s mother night" [jUyrpos gojpoi)r]$ •frJ^><* , 265 ) may
bring good tidings. Several c r i t i c s have commented with percep-
tion on this line: Goheen (1955: 133) that i t shows Klytemnes-
tra, from the beginning, as thinking of e v e r y t h i n g i n terms of
motherhood and g e n e r a t i o n ; Betensky (1978: 13) that the Erinyes,
already mentioned, are later revealed to be the daughters of
Mother Night - the morning i s thus allied to the Avenging Ones;
Peradotto (1964: 388) that i n saying that this day "takes after"
(or i s born from) t h e n i g h t , Klytemnestra c o u l d w e l l mean t h a t i t
will be dark, no real day at all. Conventional imagery makes
light a symbol of hope and life: the watchman, however, was
doubtful of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the b e a c o n - l i g h t which Klytemnes-
tra commanded; the chorus have doubted the sacrificial torches
which she commanded and also a d u l t e r a t e d ; and now she herself
perverts the h o p e f u l dawn l i g h t ' s significance i n saying that i t
is from a dark mother. One need not accept a l l of these inter-
pretations to understand that her opening lines, however looked
at, a r e ominous. She then tells the chorus that t h e A r g i v e s have
taken Troy.
Goldhill (1984: 36 and ch. 1, passim) has developed an
interesting and useful interpretation of the ensuing scene and
some o t h e r s i n the p l a y , which involves the relationship between
symbol and meaning, speaker and listener and verbs of "seeing"

15
(or "seeming") and "saying". These distinctions are particu-
larly r e l e v a n t to a d i s c u s s i o n of Klytemnestra i n these scenes.
Klytemnestra in this p l a y i s f r e q u e n t l y shown a s an adroit
manipulator of symbols, both words and others. This i s shown
partly by the f a c t that she d e f i n e s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of symbols.
For i n s t a n c e , she d e f i n e s t h e symbol of the beacon light as hav-
ing t h e meaning (or " s i g n i f i c a n c e " ) that Troy has been destroyed.
The beacon, like any other symbol, could potentially have any
meaning at a l l . The chorus recognize the ambiguity of meaning
inherent i n any symbol and a c c o r d i n g l y doubt that the meaning
Klytemnestra has d e f i n e d f o r the beacon i s i t s true significance
- t h e r e i s f o r them a gap between symbol and m e a n i n g . Klytemnes-
tra, who i n v e n t e d t h e symbol to begin with (she o r d e r e d the c h a i n
of b e a c o n s ) and d e f i n e d i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e , sees no gap between the
symbol and i t s significance; there i s no a m b i g u i t y , no potential
o t h e r meaning, i n h e r e n t i n t h e b e a c o n as f a r as she i s concerned.
The distinction between verbs of seeing and saying is
parallel to that between symbols and meaning. A symbol " i s " what
one sees, but "means" what i t says. For instance, the beacon
"is" a large fire on a m o u n t a i n , w h i c h one sees i n the n i g h t ; i t
"says" that Troy has been c a p t u r e d - or so K l y t e m n e s t r a tells us.
For the chorus, then, t r u e knowledge comes o f a c c u r a t e interpret-
ation o f what a symbol "truly" (or " c l e a r l y " ) says. But a sym-
bol, by i t s nature, can have any significance - can "say" any-
thing; and what i t " t r u l y s a y s " need have no c o n n e c t i o n w i t h what
it "seems" t o be. The chorus, t h e r e f o r e , cannot know t h e truth,

16
unless they find an interpreter of symbols whom t h e y can trust
neither t o make m i s t a k e s in interpretation nor to l i e . 7

Klytem-
nestra, as w i l l appear throughout t h e p l a y , a t t a c h e s meaning more
or less arbitrarily to symbols, with more regard f o r what will
suit her purposes - for "fair seeming" - than for their true
significance, that i s , f o r what they "truly say". The chorus
sense this aspect of her c h a r a c t e r , and a c c o r d i n g l y do not trust
her i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s without q u e s t i o n .
B e c a u s e what a symbol "says" (= "means") i s t h e o n l y truth
there i s to f i n d , however inaccessible i t may be, verbs of "say-
ing" are associated with true understanding, . fafji) is a
masculine characteristic, as noted earlier; knowledge acquired
through "seeing" or "seeming" i s considered feminine in this
play.
When meaning and symbol are thus divided there will also
exist a gap between listener and speaker. The listener cannot
trust the words of the speaker to hold t r u e meaning; words are
also symbols and so can be arbitrarily defined. This gap is
closed by means of "Vtt6»". "lifted" is defined by Goldhill
(1984: 36) as that q u a l i t y of the speaker or o f the "faos " of the
speaker which engenders "Uutts " and understanding i n the list-
ener. Thus, there is a strong relationship between fi<-eu> and
TiLGYt* . Klytemnestra, through her skill at manipulating symbols
- or possibly simply as an innate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c - i s portrayed
as the p o s s e s s o r of a g r e a t d e a l of ireid^ .
17
The chorus' first reaction to Klytemnestra's statement is
(268) "How do you say? Your word ('iTios ) has escaped me on ac-
count o f my Utrc6'rt<A. ." They have not found either i n Klytemnestra
or her words any Viteu which would render her statement trust-
worthy; consequently her message has "escaped" their understand-
ing. Klytemnestra repeats her statement that Troy is in the
hands of the Greeks - "do I speak clearly (7of£x )?" (269).
The chorus this time accept her words for the moment; Klytem-
nestra (who can r e a d meaning i n appearance) comments (271) that
their loyalty is indicated (M'Tôpic - spoken, told of) by
their eyes (which have filled with tears) . The chorus think
better of their initial belief and ask (272) i f she has some
trusty p r o o f , or token (Wtt>i) ... Wu^J-p ) o f what she says. Has
she p e r h a p s trusted to a persuasive v i s i o n ( ^ ^ t t v V . . . €untt&'j ) of
a dream (274)? That i s , has she been convinced merely by "see-
ing" and being too e a s i l y persuaded (both f e m i n i n e characterist-
ics)? Klytemnestra rejects this; she would never accept the
opinion of a slumbering (215) . She implies that she pos-
sesses the q u a l i t y o f an alert <fyojJ , a masculine characteristic.
The chorus persist in their misjudgement of her; their next line
(276), however i t should be interpreted, is clearly no compli-
ment . 8
They ask i f she has fattened herself ({1rcoi\)o\) ) on an
"'clt^ripos " ( i . e . unconvincing? unfledged?) report. Klytemnestra
responds as i f offended, saying that they fault her as i f she had
the o f a young c h i l d (278). Clearly, Klytemnestra is reject-
ing proof by appearance (<j>d4û<* ) i n favour of that acceptable to
the (Goldhill, 1984: 37).

18
The chorus back away a t her e v i d e n t annoyance and seem to
accept her statement with their next question, " s i n c e when was
the c i t y destroyed?" (278) Klytemnestra's answer o n c e a g a i n uses
maternal imagery - " s i n c e the n i g h t which just now gives birth to
this light" (77)5 vW titfooerjs (jfuis ToS' £u<f>po'drjs , 279). The cho-
rus ask what messenger (etyyt\o5 , 280) could arrive so quickly.
"tt^SAOs " and " both imply speech; and Klytemnestra answers
"Hephaistos" - a god who could, i n person, speak - "who sends
bright light from Ida" (281). The chorus, expecting a spoken
message, have been d i s a p p o i n t e d .
In the beacon speech which f o l l o w s (281-316), Klytemnestra
traces for the chorus the journey of the beacon-light from Troy
to Argos, as the T W ^ ^ > they have asked that Troy has in fact
been c a p t u r e d . She uses words o f showing and saying interchange-
ably -KtifJyjecXud (to pass the news, g i v e the password), 289; ^//«A -
ov, 294 ; trjîJit , 293; etc. - because for her, who defined the
meaning of the beacon, there i s no difference. The beacon i t -
self, a light-signal, is essentially something which cannot
speak; i t can only be seen. To Klytemnestra, however, it speaks
as well as shines. She ends her description of i t s journey say-
ing that "this i s the p r o o f and token {61/^0 ), I tell you, my
husband sent as a password (or "passed on as news" - tty^yÂ
Afros, 316) from Troy t o me (315-316). To her, the unbroken pass-
age of the light i s proof; she is certain of i t s meaning. The
chorus a r e not so sure.

19
A few o t h e r points i n this speech should be n o t e d before
continuing. I t s tone throughout i s o f knowledge and power. As
Betensky (1978: 14) p o i n t s o u t , i t shows Klytemnestra in full
command of resources and i n f o r m a t i o n - o f d e t a i l s of geography
w h i c h s h e i s a b l e t o u s e t o h e r own ends, of f i r e s "like the sun"
(288) or the "bright moon" (298) w h i c h l e a p v i g o r o u s l y from moun-
tain to mountain, shoot over the sea, kindle with unceasing
strength (305) and b r i n g t h e news a t l a s t t o Argos - a l l appar-
ently a t h e r command, by h e r a r r a n g e m e n t , and under her c o n t r o l .
Even Hephaistos has done her b i d d i n g . The c o n f i d e n c e of the
Queen i s shown i n h e r d e s c r i p t i o n o f the b r i g h t n e s s and s t r e n g t h
of the beacons. I t i s not necessary t o see i n t h i s speech super-
natural o r p r o p h e t i c powers; only a Queen in control of every
aspect o f her world, who knows, therefore, what i s happening in
it. Her powers o f v i s u a l i z a t i o n and h e r e l o q u e n c e a r e g r e a t ; but
one need n o t f o r t h i s r e a s o n make a s e e r o f h e r .
Here a s w e l l she u s e s images o f f e r t i l i t y i n her d e s c r i p -
tion; the l i g h t which a l i g h t s on t h e r o o f o f t h e A t r e i d a e i s "not
parentless" (am 'dnrîriroi , 311) - i t s p a r e n t i s t h e b e a c o n on I d a .
If children take after their parents (as the chorus will later
explain they d o ) , one m i g h t be c o n c e r n e d t o know what sort of
light, born i n the d e s t r u c t i v e fires of a burning city, has a r -
rived. The s y m b o l i c connotations o f her use o f l i g h t have now
increased. We had h e a r d beacons kindled and w a t c h e d f o r a t her
command and of t o r c h e s b l a z i n g i n presumably joyful sacrifice,
adulterated by h e r " p e r s u a s i o n s " ; we have now h e a r d i n Klytemnes-

20
tra's own words of day born from n i g h t and light from destruc-
tion. 9
This speech seems t o p o r t r a y K l y t e m n e s t r a in f u l l control
of her w o r l d . But i t has c o n n o t a t i o n s o f w h i c h even Klytemnestra
is unaware a t this point i n the p l a y . The passage of light from
beacon to beacon, remaining s t r o n g as i t advances (6e>eJou6*
Ou^t ftco utopoj*iin , 296; Utyeody M>th< , 305) and occasionally burn-
ing e v e n more fierce
301) can be seen as an allegory of the seemingly unbreakable and
uncontrollable chain of vengeance and murder which, the reader
will discover, i s the history of the house of Atreus, in which
each crime i s kindled by the one before and itself kindles new
slaughter. (Gantz, 1977: 31). The beacon speech i s the first
hint of this motif i n the play. But Klytemnestra will show no
awareness of such a c h a i n of crime f o r much o f t h e p l a y ; she will
see her a c t s as simple retribution f o r the only crime the reader
has so f a r been informed of, the sacrifice of her daughter, and
not as part of an uncontrollable and unending sequence. In K l y -
t e m n e s t r a ' s own speech, then, i s the first sign that there are
forces o p e r a t i n g i n the p l a y of which she i s not aware. At this
point, however, she a p p e a r s t o be in perfect control of events.
The chorus doubt that the passage of the beacon, which she
has traced for them, really signifies the destruction of Troy.
They s a y that they w i l l later pray t o t h e gods (in thanksgiving?)
but first, would she r e p e a t her a s t o n i s h i n g story from the begin-
ning? They address her, moreover, as ( 317 ) ; previously

21
t h e y have c a l l e d her o n l y "Queen" o r by her name. This i s surely
a reaction to her trust i n what they consider a mere visible
symbol, a (j)k6p.<*, rather than a spoken message; this gullibility
t h e y s e e as a f e m i n i n e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . Once more, i n s h o r t , they
misjudge her.
Klytemnestra s 1
second speech in effect "decodes" the bea-
con and gives a vivid picture of the " t r u e meaning" behind i t ,
which they will find more trustworthy. She repeats, again, her
statement that Troy has fallen to the Greeks, and g o e s on to des-
cribe the scene i n the conquered city. It i s again unnecessary
to a s c r i b e s u p e r n a t u r a l powers t o her i n order to understand her
speech. She begins "o£p*i<- "» surely a clue that this is a poss-
ible version of events at Troy, not a t r u e v i s i o n (Kassandra does
not begin this way). Her description i s in fact a general one,
w h i c h would s u i t events likely to f o l l o w t h e c a p t u r e o f any city.
She e x t r a p o l a t e s from the knowledge she has, that Troy has
fallen, t o an image o f the logical consequences, which she visu-
alizes vividly and in detail. The powers involved here are only
t h o s e o f i m a g i n a t i o n and eloquence, not second sight. The chorus
do not possess a like ability to v i s u a l i z e and are overwhelmed;
they b e l i e v e - h e r decoding of the beacon and accept her descrip-
tion, f o r t h e t i m e b e i n g , as t h e t r u e meaning o f t h e s y m b o l . Her
Vtteu) - i n t h i s case based on her eloquence (that i s , her manipul-
ation of words) and i m a g i n a t i o n - has conquered. The connection
between symbol and meaning remains tenuous, as i s shown by the
fact that in truth, she cannot and does not know e x a c t l y what i s
22
happening at Troy; but h e r THi&u) has bridged the gap and erased
doubt from the chorus' minds.
Lines 340 f f . of her speech raise further questions. It
has been noted that Klytemnestra manipulates and arbitrarily
defines the meaning of symbols, as she does with the beacon.
When one "attaches arbitrary meaning" t o words, i t i s commonly
called lying. (In fact, Umberto Eco (1979) defines a symbol
simply as a n y t h i n g t h a t can be used to l i e . 10

) I t i s tempting to
interpret lines 340 f f . as h y p o c r i s y , or lying, particularly as
lying w o u l d be easier f o r someone w i t h t h e a b i l i t i e s Klytemnestra
has a l r e a d y shown i n t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n o f s y m b o l s . Throughout the
play, in fact, i t i s hard to t e l l i f she means, o r how she means,
what she says. Here, i n a speech which raises again the idea of
reciprocal action and reversal which first appeared i n the paro-
dos , 1 1
Klytemnestra piously expresses the hope t h a t t h e army has
not "ravaged what they should not" (Toêiu) * jur^ ^p'rj , 342) - the
Trojan s h r i n e s - and thus o f f e n d e d the gods, f o r f e a r of a disas-
ter befalling them on the homeward journey. I t i s odd that she
brings up the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s a s t e r following on impiety here,
when she i s describing the overwhelming and long-awaited victory
of the Argives; i t closes her description on a note of fear and
possible doom rather than triumph, although she i s describing a
presumably joyful event - the victory of her husband and King
after many y e a r s o f war. She adds (345-346) t h a t i f t h e army has
n o t o f f e n d e d t h e gods, t h e s u f f e r i n g - fir^ - o f t h e (plural) dead
may be aroused (hpnvopos , Denniston Page 1957: n. ad l o c . ) even

23
if no sudden disaster should befall. She i s s p e a k i n g ostensibly
of offenses against t h e gods and s u f f e r i n g s o f those killed at
Troy. The audience, however, would remember the only impiety and
only death they have a s y e t been told of - the s a c r i f i c e of Iphi-
genia. Klytemnestra's use of maternal imagery earlier, andher
description of Trojans mourning dead family members i n this
speech (327-329 ) 1 2
, would contribute t o remind the audience that
the sacrificial victim was h e r c h i l d as well a s Agamemnon's.
The pattern o f hope that something may n o t happen, which
immediately does happen, has already been seen i n Calchas'
prayer, a n d memory of this would lead the audience to fear the
same here. They would be f u r t h e r unsettled by h e r f o r e b o d i n g s o f
disaster i n a speech describing victory, a n d by t h e a l l u s i o n s i n
her mention o f impiety, and o f the s u f f e r i n g s o f t h e dead, t o an
act i n which she might be expected to feel a strong personal
interest. A l l of this i n the context of a speech which also
raised the idea of reciprocal action could only be disturbing.
It would lead, altogether, not only to a fear that her unexpress-
ed hope of avoiding disaster was l i k e l y t o go u n f u l f i l l e d , but
also to a strong suspicion that i t was n o t s i n c e r e .
On this doubtful and foreboding note she ends her descrip-
tion, saying "such things you hear from me, a woman" (youd-rd
%(• yuiJeiwbs tpou k\u'tc$ , 348) - a n s w e r i n g both their address
of Vi/^t (317) and t h e d i s b e l i e f i t implied. Her l a s t two lines
(349-350) mirror the last two l i n e s o f t h e watchman's and chorus'
speeches i n their rather formulaic hopes f o r good. They sound

24
conventionally apotropaic and designed to reduce the impact of
her previous ten lines. However, they are ambiguous in Klytem-
n e s t r a ' s mouth. She says that she hopes everything w i l l prevail
well (t'o HôCrj i 349) and be seen clearly (§tyojOp><>r\U)S
349), for she prefers the enjoyment of many good things (TToXXuIi)
. .. 266\£>\) , 3 5 0 ) . What s h o u l d prevail, and what the alternative
is to which she prefers good things, i s l e f t unexplained. The
obvious i n f e r e n c e which the chorus i s intended to draw is that
she prefers good t o t h e e v i l s she has just d e s c r i b e d and that she
hopes the victory at Troy will prevail ( i . e . that the good for-
tune of the Argive army will last) and become visible at Argos.
Klytemnestra has not, however, said either of these things and
d o e s not n e c e s s a r i l y mean them.
They answer her "woman, you speak like a wise and temper-
ate man" (K^r' 6w0f>oJ' evfa>oVu>s , 351). Both " <f<fy*oJ* " and
"tbtfjf?60u>i " are related t o <fy?j\) ; t h u s they react to her decoding
of the beacon and her image of the "truth" behind i t by giving
her credit for the masculine intellect they did not p r e v i o u s l y
seem to t h i n k she had. They have been convinced by her speech,
saying that they have the trustworthy (^riarrjL , 352) proofs they
wanted and will now address the gods i n prayer, which they had
delayed before.
Their acquiescence to her second speech, when they were
not convinced by her first, i s at first puzzling; there is no-
thing intrinsically more trustworthy about her description of
Troy than t h e r e was about her description of the t r a n s m i s s i o n of

25
the beacons. But t h e beacon speech only described the v i s u a l
symbol, which t h e (male) chorus found insufficient proof; the
Troy speech, because i t tells (or purports to t e l l ) what t h e
beacon "says", i s the sort of proof they will accept. In f a c t ,
they have only K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s word that her d e s c r i p t i o n of Troy
is what t h e b e a c o n "truly s a y s " ; b u t h e r UlcQoJ , stemming from h e r
vivid and c o l o u r f u l use of language, has c a u s e d them to forget
this and t r u s t her. The c h o r u s has t h u s , after accusing her o f
gullibility, themselves accepted a proof which i s by t h e i r own
standards insufficient - showing that they themselves are g u l l -
ible. In t h i s first i n t e r c h a n g e between male chorus and female
ruler, t h e female has demonstrated p o s s e s s i o n o f ^rj\) and t h e
m a l e s have shown e v i d e n c e o f an e a s i l y - p e r s u a d e d ( i . e . , feminine)
nature. Throughout the play, Klytemnestra will consistently
prove t o be more m a s c u l i n e than t h e m a l e s w i t h whom s h e i s a s s o -
ciated .
So f a r Klytemnestra has been shown, t h r o u g h t h e watchman's
speech, a s a woman o f m a s c u l i n e intellect, who w i e l d s power a n d
whose household i s unhappy under her r u l e . The watchman is a
member o f the household and perhaps knows her better than the
male chorus, which acknowledge h e r power but i s i n c l i n e d to d i s -
miss her as a s i l l y woman. Their reason f o r both i s sexual; they
a c k n o w l e d g e h e r power b e c a u s e i t d e r i v e s from a male and d i s m i s s
her intellect because s h e i s a woman, a n d ffcpJ is a masculine
characteristic w h i c h woman don't have. They a l s o t h i n k o f her as
too easily persuaded by t h i n g s o n l y seen, symbols; gullibility

26
and trust i n signs without v e r b a l meaning a r e f e m i n i n e c h a r a c t e r -
istics. Klytemnestra herself, on t h e c o n t r a r y , i s shown in her
own speeches as p e r s u a s i v e , not persuaded, a manipulator of v i s -
ual symbols rather than manipulated by them and s k i l l f u l with
words a s w e l l . She c l a i m s (jjo/jJ for herself, and by t h e end o f h e r
first appearance the chorus have agreed that she p o s s e s s e s i t .
The opposition o f male and f e m a l e h a s been seen also i n t h e war
undertaken by men t o avenge a woman and p e r h a p s i n the s a c r i f i c e
of a young woman by h e r f a t h e r . The n o t i o n o f a c t i o n repaying
action h a s a l r e a d y been r a i s e d i n the d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e war.
Klytemnestra uses images o f motherhood and f e r t i l i t y i n
her speeches. She h a s b e e n shown as c o n t r o l l i n g outright, or
adulterating, light, the p r i n c i p a l image s o f a r i n t h e p l a y ; s h e
has also been associated with sacrifice, the p r i n c i p a l event as
yet narrated. She i s t h u s strongly connected with some o f t h e
major images and themes s o f a r d e v e l o p e d .
What natural imagery h a s been used so f a r has a l l been
negative, and has sometimes been inverted and " u n n a t u r a l " . The
"flower" of the Argives was worn down; a storm weakened t h e
fleet; light, usually h o p e f u l , has had ambiguous m e a n i n g ; ferti-
lity h a s come f r o m dark and d e s t r u c t i v e sources. The movement i n
every speech including Klytemnestra's h a s been from hope a n d joy
to doubt and f o r e b o d i n g .
In the context o f the p l a y , then, Klytemnestra has so far
been shown a s a' f e m a l e with a u t h o r i t y and i n t e l l i g e n c e i n a world

27
in which both are masculine traits and i n which there is signi-
ficant o p p o s i t i o n of the sexes. She i s u n n a t u r a l , and appears to
control many a s p e c t s o f a dark, unhappy and fearful world which
is also i n some r e s p e c t s u n n a t u r a l . P e r s o n a l l y , she has been shown
in her speeches as forceful, i m a g i n a t i v e and confident in her
powers. The other c h a r a c t e r s have shown fear and respect for
her, but no liking or p e r s o n a l loyalty.
The chorus begin the first stasimon singing to Zeus and
Night, which have thrown over Troy the great net ( Si'n'rvo\) , 358;
)hfi*p ^L0
'
3 6 1
) o f
" a l l - c a p t u r i n g '/\>'n" ( 3 6 1 ) .
/
The ensuing ode
speaks of the evil consequences to the oikos of hubris, infatu-
ation Cr\trj ) and war.The first strophe (367-384 ) speaks of the
dangers of excessive wealth in a household, which results in
"more than just" {jUitfyoi rj SMJIMS , 376) pride. There is no
shelter f o r a man (iftyt , 382) who from excess of wealth "kicks
the great a l t a r of J u s t i c e i n t o o b s c u r i t y " (ft« 'ctfa'Jetati) ,383-384).
The antistrophe (385-402) d e s c r i b e s Tfi&* directly. She is "wret-
ched" C)u\ja/oi , 385) and the "child of intolerable forward-plan-
ning Folly " (ôôH/koty Ov/V 'JfiyProf 'AT^S , 386); moreover, she
uses force (j3c2-rjt ) . 1 3

There i s no remedy against TTfe&<-> (386).
The harm she does i s i m p o s s i b l e t o h i d e . An example o f s u c h harm
is the t h e f t o f a woman from the A t r e i d household ($cyuoJ /Arpgcôo >
399). "yvJjuAos " (402) i s i n a prominent position at t h e end of
the strophe, emphasizing the specifically sexual role involved;
the individual, Helen, i s unimportant. The coupling of the

28
Atreidae i n one h o u s e h o l d links their concerns and f o r t u n e s , a s
we saw i n the parodos. It also g i v e s Agamemnon reason t o be
offended at the t h e f t o f Menelaus' w i f e . 1 4
The second strophe (404-419) s p e a k s o f t h e damage done by
the seduction (or persuasion) o f t h e unnamed woman. " $f\ifi

rXite" ( 408), a s Agamemnon was " nMvotyud "(221), she l e f t her
household, l e a v i n g war t o h e r c o u n t r y m e n and b r i n g i n g destruction
as dowry to Troy. I n h e r abandoned household there i s silence,
misery and d i s h o n o u r . Through longing for her, a <pJL6fU (415)
seems t o r u l e t h e house - an image, §ojeic (421) o r o<f>t$ (425) w h i c
appears o n l y i n dreams and v a n i s h e s . Such v a i n d r e a m - i m a g e s h a v e
been mentioned b e f o r e and w i l l be a g a i n . Her d a r i n g h a s brought
grievous suffering and d e a t h t o o t h e r Greek h o u s e h o l d s as w e l l as
her own (429-436). Throughout these verses t h e woman i s never
named; o n l y h e r f e m a l e role i n t h e o i k o s and t h e m i s e r y caused by
her transgression of i t are considered here. (Goldhill 1984:
45) .
Turning from this woman, the chorus next sing of the
deaths a t Troy, the ashes sent home " i n exchange f o r men" (443)
and " f o r t h e sake o f another man's wife" (448). The opposition
of the sexes i s again apparent here. The f i n a l strophe passes
(456-474) to the possible anger of the gods at the
TtfW'r/iAvi) (461), and the slow {ypcn)u> , 464) v e n g e a n c e of the
Erinyes a g a i n s t one w i t h o u t Justice, whom t h e y w i l l wear away by
reversal of fortune (IfJlkJ Iroyet , 465) t o dimness {iffûfot), 465)

29
and eventually invisibility (ûôcs , 467) - that i s , death. It
is dangerous, t h e y add, t o be p r a i s e d excessively.
The last stanza of the chorus 1

song applies so unmistak-
ably t o Agamemnon, i f he has i n d e e d been s u c c e s s f u l at Troy, that
the chorus grow f r i g h t e n e d . I f such dangers await the successful
warrior - the 1fo\uHToJ- i t would a l m o s t be better i f the news
were f a l s e , and Troy were not taken after a l l . But the news can
only be false i f Klytemnestra has, in fact, interpreted the sym-
bol (i.e., t h e beacon) i n c o r r e c t l y ; and they turn (in relief?) to
grounds for believing that she may well have done so - that she
is, a f t e r a l l , a woman, and therefore likely t o be gullible. (It
is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Klytemnestra' s Tttteu> that i s seems t o be most
effective when she i s present; i n her absence, d i s t r u s t of her
words can return.) On those grounds, they retreat to their
original disbelief i n the beacon and dismissal of her intelli-
gence. (Thus, once again, the movement in a speech or song has
been from c e r t a i n t y and j o y t o doubt and fear.) Who, they ask,
is so c h i l d i s h (1fJL$Jos , 479) or so s t r u c k out of t h e i r <^?V(479)
as t o be i n f l a m e d a t h e a r t by a f i r e ( Irijou/eeJr* #<*f>£<.'<*J , 481) and
t h e n d i s t r e s s e d by a change o f message (or an exchange [of flame]
for words - UWAÂ XOÔU ,480-482)? They once a g a i n feel that a
visual message i s not sufficient to t h e fyy^ '< words are necess-
ary. They imply also that Klytemnestra, whose h e a r t i s inflamed
by the beacon, is childish and without tyjd - exactly what she
earlier accused them of thinking. They continue, making the
sexual opposition implied i n these l i n e s perfectly clear - " i t i s

30
fitting t o t h e r u l e o f a woman t o a g r e e to give thanks because of
(?r/?o / 484) a p p e a r a n c e ; f o r the d e f i n i t i o n (<?/?<?$ ) ( i . e . of the
meaning o f a symbol) e s t a b l i s h e d by a woman, f a s t - t r a v e l l i n g a n d
too persuasive, spreads out (transgresses i t s bounds)." In other
words, "The l i m i t s e t by a woman on t h e meaning of a v i s u a l sym-
bol i s too loose and q u i c k l y expands to include other persuasive
meanings beyond its original definition" - a s o n e saw i n t h e
difference between Klytemnestra s f i r s t

1
and second speeches. 1 5
They end, "but s t o r i e s spread by women p e r i s h f a s t - d y i n g " (486-
487) .
The last fire o f t h e s e q u e n c e o f b e a c o n s , we have now b e e n
informed, i s that kindled i n Klytemnestra's heart by t h e " p a s s e d -
along message of flame" ( fi\oflOi ^TTai^^ , 480). I f the
chain o f beacons represents the unending chain o f murder and
vengeance i n t h e house of Atreus, as Gantz (1977: 31) s u g g e s t s ,
then t h e flame i n Klytemnestra's heart may w e l l represent the
murder presently being contemplated by h e r , which - unbeknownst
to her - i s not o n l y a unique a c t o f vengeance depending on h e r
will, but a l s o the l a t e s t i n a long string of connected crimes.
This again i n d i c a t e s that forces outside K l y t e m n e s t r a may w e l l be
influencing her, at least i n the opinion of the hcorus; Klytem-
nestra herself h a s shown no s i g n that she i s aware o f them.
(Gantz, 1977: 32.)
The herald now a r r i v e s and t h e c h o r u s say 1 6

"soon we'll
know i f these light-bearing torches were true, o r whether t h e
pleasant light like a dream b e g u i l e d the (jjp&M •" They a r e w i l l -

31
ing to trust the messenger precisely because he Is not
Their distrust o f mere visual knowledge and i t s o p p o s i t i o n to
<pf>nv and spoken messages, i s once again fully expressed; their
renewed d i s t r u s t of Klytemnestra i s implied. Their discussion i n
the first stasimon o f women who transgress their household role
and the general theme o f payment f o r past crimes (which by t h e
final antistrophe i s applied specifically t o Agamemnon) may con-
tribute to this distrust. Certainly they a r e uneasy about the
future and h e s i t a n t about trusting t h e Queen. However, they
continue to underestimate her a b i l i t i e s and t h e r e i s no s i g n that
t h e y have t h o u g h t o f combining i n one o b j e c t t h e i r fear and t h e i r
distrust.
The herald's f i r s t speech (503-537) d e s c r i b e s Agamemnon a s
bringing light i n the night-time ( flfti sO eo^Ôrji , 522) t o t h o s e
at Argos, just as the beacon did earlier. The m e s s a g e , then,
will probably be t h e same. And i t i s : T r o y has f a l l e n , but the
image u s e d i s odd. Agamemnon has "dug o v e r " Troy with t h e mat-
tock o f "Zeus justice-bringer" (528) a n d t h o r o u g h l y worked t h e
ground; but t h i s procedure, which would a t any o r d i n a r y time
increase the f e r t i l i t y o f the ground, has " d e s t r o y e d the seed o f
the whole land" (528). By t h e a c t i o n of t h i s inversion of na-
ture, the herald continues, Paris a n d t h e whole house of Priam
have p a i d twice over f o r h i s crime.

32
The herald and chorus now converse in stichomythia. The
chorus, i t appears, desired the presence of the army - and the
king - greatly; they have been unhappy out of fear of someone
(W<*s , plural; 549); but i n the absence of the rulers (the At-
reidae), they have not dared to speak. Even now, their fear
exists (550). The herald seems to misunderstand this, or take
their fear t o be f o r Agamemnon's s a f e t y at Troy rather than the
result o f any condition at Argos, f o r he a s s u r e s them t h a t every-
thing has turned out well (551) and goes on to tell them o f the
hardships at Troy. Nature was a g a i n s t them, as always in this
play 1 7
: the constant wet brought lice; the winter snows even
killed birds and the summer was intolerably hot and breezeless.
But there i s no need to remember these things now— i t is no
longer a concern to the dead to rise again, and why should one
reckon up the number of the dead, or g r i e v e the living with re-
curring evil f o r t u n e ('ruif/js faXyKorot) i 571)? These l i n e s recall
both the chorus' f e a r s of r e v e r s a l s of f o r t u n e f o r the u n j u s t but
successful (465) and Klytemnestra's remarks about the awakening
sufferings of the dead ( 346-347). Like Klytemnestra' s and the
chorus' comments, the herald's lines here are ominous in them-
selves and t h e more d i s t u r b i n g in their immediate context: past
sufferings and future dangers are odd subjects to raise in a
speech on the joyful o c c a s i o n of a great victory. He ends "you
have t h e whole s t o r y " (W)-' iyus XoyoJ > 582).
The chorus respond, " I am conquered by your words" (ô -
\OL&LJ , 583); t h e y a c c e p t h i s message, as i t is verbal. They then

33
direct him to "the house and Klytemnestra" (585), to whom these
matters are of concern.
Klytemnestra enters by the Skene door and intercepts the
messenger before he enters the palace. Ewans (1982: 7-8) sees
this as an example of the disruptions of the usual homecoming
rituals which Klytemnestra creates throughout the play - the
herald would expect to go indoors with h i s news. Certainly her
unannounced appearance is startling; we have not been prepared
for i t by anything i n the text. One feels that she has suddenly
intruded on the scene. Her first lines (586-593) p o i n t o u t that
she was right to trust the beacon (which she calls o npZhros iffflek -
ot irupos , 588) and the chorus wrong to reproach her for "being
persuaded by beacons to lift up her heart, just like a woman"
CkfteutA i 591; 1tfos ûiJjiMOi , 592). "This talk made me
appear wandering ( i . e . i n her w i t s ) " , she continues. 1 8

Neverthe-
less, she - and t h e o t h e r women - s a c r i f i c e d " i n woman's f a s h i o n "
throughout the city. The division between male and female is
again apparent. The chorus blamed Klytemnestra's belief on her
feminine gullibility; and the distinction i s made more universal
by the fact that a l l o f t h e women s a c r i f i c e d , not only Klytemnes-
tra.
The tone of K l y t e m n e s t r a s 1
words h e r e is very much o n e o f
stung pride. We have seen her before take o f f e n s e a t the chorus'
refusal to recognize her intelligence; certainly she i s pleased
to be a b l e t o p o i n t out their mistake now and rub it i n , as well.

34
She t u r n s (598) to the matter a t hand. Having b l o c k e d the
exit of the h e r a l d into the p a l a c e , she now refuses even to l e t
him give h i s message. What need has she of a further tale from
him? She will learn t h e whole s t o r y from the l o r d himself. Now
she must p r e p a r e t o r e c e i v e her " r e v e r e d husband" (ettSoiot) Ifotci) ,
600); f o r "what light i s sweeter f o r a wife/woman ( juddwc , 602)
to behold than t h i s , t o open t h e g a t e s t o a h u s b a n d / l o v e r {'Jttfyd ,
602) saved by god from the field? Take that message t o my hus-
band." She has referred t o him by his p o l i t i c a l , household and
personal roles i n quick succession - , 599; ffoas , 600; etJr]f> ,
603. The most p e r s o n a l s t a t e m e n t i n her s p e e c h (translated above)
is put i n t h e most g e n e r a l l a n g u a g e . Any woman, any man will fit;
it need not even be a husband and wife - her words could refer
equally to a lover {Jffyp has a s e x u a l c o n n o t a t i o n which Wotis
does not). She then sends a message, v i a the herald, to her
husband. This is a reversal of expectation: she has not only
blocked h i s entrance and refused h i s message, but now uses him
instead to send one back. Her control of events and communi-
cation in this scene seems a b s o l u t e .
The message she sends (like her previous statement) is
full of innuendo and ambiguous phrasing. She calls him "the
darling of the city" - accurately enough, as one has seen from
t h e watchman's and the chorus' a f f e c t i o n f o r him - but expresses
no fondness herself. The optative "iiifoc " (606) only offers a
hope f o r the future, not a guarantee of i t - one i s reminded of
Calchas 1
unfulfilled hopes, or Klytemnestra's e a r l i e r hope that
35
the army would not despoil the T r o j a n temples, as we have just
now ( 527) discovered they d i d . "May he find a w i f e as faithful
(trustworthy -â^jl) , 606) as t h e one he l e f t " i s ambiguous; i t s
meaning depends entirely on her original condition, which we do
not know. For that matter, l o y a l t o whom - o r t o what? Her next
lines, (May he find h e r a) "(watch-)dog of the house, noble/loyal
to t h a t man, hostile t o enemies" (607-608), can a l s o be variously
interpreted. "iMtfy » need not r e f e r t o Agamemnon. Klytemnestra
has so f a r been seen in close association with the house - the
watchman refers to the sorrows of t h e house under her rule (18);
the chorus refer the h e r a l d ' s news to " t h e house and Klytemnes-
tra" i n one breath (585); w h i l e t h e watchman speaks of the joy
the beacon brings to Argos (24) and the herald of the light
brought to a l l by Agamemnon (522), K l y t e m n e s t r a d e s c r i b e s the
beacon as a l i g h t i n g on "the roof of the A t r e i d house" (310) after
its long j o u r n e y , as i f i t s news were s o l e l y a household concern.
Now she s p e a k s o f h e r s e l f as "watchdog o f t h e h o u s e " , demonstrat-
ing her association with i t once again. But the " $u6<f>f>oii\) "
(608) could as easily be enemies of the house itself as of the
king. Among these "enemies of the house" Agamemnon h i m s e l f , as
killer of the " $ uw\)

0/ 3\ci\pA " (208) might well be numbered, in
Klytemnestra s 1
eyes. Finally, "AVt^" , u s e d to describe a human,
has a complimentary meaning i n only one other place in Greek
literature, as listed by LSJ. That i s in line 896 of this play,
where, in fact, i t i s a g a i n ambiguous (Klytemnestra uses i t to
d e s c r i b e Agamemnon). E l s e w h e r e , when u s e d o f a woman, i t u s u a l l y

36
means "wanton" or "brazen hussy" (Goldhill 1984: 56). There is a
hint here, t h e n , o f her infidelity. 1 9
Her next two lines (609-610) l i k e w i s e a f f i r m her fidelity,
but the l e n g t h of time she has been faithful - and thus, whose
seal i t i s w h i c h she has not b r o k e n - i s a g a i n not specified.
Lines 611-612 ("I do not know p l e a s u r e , or scandalous
conversation, from another man, any more than I know the dip-
ping/tempering of bronze") are again not an absolute statement
and imply that i t is possible that she does know these things.
The phrase '"î^KdS fZA^Js " (612) has been variously interpreted.
Clearly, i t refers t o t h e use of bronze as a weapon, as one usu-
ally o n l y tempers b l a d e s . Bronze, however, i s not tempered. The
p r i m a r y meaning, t h a t "I know no more o f (infidelity) than of the
tempering of bronze", might be a deliberate inaccuracy, intended
to show that she knows so little of weapons that she does not
even know b r o n z e loses i t s edge in cold water. "^d^Js " has an-
other meaning, of d i p p i n g , or dyeing and later used by Klytem-
nestra of dyeing clothes (ufut*jj /3<*fiJs , 960) i n the rusty, pur-
ple-red c o l o u r (TfOiPijk/pios ) of the t a p e s t r i e s , w h i c h Goheen (1955:
115-117) has shown t o be a p p r o x i m a t e l y the c o l o u r of d r i e d blood.
This line may then be interpreted as the even more v i o l e n t "the
dyeing/dipping of bronze ( i n blood)", with which we later dis-
cover Klytemnestra t o be well acquainted. Now, we can o n l y won-
d e r and feel uneasy a t her c h o i c e o f s u c h a v i o l e n t metaphor. 20

37
Her claim that her words a r e "stuffed full of truth", (rrji
k\r}Oitds Vûwi) ,613), as Goldhill (1984: 56) points out, raises
immediately to mind the possibility that they are not; if i t
could be s i m p l y assumed that what she says i s true, she would not
need t o so a s s u r e us.
As with 613, so with the whole message to her husband.
Her insistence on her fidelity - which i s the face value of her
speech - implies that i t c o u l d not in fact be assumed and raises
the p o s s i b i l i t y that she i s not faithful. Her exit line, "It is
not shameful for a noble lady to p r o c l a i m t h i s " (ow< etigjpos
][W<Wtt yt\}\)ii£ AaKftv 1

, 614), is an attempt to compensate for
this effect. She i s aware that her speech, a public avowal of
fidelity, may sound odd to the herald. This line indicates that
it seems strange because i t i s public (which i s allowable for a
high-born lady), not because i t is a lie. I t draws attention
away from the odd content of her speech to the unusual circum-
stances i n which i t i s delivered.
Having frustrated the herald's entrance and given a mes-
sage rather t h a n a c c e p t i n g one, Klytemnestra exits as suddenly as
she appeared. She has appeared to have perfect command of her
words and of the s i t u a t i o n on stage throughout the scene.
The chorus' comment on her speech (615-616), however i t be
interpreted (see Denniston, Page 1957: n. ad l o c ) , certainly
shows that they realize there i s more t o her words than appears
on the surface. "Through clear interpreters her speech (is)

38
fair-seeming" (Topoind ipjund(U6ii) zbtipifujs , 616) indicates
a need f o r i n t e r p r e t e r s a n d may well imply that h e r words only
seem fair. However, they turn away from further discussion of
the Queen at this point: their doubts o f her honesty, whatever
they a r e , a r e not so s t r o n g as t o absorb their entire attention
21
now. 1
They now a s k f o r news o f t h e o t h e r A t r e i d , Menelaus. The
herald's answer "I can't s a y good things of (from) lies" (Tj
l//ei/$y Ai*lf, 620 )., a n d t h e c h o r u s ' response "How then can you s a y
good things and t r u e (K£$t/«» 'Y'oi.Xrj&rj )? F o r i f t h e s e ( t h e good a n d
the true) are divided, i t i s not e a s i l y hidden" (622 - 6 2 3 ) , c a n
be seen as a c o n t r a s t t o Klytemnestra and h e r s p e e c h - she has
had no d i f f i c u l t y i n saying good t h i n g s w h i c h a r e n o t t r u e and s o
far this has remained reasonably well hidden. The h e r a l d i s then
induced to t e l l the t a l e of the great storm which laid waste t o
the Greek fleet. The d i s a s t e r K l y t e m n e s t r a said she f e a r e d d i d
befall the f l e e t on t h e d a n g e r o u s homeward journey.
The herald starts by s a y i n g that i f h i s s t o r y were one o f
unmixed woe, o f t h e l o s s o f t h e army by t h e " d o u b l e lash of Ares,
the double-speared doom" ( $cir\rj îttiji. . . . ii\oô^ , 642-
643 ) , i t would be suitable to give this Twioivta to the Erinyes
(645); but i n t h i s situation, when t h e army was victorious, how
can he mix good with evil news and t e l l of a storm "not l a c k i n g
anger by t h e gods o f the Achaeans"? ('A^twi) OÎA UJA.^L'YOJ @ZO[S ,
649). The t e x t of t h i s line i s uncertain (see Denniston, Page
1957: n. a d l o c . ) b u t some d i v i n e a n g e r a t the Achaeans, result-

39
ing i n a storm, i s obviously meant. Thus Klytemnestra's exp-
ressed fear of d i v i n e anger against the impious seems t o have
been justified and even prophetic. The s t o r m itself was a n
overturning of nature and a m i x t u r e (alliance - " fuJt>Jp.o6(t\) Y^f ,
650) of things usually apart, fire and water (651), i n which
stormwinds (654) and p e r h a p s even dry land (666) participated;
and even the sun, "nurturer of a l l things on e a r t h " ( *ro Ô (jo^) -
yoi H \tou jêoJos, 633),

C
rose only to reveal the extent of the car-
nage, t h e sea blooming ('oiJeoOi) , 659) w i t h Achaian corpses and
wrecked ships. Menelaus and h i s s h i p have vanished and only
Helios c a n s a y i f he i s a l i v e . Agamemnon's s h i p was o n l y saved
by chance a n d t h e gods (663-664); even i n the b r i g h t day a f t e r
the storm they d i d not t r u s t their good fortune (668), but c o u l d
think only o f t h e wrecked and b e a t e n fleet (670). He h o p e s i t
will t u r n o u t w e l l and a d v i s e s the chorus to think o f Menelaus as
safe a n d on t h e way home (675). I f he i s a l i v e , there i s some
hope that Zeus, "not y e t (O'OITOJ, 678) w i l l i n g to destroy the
race", may l e t h i m come home again. The h e r a l d assures the
chorus that what they have heard - disaster, uncertainty as t o
the future, distrust o f good fortune and t o t a l dependence on
perhaps angry gods - i s the truth (680). This perhaps stands,
again, ~ i n contrast t o K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s " w1ff>t*fj \oy-o*) ". The her-
ald's speeches also, then, have started i n j o y and t r i u m p h a n d
ended i n doubt and f e a r .
The Atreidae and t h e i r fortunes have been treated as a
closely coupled pair throughout the play. It i s natural for the

40
chorus, having been told only o f Agamemnon's arrival, t o immedi-
ately inquire after Menelaus; and i t i s n a t u r a l also, having
heard of h i s disappearance and p o s s i b l e death i n the storm Kly-
temnestra forecast, to feel that this disaster bodes ill f o r the
other half of the A t r e i d pair, when t h e i r fortunes u n t i l now have
been so c l o s e l y linked. The " d o u b l i n g " images at the beginning
of this speech (642-643), some p e r h a p s referring directly to the
Atreidae, emphasize their bond.
Immediately on t h e e x i t of the h e r a l d , the chorus turn i n
the second stasimon to a discussion o f Menelaus' wife, Klytem-
n e s t r a 's s i s t e r . As M e n e l a u s i s linked w i t h Agamemnon, a song o f
Menelaus' wife raises thoughts o f Agamemnon's; a n d i n f a c t , much
of what the chorus say i n these lines c a n be a p p l i e d to both
sisters.
Helen i s portrayed i n the f i r s t strophe (684-698) a s an
entirely destructive force, to ships, males and c i t i e s . In the
antistrophe (700-716), the " w i l l - f u l f i l l i n g " Wrath (tiXHafouid
4 , 701) w h i c h formed a "woe/marriage-bond" (ufjôs , 699) f o r
Troy, thus "exacting for herself" (1rfJ&o H.(J*

/ , 705) payment i n
later time (.U6îf>(^ ^foJ<*> , 703) f o r t h e d i s h o n o u r i n g of hospital-
ity, brings several echoes t o mind. The " l a t e - a v e n g i n g E r i n y s
sent by Zeus against Paris (58) i s r e c a l l e d here. f1fj\Jc$ ,
"Wrath", last spoken o f by C a l c h a s a s a "remembering, recurring"
avenger of c h i l d r e n , who stayed a t home a n d f e a r e d no man, i s
also brought t o mind. Klytemnestra was and i s a t t h i s point i n
the play the only person one c o u l d identify with these words.
41
"Remembering" (û.i/dft.u>J, 155) i m p l i e s a l a p s e o f t i m e , echoed here
by " i n later time": "avenging" {VfuJo trocjos > 155)is echoed by
"exacting for herself". Even i n this passage, the "woeful mar-
riage-bond" applies not only t o Helen and P a r i s , but a l s o Helen
and Menelaus. The p a r a l l e l s between t h e Wrath t h a t waits a t home
and t h e one w h i c h a r r a n g e d Helen's marriage make t h e r e a d e r asso-
c i a t e KfjSos w i t h a third couple as w e l l , Klytemnestra and Agamem-
non. One s e t o f marriage-hymns has changed already t o mourning
(705-711); what o f t h e m a r r i a g e a t present before us?
The second strophe (718-726) begins t h e metaphor of the
lioncub i n t h e house. As Knox (1952: passim) h a s shown, this
image, a s s o c i a t e d by t h e c h o r u s in this stasimon with Helen,
describes also every other major character i n the t r i l o g y . In
the beginning o f (married) life ( f {)• (ZcoWoo •tTfol-e^ti'o'-s , 720) i t
was tame (720-721) and " €b<j>i.\6ir<it dJ. " ( 7 2 1 ) .<

In time, however, i t
showed t h e temper of i t s parents (728-729). I t repaid the care
it received with an u n b i d d e n slaughter C^ ) rr

i ruin, 730) o f
sheep, befouling t h e house with blood, an i n v i n c i b l e woe to the
domestic servants, a many-slaying harm (/ ^ u al

^cOos Irokourcda\) ,
734); and t h i s p r i e s t / s a c r i f i c e r (</^?fW , 735) t o "Arq was brought
up i n t h e house by t h e w i l l o f god (£K Qtob > 735). '"tywrÂft'-

oi»s " r e f e r s to preliminary sacrifices, particularly before mar-
riage; i t was used of Iphigenia's sacrifice [TipoTcXtti \J*u>\) ,
227). I t thus brings Iphigenia t o mind, as w e l l as the e a r l y
days of Helen's ( o r K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s) marriage. " £o$c\o-ffM £j "
brings Klytemnestra t o mind, even a t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e p l a y , more

42
than i tdoes any other character - certainly i tdoesn't suit
Agamemnon o r H e l e n ; butthe of Calchas i s 'TtmJoirotJof .(154-
155). The lioncub shows i t s p a r e n t s ' ways and t h echorus ident-
ify i t as Helen (739-749); but Klytemnestra and Helen have t h e
same parents (officially, at least). The rest of this antis-
trophe, a s f a r as the audience yet knows, does notapply to Kly-
temnestra; but theparallels i n the first half of the antist-
rophe, d i s c u s s e d above, make t h e doom and slaughter o f t h e l a s t
half sound like ominous predictions.
In the third strophe (739-749) Helen i sdescribed as a
"fy^tev^tot) '/fiv'rof %\J&p5 " (743 ), who b r i n g s a bitter end t o a
marriage, by t h e w i l l o f Zeus Xenios; she i s a bride-mourned
Erinys (749). Thus she i s both t h e cause o f Zeus Xenios' anger
and h i s agent i navenging i t .
The chorus then turn to a discussion of heredity. In the
next antistrophe and strophe (750-62, 764-771), they speak of the
proverbial prosperity from which g r o w s woe t o a r a c e . The chorus
disagree with this proverb; i ti s t h e impious deed which gives
birth to offspring which are alike, b u t more i n number (TrAciovU

tt^rrtt , ffie-Tfp* two** yiJJd , 759-760); the fate of a just
(£U6<J £U«J\) , 761) household i s always a beautiful child (i.e. of
the previous good deeds o f t h e house) (762). Oldhubris, how-
ever, gives birth amid mortal sorrows t o young hubris on the
appointed day (763-767). This hubris seems to acquire quasi-
divine powers, as an unconquerable, irresistible (7 6 8) , a n
unholy daring o f b l a c k doom f o r the household, appearing like i t s

43
hubristic parents (770-771). They conclude i n the f i n a l anti-
strophe (773-781) that J u s t i c e shines i n the houses o f the poor
and honours the righteous (773-775); but she l e a v e s wealthy
houses with filthy (i.e. sinful) hands and does not r e s p e c t t h e
power of wealth " c o u n t e r f e i t e d / f a l s e l y stamped with praise" (^ -
Agamemnon e n t e r s the stage.
It will be u s e f u l t o r e c a p i t u l a t e h e r e before continuing.
The chorus' concerns i n the l a s t s e c t i o n of the play have been
the workings of j u s t i c e and t h e a v e n g i n g of crimes. Evil deeds
breed further e v i l , i n another example o f f e r t i l i t y from destruc-
tive sources. There are divine and q u a s i - d i v i n e - daemonic-
forces a t work as w e l l a s human a c t i o n s . Zeus and D i k e govern
all; evil deeds a c q u i r e a daemonic l i f e of t h e i r own and perpetu-
ate themselves. There i s a persistent feeling of despair and
fear i n t h e words o f t h e c h o r u s . They a r e w o r r i e d about the f a t e
of their king, whose d e s t i n y i s l i n k e d t o t h e now l o s t Menelaus.
Nature has t u r n e d entirely against the A r g i v e s : the e n t i r e natu-
ral world united against them d u r i n g the storm; fertility images
are used of death ( t h e s e a abloom w i t h corpses) and harm (Helen,
a " h e a r t - s t i n g i n g " - harmful - "flower", who brought destruc-
tion); t h e sun - t r u e knowledge - d i s c l o s e s a scene of carnage
and devastation. The l i o n c u b metaphor applies to others as w e l l
as H e l e n , and he ( o r s h e ) i s spoken o f a s a s a c r i f i c e r to'^rn .

44
They are less o b v i o u s l y concerned with Klytemnestra in
this section, though her connection with Helen - whom they speak
of as a d e s t r u c t i v e f o r c e - should be remembered. The o p p o s i t i o n
of the sexes has been strengthened: the reasons the chorus give
for disbelieving Klytemnestra are specifically sexual; other
A r g i v e women a l s o s a c r i f i c e d i n t h a n k s g i v i n g at the beacon; Helen
is "f\j\) i(?c>s "

c
(690). Klytemnestra' s i n f i d e l i t y has been h i n t e d
at by the chorus and more strongly suggested by Klytemnestra
herself. She i s shown o b s t r u c t i n g an expected procedure associ-
ated with homecoming and apparently c o n t r o l s a l l events on stage
when she i s there. She does not cause the storm, but she came
close to p r e d i c t i n g it. Her skill at m a n i p u l a t i n g words i s
great. Her speech shows her p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r as proud and
powerful. The chorus fear and distrust her and fear for the
s a f e t y of the king and of h i s household. At t h i s j u n c t u r e , Aga-
memnon e n t e r s .
The chorus address Agamemnon as he progresses in a char-
iot with Kassandra a c r o s s the stage (783-809). They warn him
against those who v a l u e mere appearance, "seeming to be" (To
2o«ftv ftJjt , 788) more ( i . e . more than true b e i n g ) . As has been
shown above, Klytemnestra i s c e r t a i n l y one of these. The chorus
add that such people overvalue appearance " a f t e r they have t r a n s -
gressed j u s t i c e " . These people w i l l f e i g n sympathy while feeling
none i n t h e i r h e a r t s ; but a good judge of c h a r a c t e r w i l l be a b l e
to discern false loyalty. The fear and distrust the chorus have
shown for Klytemnestra earlier would make the audience think

45
immediately o f her as the person the chorus a r e warning Agamemnon
against.
The chorus add that, while disapproving of the original
mission, their feelings have altered now that Agamemnon has r e -
turned victorious and they greet him i n l o y a l t y "ou\A k t r ' %uf><tf
tfpfJo's " (805). In time, they are sure, he w i l l distinguish be-
tween those who stayed (duoupouJ'roL , kept t o the house, 809) a t
Argos justly a n d who untimely (Mv^ôji , 8 0 8 ) . This will turn out
to be partly a reference to Aegisthus, who stayed a t home, as
Kassandra and the chorus will later accuse (1258-1259, 1625-
1626), though a male of military age; but i t a l s o - and as f a r
as the reader now knows, i t only - echoes the housekeeping Wrath
Calchas spoke o f , which, as we have seen, was associated with
Klytemnestra.
Agamemnon (810-853) thanks t h e gods, first, forassistance
in his victory. His description of the utter destruction of the
city, i n which only the "storms of " (819) a r e s t i l l alive, a l l
Y(/I/<&K<>; o'vdiUA (823), i s vivid and d i s t u r b i n g , carrying a hint of
the hubris the chorus sang of not long ago. The A r g i v e army he
calls a ravening lion, which leapt the wall and drank its f i l l of
the blood of tyrants (827-828). Turning to the chorus (829), he
answers their address, but e n t i r e l y misses their point. He i s
acquainted with false friends, he says; only Odysseus was loyal
to h i m , o f a l l t h e men a t Troy (841-842). This mention o f Odys-
seus, a loyal man r e t u r n i n g home t o -his l o y a l wife, calls Klytem-
nestra t o mind i n contrast. 2 2

As f o r the rest, he w i l l s e t the
46
state i n order and cure what i s wrong with i t . I t does not occur
to him that the "false friends" may b e i n h i s home, not h i s c i t y ;
his words and concerns are only those of a king, not a house-
holder. He then announces his intention of going into h i s house
and "saluting first t h e gods" (QioZtt tipwr* $i$tu6op.+<. , 852) a t
his hearth. He does n o t , even now, mention the people i nh i s
household, but only the gods. Of course this i s a public occa-
sion, a n d Agamemnon the king need n o t be expected t o speak of
private matters while standing i n the street: but the reader has
seen and heard a good deal of Klytemnestra in this play, and h i s
complete omission of her from this speech i s therefore notice-
able. He e n d s with t h e hope that the victory which has f o l l o w e d
him until now w i l l remain secure (854). This speech i s the first
wholly triumphant one i n the play; he acknowledges the problems
he may encounter i n h i s kingdom, but speaks confidently of solu-
tions. The f o r e b o d i n g and f e a r of earlier speeches do n o t a p p e a r
in Agamemnon's words. He i s sure h i s a c t i o n s were justified and
that t h e gods approved and a s s i s t e d him.
At this line Klytemnestra steps out of the house and
blocks h i s entrance. As Winnington-Ingram (1948: 132) points
out, i t i s precisely when he prays for a secure victory that
Agamemnon loses; f o r Klytemnestra controls the scene from that
point until they both exit a t 974.
This speech i s Klytemnestra's longest and the longest i n
the play. I t i s addressed ostensibly to the chorus, but i s i n -
tended f o r Agamemnon's ears. The speech h a s many functions.

47
First and foremost, i n the action of the play, i t i s the opening
move i n her e f f o r t t o persuade him t o walk the tapestries. Seve-
ral techniques towards this end a r e combined i n her words.
First, as Simpson (1971: 97-98) 2 3

points o u t , she p r e s e n t s her-
self as precisely the sort of gullible, over-emotional believer
in dreams and rumours f o r which the chorus have (to her annoy-
ance) earlier mistaken her. This persona allays the suspicions
Agamemnon might otherwise feel about her motives i n suggesting
the impious and h u b r i s t i c a c t of walking on the tapestries. The
exaggeratedly dependent, emotional and credulous person her
speech presents might suggest this a c t o u t o f an overzealous
desire t o honour him (coupled perhaps with a little stupidity),
but i t i s hard to suspect her of malice. Second, her speech i s
both socially inappropriate - as an intensely personal speech
delivered i n public - and a l s o genuinely dangerous, as i t over-
praises Agamemnon. (Michelini, 1974: 527.) The c h o r u s have spent
much of the last stasimon commenting on t h e dangers of too-great
praise and have just now w a r n e d Agamemnon o f the danger of wealth
"false-stamped with praise". I f Agamemnon c a n be brought to
accept her speech a s no m o r e than socially inappropriate, i t will
be easier t o move him t o c o n s i d e r treading the tapestries, also
both socially unacceptable and a c t u a l l y dangerous, as a merely
social impropriety. Third, her d e s c r i p t i o n of her s u f f e r i n g s i s
designed, among other things, to give him a sense of obligation
to her, so that no r e a s o n a b l e request will be r e f u s e d . (Simpson,
1971: 99.) The implication i s , " o u t o f my great devotion, I

48
suffered all these torments for your sake; surely you can in
return do this one thing for me".
The speech taken by itself seems intended to assure Aga-
memnon o f her emotional dependence on him in his absence and thus
allay any suspicions he might have about her loyalty. As he has
not in fact expressed any suspicion of her (or, in fact, shown
the slightest interest in her), her words defending a love and
(by implication) fidelity which has never been questioned seem
odd. They are, at the least, overblown for the occasion; more-
over, defense against a charge which has not been levelled will
often raise more doubts than it stills. Klytemnestra's protest-
ations might therefore have the effect of raising questions in
Agamemnon's mind. Her exaggerated expressions are, however,
necessary to the image of herself as over-emotional and dependent
which she wishes him to accept. Again, the solution to this
dilemma is to persuade Agamemnon to accept the uneasiness such a
speech creates in him as due merely to its social impropriety.
In strong contrast to Agamemnon's speech, which is solely
political and "kingly", Klytemnestra speaks of him exclusively in
his domestic role as her husband and the head of the household.
This reinforces her identification with the oikos rather than-
or even as opposed to - the outside world. Her language through-
out is vivid and eloquent; the images she uses in 890 ff. are
particularly striking, but the whole speech shows her gift for
moving and colourful description.

49
Klytemnestra's first lines after her greeting to the cho-
rus are (856-858) "I am not ashamed (ouu c/c6^°^/^ - (

' 8 5 6
) t o
speak to you of my husband-loving ways (tîXô^ds rônrous , 856);
in time shyness fades away f o r humans." As Michelini (1974: 527)
points out, those who say they "aren't ashamed to say" something
usually intend to say something embarrassing or awkward. In this
case, what Klytemnestra will say i s not only embarrassing - that
is, socially inappropriate - but also dangerous and untrue,- as
discussed above; these lines have the effect of directing Agamem-
non's attention away from the content of the words and towards
the circumstances i n which they are said. In this respect, they
echo the exit line i n her speech to the messenger (614). " j^^nj-
o/?*$ T/?6itt>u{ " recalls her sister's " grfiot fitXlJofez " (411). For
both sisters, then, i t i s an ambiguous description; which 'JJrjp is
meant? For Helen at 411, Menelaus is the man principally re-
ferred to; but she left him. Klytemnestra's "man-loving ways",
even i f they did originally a t t a c h themselves t o Agamemnon, could
by analogy with Helen have changed to another object.
Klytemnestra's entire description of her sufferings in
Agamemnon's absence (858-894) is in the past tense. The reader
has no way of knowing that this description is untrue; at some
time in the past she may have felt this way about her husband.
(Betensky, 1978: 15.) If so, she has used her past experience
to make the speech more convincing now. However, any character
with the powers Klytemnestra has already shown us need not be
assumed to be describing her personal experiences here; she has

50
earlier shown herself capable of describing vividly what she has
never seen.
She passes immediately from the statement that she knows
from her own experience the m i s e r i e s she speaks of (858-860) to
the general comment " i t is a terrible hardship (fW^W KAUO^ ,

862) for a woman to s i t at home alone without a man" (861-862).
This may generally speaking be true, but Klytemnestra has not had
to do i t herself, as the chorus have hinted in their interchange
with the herald (546-550). In any event, while "sitting alone"
Klytemnestra was disturbed by reports of worse and worse evil,
she continues. Had a l l of the rumours been true, Agamemnon "had
more holes than a net" crfTprjttiL Smtvou -V^tui , 868) and died
three times over (869-871). Her description of these rumours is
disturbingly violent and sounds (particularly in the light of
later events) more like a statement of intent than old fear. 2 4
She so despaired at these tales that she frequently attempted
suicide (874-876), she adds. This characteristic of believing
unsubstantiated rumours i s one which the chorus expected her, a
woman, to have. She vehemently rejected their assumption of her
gullibility, but is willing (or even eager) that Agamemnon should
believe i t of her now.
She uses this as an e x p l a n a t i o n of Orestes' absence: she
has sent him t o an ally's house so that, i f she committed suicide
and/or Agamemnon was killed at Troy - either of which could lead
to revolution at Argos - he would still be safe. Lines 877-879

51
do not only refer to Orestes, however; translated i n the order of
the Greek, these lines are:
And f o r t h e s e reasons, indeed, t h e c h i l d does not

stand here beside us,
o f me a n d o f y o u a w a r r a n t o f ( o u r ) p l e d g e s ,
as i s p r o p e r ,
(that i s ) Orestes.
Until she says Orestes' name, the only missing child we
have heard o f i s t h e o n e Agamemnon killed, Iphigenia; "77,05 (877)"
can refer to either s e x , "KvptPS " (adjectival) h a s two e n d i n g s in
its alternate form, and no article i s given to tell us which
gender i s meant. The killing of Iphigenia i s the only event
which could come t o mind f o r the audience. Iphigenia i s , i n
Klytemnestra's thought here, the possessor or guarantor of the
pledges between herself and her husband; without h e r , such pled-
ges do not necessarily hold. As Simpson (1971: 97) p o i n t s o u t ,
884-885 a r e i n agreement with Agamemnon's a n d t h e c h o r u s ' worries
about false (political) friends - certainly Agamemnon has thought
only of political treachery. Thus she has p r o v i d e d a reason f o r
Orestes' absence with which Agamemnon has already agreed and
cannot now deny.
She continues, "Such an excuse, indeed, can carry no d e -
ceit" (oo $6\oJ (f>{pfc t 886), sure that Agamemnon will agree with
her political reasoning and t h e r e f o r e d e t e c t no d e c e i t . But a s ,
in fact, that i s n o t why she sent Orestes away (though this i s
not yet absolutely clear), a n d a s s h e was not r e f e r r i n g only to
Orestes - as the audience i s well aware - i t takes daring t o make

52
this statement. Again, referring t o t h ep o s s i b i l i t y of deceit
raises questions i n t h eminds o f the hearers; thetruth of her
statements cannot simply be assumed, o r s h e would not think i t
necessary t o reassure us. 2 5
The "gushing springs of her tears" (KArfiî^wD ZiriMvfot
TTrjî » 887-888) which have run dry are c l e a r l y a negative fertil-
ity image. She does not say p r e c i s e l y what s h e was w e e p i n g f o r ;
by implication i t i s Agamemnon's peril, butIphigenia was r e c e n t -
ly recalled t o t h e a u d i e n c e ' s mind as well. 2 6

She h a s a l s o been
deeply troubled by h e r dreams (894-895) - this, from t h e woman
who "would notaccept t h efancy of a sleeping intellect" (275).
Again, shei s portraying herself a s a weak andg u l l i b l e female.
Now, having endured a l l o f these things OtHhi. tXiiJL > 895

which sets up d i s t u r b i n g echoes o f Agamemnon's frame o f mind a t
the sacrifice (221), or Helen's when she deserted h e r husband
(408)), she speaks of "this man" ( u n n a m e d ) i na series o f seven
hyperbolic metaphors. The f i r s t three, "watchdog o f the house"
(896) ( t h e ambiguity o f which hasalready been noted), "forestay
of theship" and "firm pillar of a lofty roof" (896-897), a l l
refer to physical protection and s t a b i l i t y ; t h el a s t three, land
appearing to sailors beyond hope (899) ( a sP e n e l o p e perceives
Odysseus, 23:233-40), a fair day appearing from a storm anda
flowing spring toa thirsty traveller (901), a l l present a n image
of unhoped-for relief from natural phenomena. The "WX\«TOJ

rjf^p " appearing from the storm recalls the beacon, bright as da
in the night (22), o r the morning which appeared "from" mother

53
morning which appeared "from" mother night (265); t h e image, o f
light springing from darkness and d e s t r u c t i o n , has destructive
c o n n o t a t i o n s once a g a i n . The " f l o w i n g spring" r e f e r s back t o her
own tears, d r y f o r some time b u t now restored by Agamemnon's
stream. The " l a n d appearing to hopeless sailors" metaphor would
call Penelope t o t h e minds o f an a u d i e n c e who knew their Homer
and remind them that i t i s not Penelope who now speaks these
words.
The central metaphor of the seven, "only child to a f a -
ther" (898), stands out because i t alone i s human and b e c a u s e i t
is very ambiguous. Agamemnon and Menelaus have been too c l o s e l y
paired throughout the play to properly call either an "only
child" now; but (as Betensky 1978: 17 p o i n t s out ), 2 7

i t refers
quite well t o Odysseus, who has been m e n t i o n e d earlier and whom
these l i n e s recall. Aegisthus i s the s o l e s u r v i v i n g c h i l d ofh i s
father; Iphigenia seems t o be t h e o n l y child h e r mother consi-
ders. The a u d i e n c e would n o t y e t t h i n k of Aegisthus (though they
would remember t h e r e f e r e n c e once he a p p e a r s ) : but the r e c o l l e c -
tion o f Odysseus c o n t r a s t s t h e homecomings o f t h e two h e r o e s ; and
whether or not Iphigenia came immediately t o mind, i t i s always
disturbing t o hear K l y t e m n e s t r a speak o f c h i l d r e n .
She refers t o t h e(j)eo\)oshe w i l l fear, and w h i c h too-great
praise might induce, only to dismiss i t - "let 0&oi)o{ be a b s e n t ;
for we have e n d u r e d many e v i l s " (904-905) - t h a t i s , their previ-
ous sufferings justify her great praise now. This frustrated
prayer i s another i n the s e r i e s which began with Calchas; K l y -

54
temnestra knows that what she i s s a y i n g and a b o u t t o do will
invoke gj&6\)os and t h a t i twill n o t be a b s e n t from future events.
At this point i n the p l a y , the very mention of fieoJot ~ particu-
larly after the second stasimon's conclusion - i s ominous; t h e
possibility t h a t i t may i n d e e d be p r e s e n t i s raised by h e r p r a y e r
to the c o n t r a r y .
Having delivered this masterfully multi-levelled and d e -
ceptive speech, she s a y s "Now, my dear, step down from the car"
(905-906) - a s he had i n t e n d e d t o do, 61 l i n e s earlier. I t i s as
if s h e had s a i d " I have finished what I had t o s a y ; now I will
permit you t o s t e p down". From her e n t r a n c e she has already
controlled events and f r u s t r a t e d Agamemnon's plans. He may e n -
ter, b u t o n l y when she a l l o w s i t and - i t soon a p p e a r s - o n l y on
her terms: f o r she c a l l s to the maids t o l a y down the purple
{iroptfufeos ) tapestries. She c o n c l u d e s (910-913) w i t h t h e ominous
lines:
... l e t t h e r e be a p u r p l e - s t r e w n p a t h ( s t r e a m ) , so
t h a t {cos ) J u s t i c e may l e a d (him) i n t o an unhoped-
f o r home.
As f o r t h e r e s t , t h o u g h t n o t overcome by s l e e p
w i l l arrange the destined things j u s t l y ,
w i t h t h e gods' a s s i s t a n c e .
As Goheen ( 1955: 121) p o i n t s o u t , '"ttdpos " (910) c a n mean
"stream" as w e l l as " p a t h " . The f a c t that h i s wife thought a
blood-red stream was n e c e s s a r y , so t h a t J u s t i c e could l e a d him t o
an unexpected home, should perhaps have given even Agamemnon
pause. 2 8
The D i k e which w i l l l e a d him i s o b v i o u s l y Klytemnestra,
who identifies herself with Justice here (Podlecki 1966:67).

55
This identification i s foreshadowed i n her speech about Troy and
s t a t e d almost d i r e c t l y here; f o r as she speaks of " J u s t i c e lead-
ing him" i n s i d e , the t a p e s t r i e s are being l a i d down on her order;
and she has already ensured that he cannot get i n s i d e without her
lead, that i s , her p e r m i s s i o n and guidance. As f o r the "other
things", destined "with the w i l l of the gods" - what a r e they?
But Agamemnon does not think of t h i s . The thought (fyk/Jrcf ~ of
the same root as $f>r/i) ) not overcome by s l e e p i s Klytemnestra' s
and r e c a l l s p a r t i c u l a r l y l i n e 275, as well as 15 and 290-91: what
she i s about to arrange w i l l be no i d l e dream. This i s a hint
that she has not, even i n this speech, cast a s i d e the masculine
intellect ( ) she claimed e a r l i e r ( f o r instance at 275); but
Agamemnon does not n o t i c e this either, encouraged as he i s t o
think o f her as an e m o t i o n a l , g u l l i b l e woman throughout this
speech.
Klytemnestra speaks only of Agamemnon's r e t u r n to the
household and to her; she does not mention his p o l i t i c a l role.
T h i s focus i s i n sharp c o n t r a s t to Agamemnon's speech, which, as
we have seen, was e x c l u s i v e l y p o l i t i c a l , referring to h i s h e a r t h
and household gods once and h i s f a m i l y not a t a l l . His over-
valuing o f p o l i t i c a l at the expense of domestic t i e s was shown
clearly by h i s s a c r i f i c e of I p h i g e n i a ; the same misjudgement
causes his half-blindness now. When the chorus warned him
a g a i n s t f a l s e f r i e n d s and f a l s e p r a i s e , he thought only of p u b l i c
enemies and f o r t h i s reason i s caught o f f guard by an attack from
the household. K l y t e m n e s t r a s speech i s intended, by m i s l e a d i n g

1
56
him as t o her c h a r a c t e r and attitude, to b l i n d him even farther
to the possibility of attack from that quarter. His answer to
her makes i t obvious that she has succeeded. While her speech
has made him uneasy, he accepts the i m p r e s s i o n she has tried to
give that i t i s based on feminine foolishness and overemotional
tendencies, not in deliberate, harmful intent.
It will be useful to mention here the significance of
"treading on the tapestries", about which there has been some
dispute . 2 9
I take the significance t o be somewhere between the
meaningless "walking on a rather expensive piece of material"
(Dawe, 1963: 48 n.2), which Aeschylus uses as an excuse for a
conflict between husband and wife and the sine qua non on which
hangs Klytemnestra s 1
decision to kill her husband. Klytemnes-
tra' s purpose is clearly to persuade her husband willingly to
commit an impious a c t on h i s homecoming. Ewans (1982: 12) points
out that this impious act occurs d i r e c t l y b e f o r e Agamemnon sacri-
fices, thus r e n d e r i n g him unfit to do so; Lanahan ( 1974 : 25 )
suggests that Agamemnon's "not setting foot on the ground" sym-
bolically meant, also, that he had not yet reclaimed h i s king-
dom. 30
Burkert (1966: 108-109) shows t h a t i n Greek sacrificial
ritual i t was considered a better omen i f the victim approached
the a l t a r willingly and were g u i l t y of some minor s i n w h i c h made
it r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s own death. (For i n s t a n c e , goats would be
teased into eating i v y leaves sacred to Dionysus and then sacri-
ficed f o r doing so.) This r i t u a l fits events here perfectly and
accounts f o r the feeling (however i m p o s s i b l e to prove) of some

57
readers that K l y t e m n e s t r a would not have k i l l e d him i f he had not
walked on the tapestries. In fact, what she "would have done"
cannot be known, as i t does not happen; but Agamemnon certainly
makes h i m s e l f a more p e r f e c t victim by walking willingly on the
tapestries. There are several layers of significance here and
the feeling that something of importance occurs is fully justi-
fied. The degree and quality of i m p i e t y or h u b r i s i n v o l v e d can-
not be absolutely determined: i t i s not zero, or the scene
would be pointless; i t i s not a b s o l u t e - an impious and grossly
hubristic act under any possible circumstances - or Klytemnes-
t r a 's arguments would not take the form they do of raising ques-
tions about situations i n which the act might be permissible.
(Were i t an absolutely impious act, she would not be able to
suggest that there could be any circumstances i n which it was
proper.)
Many c r i t i c s have commented on this scene. Goheen s 1

dis-
cussion (1955: 115-120) o f the c o l o u r and i t s connection with the
blood spilled on the ground a g a i n and again i n the c o u r s e of the
trilogy i s well taken, as i s Jones' (1962: 86-87) p o i n t that the
economic v a l u e of the tapestry i s a large ingredient in i t s sig-
nificance, particularly after the c h o r u s 1

comments on the dangers
of excessive wealth. The economic value of the tapestries is
emphasized by Klytemnestra s 1
final speech in this scene. The
hubris involved i n conspicuous consumption i s , of c o u r s e , one of
the kinds shown in this scene, but i t i s o n l y one aspect of the
general h u b r i s of getting above one's station, which is like-

58
ly to a t t r a c t <^>&o\)os ( b o t h human and divine). Jones is quite
right in pointing out that Agamemnon wounds the o i k o s (economic-
ally) by h i s very entrance; but the economic aspect i s only one
part of h i s h u b r i s here.
The treading of the t a p e s t r i e s i s also the g r e a t e s t of the
symbols c r e a t e d by Klytemnestra's powers of symbolic manipula-
tion. She has here invented an act which is surely hubristic
(though the degree of hubris involved i s not certain) and then
succeeded i n r e p r e s e n t i n g i t as only very little more than what
is due the conqueror of Troy. (That i s , she creates a symbol
which clearly has one significance and then persuades her hearer
that i t has quite another.) This i s a feat which o n l y a charac-
ter of Klytemnestra's powers of definition and persuasion could
accomplish. Finally, this scene i s the p r i m e example o f Klytem-
nestra' s -prec&hj.
Agamemnon addresses her as "offspring of L e d a " (Arj$<v
ygi)£Qô\) ,914), recalling to one's mind immediately that other
daughter of Leda, the destructive force d e s c r i b e d i n the second
stasimon. "Guardian o f my house" recalls Klytemnestra s 1

"dog of
the house" (607), with the difference that Klytemnestra does not
use the p o s s e s s i v e pronoun. Neither does she ever call it "my
h u s b a n d ' s house"; i t i s simply the house, the o n l y i m p o r t a n t one.
Michelini (1974: 527-530) argues persuasively that the phrase
"ûjyaJ yy> tffrni/JS " (916) i s , i n the i n t e r c h a n g e between the
two c h a r a c t e r s , not an insult, but rather a mild witticism de-
signed to take away the sting of the r e p r o o f which follows, and

59
in the formal s t r u c t u r e of the play, a marker t o show a break
from the rhesis-form of Klytemnestra's speech and a r e t u r n t o t h e
action. 3 1
Agamemnon's o b j e c t i o n t o her speech, her t a p e s t r i e s
and perhaps her posture, i f " "^/fa/t tfTTf 5" (920) ( " g r o v e l l i n g " )
refers to her p o s i t i o n and not her s t y l e of speech , 3 2

shows
clearly that he has a c c e p t e d t h e image she p r e s e n t e d of herself
as an e x c i t a b l e female. She s h o u l d not t r e a t him d e l i c a t e l y ,
"like a woman" {ôj ^t/\)<u#os €i) l-poliocs k/*€ 'AffuJi , 919), he s a y s
(either "as i f he were a woman" - i . e . o v e r - l u x u r i o u s l y - o r "as
women do t r e a t people" - i . e . with exaggerated emotion), nor
grovel "like a barbarian" (Â^^COU ... S e x y ) , 9 1 9 ) , n o r l a y down
a (fie&os -liable path of tapestries. He s e e s her a c t i o n , then, as
womanish and over-emotional, like a barbarian's; and he assumes
that he must e x p l a i n to her that her t a p e s t r i e s might cause <fi&o -
^(921). Clearly, he e n t e r t a i n s no s u s p i c i o n o f h e r m o t i v e s ,
w h i c h he assumes a r e f r i e n d l y ; he s i m p l y doubts her i n t e l l i g e n c e .
H i s next lines confirm this i m p r e s s i o n : he e x p l a i n s c a r e f u l l y , a s
if he assumes t h a t she w i l l have t r o u b l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g him, t h a t
it i s only proper t o honour t h e gods this way ( 9 2 2 ) ; that for a
mortal t o walk on t h e s e t a p e s t r i e s is "ou£yuu>j <fiofoo " (924);
and that t h e r e f o r e she s h o u l d honour h i m as a man, n o t a g o d .
His fame cries aloud without "footwipes" and e m b r o i d e r i e s ( 925-
926, f o l l o w i n g Denniston, Page 1957: n. ad l o c ) . He continues
with some platitudes which have greater personal significance
than he r e a l i z e s . 3 3
H i s tone i s not " c o l d and h o s t i l e " , a s Den-
niston, Page b e l i e v e (1957: n. a t 9 1 5 ) ; r a t h e r , i t i s g e n t l e , i f
anything, but extremely condescending, a s i f he a d d r e s s e s the

60
young girl whom, G r e e k marriage customs being what they were, he
may very well have left behind him t e n years before. The object-
ions he r a i s e s to the a c t i t s e l f are a l lconventional.
The speed o f Agamemnon's capitulation, which takes place
only fourteen lines after his refusal i n this speech, has p u z z l e d
many. However, by t h e end o f h i s speech (930) most o f t h e work
of persuading him t o take this course of action has a l r e a d y been
accomplished. He does not suspect danger from h i s oikos and
thanks to Klytemnestra's speech, he does not think her intelli-
gent or "masculine" enough to suspect her motives. He i s a l -
ready, consequently, very much o f f g u a r d and o f f b a l a n c e ; i t will
not take much more to lead him onto the t a p e s t r i e s . Klytemnes-
tra's sudden attack catches him unawares. The versatility and
range o f her arguments, the speed with which she leaves one a p -
proach as soon as she has gained her point there and attacks
again from another angle, her use of s o p h i s t r y where necessary
(especially i n equating "envy" and "admiration" (939), and her
use of a personal appeal at the perfect tactical moment leave him
no chance at a l l t o defend himself. Her skill i n argument and
her intellectual superiority over her husband are brilliantly
demonstrated i n this scene.
Klytemnestra responds t o Agamemnon's conventional objec-
tions (931) " T e l l me this, not a g a i n s t your opinion" - i.e. "tell
me what you really think", implying that he d o e s not r e a l l y be-
lieve t h e o b j e c t i o n s he just raised. He answers "Be sure my
opinion will n o t be corrupted" ( 932). It i s difficult not t o

61
hear a note of indignation i n this; he i s a l i t t l e off-balance,
caught unawares by h e r u n f l a t t e r i n g question after a too-flatter-
ing speech. She a s k s (933) "Would y o u have vowed t o t h e gods t o
act thus iOjSi) i n a time of fear (hc'sAs)?" If this act i s in
the class o f t h i n g s he c o u l d o f f e r t o t h e gods, she i m p l i e s , i t
cannot itself be prima facie an i m p i o u s act. He a n s w e r s ( 9 3 4 )
"yes, i f someone who knew clearly ( i . e . a seer) proclaimed this
duty". One i s reminded o f t h e l a s t time he a c c e p t e d t h e word o f
a seer; the result was a m o n s t r o u s l y impious act. One m i g h t
wonder why he does n o t add "but t h e r e i s no s e e r here; the con-
dition h a s n o t been fulfilled". The answer i sthat Klytemnestra
wanted to e l i c i t from him t h e t h e o r e t i c a l admission that there
might be some circumstances under which this a c t might be com-
mitted without divine disapproval; this accomplished, she c u t s
him o f f b e f o r e he c a n r a i s e a strong objection t o the p a r t i c u l a r
circumstances of this act. 3 4

There a r e some c i r c u m s t a n c e s , then,
under which he would do i t , w h i c h would not incur divine
Her next question (935) i s "What do you t h i n k P r i a m (would do) i f
he had a c h i e v e d your deeds?" .Certainly Priam would walk on the
tapestries, answers Agamemnon (936). Again, he does n o t a d d "but
he's an O r i e n t a l tyrant; i t would n o t be s u i t a b l e f o r a Greek
king" - something he c e r t a i n l y knows, f o r he h a s e a r l i e r rep-
roached Klytemnestra f o r behaving toof l a t t e r i n g l y , "like a bar-
barian" - because Klytemnestra cuts him o f f . So t h e r e a r e some
circumstances under which Agamemnon would do t h i s and t h e r e a r e
some p e o p l e who would t h i n k t h i s a c t a p p r o p r i a t e , n o t i m p i o u s , i n
his present circumstances. D i v i n e <fie>6Jos , t h e n i s not a sure

62
consequence o f the a c t . T u r n i n g from this point, she a t t a c k s t h e
other potential source o f (j)eo\)o$ , human o p i n i o n , s a y i n g (937)
"Don't feel ashamed then a t (merely) human c e n s u r e . " I f t h e gods
do n o t d i s a p p r o v e , what do humans m a t t e r ? But he demurs, saying
(938 ) " B u t t h e v o i c e , at l e a s t , of the people i s very strong".
She answers with a touch of the p r a i s e of her f i r s t speech-
probably welcome t o him now, a f t e r this sudden cross-examination
- and s k i l f u l l y using a s o p h i s t i c a l reinterpretation of "faoJot"-.
"The unenvied (kfieodyo-os ) man i s not admired." (939) Her impli-
cation i s that any a d m i r a b l e man i s envied. Throughout, Klytem-
nestra has made o n l y n e g a t i v e arguments ( t h e gods w o u l d n ' t nece-
ssarily be a n g r y ; some p e o p l e would do t h i s ; the people wouldn't
envy a man they didn't admire), which do n o t p r o v e the p o s i t i v e
corollaries she i m p l i e s ( t h e gods won't be a n g r y ; you s h o u l d do
this; i f the people envy you, i t i s because they admire y o u ) .
Her arguments t h u s do n o t g i v e an a c t u a l , positive basis f o r the
action she s u g g e s t s . Agamemnon, however, has a c c e p t e d at least
the possibilities s h e h a s i n t r o d u c e d - as G o l d h i l l puts i t , he
has accepted the idea that an a c t which he t h o u g h t had o n l y one
significance has, i n f a c t , several different possible signifi-
cances (1984: 77) - and i s now in position t o be t o p p l e d by t h e
third level o f argument, the p e r s o n a l , based on s e x u a l differ-
ences which he h i m s e l f introduces. He s a y s (about her w i l l i n g -
ness to quarrel with the people) " I t i s not the p a r t o f a woman
to desire battle". Klytemnestra deliberately misunderstands him
t o mean b a t t l e with h i m s e l f and answers (941) " F o r t h e f o r t u n a t e
(i.e. Agamemnon), i t is fitting even t o be c o n q u e r e d ( i . e .i n

63
this b a t t l e with her)." When Agamemnon answers "Does it really
mean that much to you?" (942), he i s doomed; his question makes
it clear that he has given up h i s c e r t a i n t y that the gods or men
would object and his only remaining ground for refusal is an
uneasy reluctance. While he has no longer a good reason to re-
fuse, this does not give him good reason to agree. Klytemnes-
tra's desire that he tread the tapestries is the only factor
motivating him t o do so, i f he does; so he a s k s how important it
is to her. This i s where the groundwork o f Klytemnestra's first
speech proves decisive. First, her motives seem to be innocent
and do not, i f the action itself is (as i t now seems) fairly
harmless, in themselves give him anything to fear. There is no
harm i n g i v i n g in. Second, he i s under o b l i g a t i o n t o her because
of the suffering she described there and so should grant her a
favour i f she strongly desires i t .
When she answers "be persuaded; you rule indeed in sub-
mitting willingly to me" (Jceod- upjrtls ^fJrn Trusts (y )
Ijôc , 943 ) , 3 5
showing that i t is_ i m p o r t a n t to her, he has no
choice left but to yield.
Throughout, Agamemnon has been given no good reason to
act; KLytemnestra s 1
arguments have been sufficient to remove his
objections, but no more. This negative approach i s not in itself
sufficient to produce action; and Klytemnestra' s "VCBou " is
significant. Argument could bring him to the point of uncer-
tainty, but no farther; i t - i s her powers of persuasion which

64
actually bring him t o t h e p o i n t of action - precisely that force-
ful p e r s u a s i o n o f which the chorus sang so f e a r f u l l y (386-395).
Agamemnon then has h i s shoes removed, s o a s t o damage t h e
fabric less and minimize the (fieo'Jos perhaps incurred. His prin-
cipal o b j e c t i o n s now (948-949) a r e economic - wasting t h e sub-
stance o f t h e house - and i t i s on t h i s account that he i s a f r a i d
of divine envy, which he p r a y s may not s t r i k e h i m a s he walks
(much a s he p r a y e d that the results of Iphigenia's sacrifice
might be g o o d ) . He then speaks of Kassandra, whom he d e s c r i b e s
flatteringly as a "flower chosen f o r me from among much wealth"
(.ifoW&d yp/jjuirud 'ffApe-rod 'iJeos ,954-955) - t h a t i s , the pick of
the rich booty a t Troy - a n d commends her to h i swife's kindness
for an e s c o r t inside. This i s proof, were any needed at this
point, that he d o e s not understand h i swife. Bringing home a
concubine was n o way t o i n g r a t i a t e yourself with your long-aban-
doned spouse, even i n Greece, whose c u s t o m s , we a r e a s s u r e d , were
different ( b u t s e e Gomme, 1925: 1-25). Even Laertes never slept
with Eurycleia, f o r fear of h i s wife's anger - and h i s wife was
no Klytemnestra. And i n d e e d , Klytemnestra does n o t answer this
part o f h i s speech.
Agamemnon walks into t h e house on t h e t a p e s t r i e s , speaking
of himself as having been "subdued" (^T^rpj^y^.M( , 956) by Kly-
temnestra i n this matter. There i s no d o u b t that this i s a vic-
tory f o r Klytemnestra; Agamemnon has entered the stage a con-
queror and l e f t i t conquered b y h i s own w i f e . This spiritual

65
victory i s t h e symbol and p r e c u r s o r o f t h e p h y s i c a l victory Kly-
temnestra will win i n s i d e .
Klytemnestra follows, making another vivid, e l o q u e n t and
double-edged speech. (She i s t h u s the l a s t o f t h e two t o s p e a k ,
which reinforces h e r dominance o v e r h e r husband.)
She speaks o f the sea as unendingly fertile, nourishing
CYf>t0ot>6A , 959) an e v e r - r e n e w e d Ctfu^Mti)c£^ro\) , 960) f l o w o f p u r p l e
dye (nopûj/P'iS , 959) f o r d i p p i n g (fj^JS, 960) g a r m e n t s . This sea,
however, was last spoken of using another fertility image - as
"blooming with shipwrecks and A r g i v e c o r p s e s " (659-660); and t h e
"tfop^tjpdS " s h e s p e a k s o f i s t h e same d r i e d - b l o o d colour which has
been mentioned b e f o r e . /3j.ftd$ was last used of dipping bronze;
now i t i s u s e d of dipping clothes in this ominously-coloured dye.
The image of the d e s t r u c t i v e l y fertile sea producing blood-col-
oured liquid (xrjutSj. , 960) i s q u i t e disturbing. She c o n t i n u e s ,
saying "Our house has a s u f f i c i e n t supply of these things (T^Sf /
961), by t h e gods' will; t h e house does n o t know how t o be p o o r "
(961-962). This statement i s also menacing, partly because of
the chorus' warnings i n the l a s t stasimon of the dangers arising
from too-great wealth (772-781) and p a r t l y because one wonders
what, e x a c t l y , t h e house has a s u f f i c i e n c y of, given t h e ominous
tone of her previous lines. The o b v i o u s referent i s "GcjM'ru/i)
pztftAS " (960)or " aoûj}tii

{
"; e i t h e r one h a s f r i g h t e n i n g connota-
tions of violence and b l o o d s h e d . Her c l a i m (963-965) that she
would have vowed t h e t r a m p l i n g o f many s u c h garments, a t an ora-
cle's guidance, t o save this man's life, shows t h e same e x t r a v a -

66
g a n c e a s h e r p r e v i o u s comments and o f f e r s a justification f o r the
action which Agamemnon does not have - no o r a c l e has commanded
him. This seems intended to p o i n t out h i s g u i l t to the chorus,
while i tostensibly r e a s s u r e s him. Furthermore, i t i s probably a
lie. 3 6
The ostensible subject o f her next two s t a t e m e n t s ( 9 6 6 -
969) i s Agamemnon; he i s t h e r o o t which r e m a i n s t o s p r e a d foliage
over t h e house and p r o t e c t i t a g a i n s t the "scorching d o g ( s t a r ) " ,
i.e. t h e summer heat; i t i s he, r e t u r n i n g t o h i s h e a r t h , that
brings warmth i n winter. She l a t e r speaks of Aegisthus i n pre-
cisely t h e terms of the second image (968-969). Now, however,
the reader has been g i v e n no h i n t t h a t he s h o u l d t h i n k o f anyone
but Agamemnon. The f u l s o m e language of the next seven lines
(966-972), expressing the h i g h e s t degree o f j o y a t her husband's
homecoming, i s puzzling. I t i s even more e m o t i o n a l than her
first speech i n Agamemnon's p r e s e n c e . But t h a t first speech was
fulsome by n e c e s s i t y , i n o r d e r t o delude Agamemnon: these lines
do n o t seem t o have a similar purpose. Agamemnon has a l r e a d y
given i n , and i s w a l k i n g on t h e t a p e s t r i e s even as s h e speaks;
she does n o t need t o persuade him f u r t h e r . One c o u l d a r g u e that
she needed t o keep up t h e i l l u s i o n o f welcome u n t i l he was a c t u -
ally i n the door, lest he b e g i n to suspect the truth and take
fright w h i l e escape is still possible. T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n does n o t
however account f o r the sheer intensity of emotion present i n
these lines. Perhaps Klytemnestra here should be s e e n as ex-
pressing her r e a l j o y (at the f a c t t h a t Agamemnon has been s u e -

67
cessfully deceived) i n the only way she can i n p u b l i c circum-
stances: s h e shows her j o y , but a s c r i b e s i t to the acceptable
cause that she i s pleased t o s e e Agamemnon enter the house again.
These lines a r e i n themselves also decidedly double-edged.
The "returning foliage {faW&S , 966)" i s c l e a r l y t h e symbol of
her returning fertility, which she l o s t when Agamemnon left and
receives on h i s return, she implies - o r , as she has implied
earlier, which she l o s t when h e k i l l e d I p h i g e n i a and w i l l recover
when she k i l l s him. Agamemnon has e a r l i e r been called t h e "J(CJJL
6rn0jktH)" (896), so the n

6tCf>c'ou KVI/O'S "(967), which withers the
fertility of t h e house, refers t o him as w e l l . The subject of
the third statement i s Zeus, with whose w i l l Dike has p r e v i o u s l y
been identified. When Zeus makes wine from bitter (unripe)
grapes {bftfauo* ffiupZs , 970), she says, then indeed there i s cool
in the house, when t h e "man in full authority", "man who accom-
plishes things" (zfyos Te\{coo , 97 2) occupies the house. Zeus
"making wine from unripe grapes " could refer t o an untimely
death willed by Z e u s / D i k e - that i s , Agamemnon's death; t h e wine
would then symbolize blood. Wine, t h e s e a and t h e dye then have
all been converted to negative, fatal images. 3 7

I f the "fl^po*
'YzXeLou " i s Agamemnon, which i s the immediate interpretation, one
should remember that t h e a d j e c t i v e 7t\icos " was used of perfect
sacrificial victims. The f a t e Agamemnon i s about to face i s thus
foreshadowed by t h i s epithet.
When Agamemnon has e n t e r e d the palace ( a t about 972: s e e
Appendix B , ! ^ ) Klytemnestra concludes with a prayer to Zeus

68
Accomplisher (973-974) t o f u l f i l her p r a y e r s and c o n s i d e r what he
is about to fulfil. What has gone before is a strong hint that
the o b j e c t o f her p r a y e r s i s s o m e t h i n g harmful t o Agamemnon.
In these fifteen lines (958-974), Klytemnestra uses the
words "OCKOS " or " 9o^«?s " s e v e n times. It i s never "Agamemnon's
house"; i t i s just the house, with whose good she is concerned
and with which she has been closely associated throughout the
play.
This speech (958-974) unites many of the techniques and
themes f o u n d earlier: Klytemnestra's connection with sacrificial
rites, her use of fertility imagery, negative nature images i n -
cluding light (the Gtiptou KvJos ), the household and Klytem-
nestra's identification with i t , the will of Zeus and the ex-
tremely ambiguous use of metaphor and speech by Klytemnestra .
In the entire scene, Klytemnestra has shown the full range of
her powers of eloquence, manipulation, intelligence and persua-
sion; and at the l a s t i t i s her power, not h i s , a g a i n s t the back-
ground of conflict between house and society, female and male,
which overcomes. The motives she might have for h o s t i l i t y to-
wards her husband - I p h i g e n i a , A e g i s t h u s and Kassandra - have a l l
been more o r l e s s obliquely presented i n t h i s scene. Agamemnon's
complete inability to c o n t r o l h i s wife has also been shown - she
seems to have controlled events from first to last, as she did
with the messenger.

69
It i s no wonder that the chorus on her e x i t begin (975-
977)
"Why does t h i s f e a r , h o v e r i n g c o n s t a n t l y ,
flit a b o u t my p r o p h e t i c h e a r t ? "
Although they have seen the return of the f l e e t (or part of i t ) ,
they continue, they still feel no hope; their spirits sing "the
lyreless dirge of the Erinyes" (toi) S'fyeo ...QfyM 'Epc*) -
t/o$, 9 9 0 - 9 9 1 ) a n d t h e i r hearts "whirl i n eddies bringing f u l f i l l -
ment towards minds conscious of justice" (iJScUocs , 996-997).
That i s , they still fear some d i s a s t e r which, however, they would
recognize as just (1001-1016). They continue i n the second
strophe with a discussion o f the danger of too-great fortune; i t
is best t o throw some p a r t of wealth overboard, so that t h e whole
house i s not destroyed. This i s clearly a reference to the r e -
cent speech of Klytemnestra , emphasizing the p o t e n t i a l l y i n -
finite wealth o f t h e house; i t i s also a reference t o Agamemnon's
great good fortune i n conquering Troy. They feel that such good
fortune i s perilous and suggest a remedy against i t ; but (they
continue i n the f i n a l a n t i s t r o p h e , 1018-1033) once a man's blood
has fallen to earth, who can c a l l i t up a g a i n ? There i s no r e -
medy f o r death. This i s the closest they come to speaking of
what they truly fear, the death of their master.
Klytemnestra re-enters a t 1035 t o f e t c h Kassandra inside;
she retires a t 1068, d e f e a t e d i n her o b j e c t . Her defeat i s as-
tonishing; she has overcome the elements, the chorus and the
king, but cannot budge a foreign slave-girl. There have been

70
many discussions of this scene and reasons suggested f o r her loss
of control here. 3 8
The first explanation, suggested by Klytem-
nestra, i s that she does not understand Greek (1060-1061); but
after Klytemnestra's departure Kassandra proves this explanation
wrong by speaking fluent Greek. The e a s i e s t explanation i s that
Kassandra, as a seer, knows what lies i n wait f o r her and i s
reluctant to face i t . In t h e end, however, she does enter, of
her own free will (that i s , in willing obedience to Apollo). If
she i s willing to enter a t a l l , why n o t when she i s asked?
I believe t h e answer i s that she i s a seer and knows the
truth; knowing everything, as Apollo reveals i t to her, she
knows also Klytemnestra s 1

plans a n d what her words conceal. For
that reason, Klytemnestra 1

s TTSLBOO , w h i c h i s based on deception
and o b s c u r i n g o f meaning, h a s no e f f e c t on h e r . Other people can
be talked into accepting Klytemnestra's terms and plans; Kass-
andra does not respond at a l l , or even answer. 3 9

Before a true
seer, Klytemnestra s 1
powers of imagination fail; before one who
knows what symbols really mean, Klytemnestra's attempts to mani-
pulate them a r e useless'. The fact that Klytemnestra' s speech i s
at least i n part a calculated insult may reinforce Kassandra's
refusal to give i n toi t .
Klytemnestra' s speech to Kassandra i s double-edged, as
always, and thick with condescending kindness quite possibly
offensive to a princess. She intends to put her i n her p l a c e as
a slave quickly and begins by addressing her only as Kassandra,
without patronymic (1035). Zeus has s e t Kassandra i n the house,

71
she continues, to share the sacrificial water, s t a n d i n g among the
many slaves at the household altar (1036-1038). Klytemnestra of
course means Kassandra to stand at the altar as a victim; the
chorus do not realize this. But even i n i t s s u r f a c e meaning, i t
is an insult; Kassandra is not to think of herself even as an
unusual slave - she will be treated as another domestic and no
more. This is clearly not what Agamemnon meant for her, as his
description of her and directions f o r her care reveal (950-955);
she is a unique creature in his eyes, and no common domestic
servant. "Get down from the chariot and don't be arrogant"
(1039), Klytemnestra now adds; Kassandra has not yet responded to
her original order. She attempts flattery at this juncture,
saying that even Hercules was once a.slave (1040-1041). There is
no response. If one must be a slave, Klytemnestra then adds, i t
is better in a house with o l d money than in the house of a nou-
veau riche, who i s apt to treat his slaves harshly. (1042-1043).
This i s small comfort at best, and sounds more as i f- Klytemnestra
wishes to p r a i s e her own household than r e a s s u r e her captive.
Kassandra remains silent. Command, flattery and dubious
reassurance have had no effect; the chorus advise her to "obey",
or "be persuaded" (•frciW' 'î> , tc nrtc&oi! ( 1049 ) ) , but she does
not. Klytemnestra's persuasive tactics have failed.
Klytemnestra wonders next i f perhaps Kassandra speaks
another language; i f not, then she will persuade her with words
(1050-1053). The chorus again suggest that Kassandra obey the
Queen. Still there is no response. Klytemnestra becomes impa-

72
tient now (1055-1061) - s h e h a s no l e i s u r e t o waste outside; the
sheep stand ready at the altar forsacrifice, f o r h e r who never
hoped f o r such a pleasure (cos o'uiro'Y i X i r U o t t s r/ji)$' YfaiJ ^^ci) ,
1058). Her o s t e n s i b l e meaning i s the pleasure of a sacrifice i n
honour o f h e r husband's homecoming. In fact, Agamemnon i s one o f
the "flock" [jUjL. , 1057) a t t h e a l t a r ; the s a c r i f i c e of sheep
recalls the lioncub's sacrifice as a p r i e s t o f 'fan ( 7 3 0 - 7 3 1 ) . The
unexpected pleasure, we will soon discover, i s that of killing
Kassandra, whose presence Klytemnestra had not planned f o r , as
well as the king. I f Kassandra means t o come inside, t h e Queen
continues, she should d o s o now; i f s h e d o e s n ' t "receive (Klytem-
n e s t r a 's) speech" ( ^ o ' p o J , 1060), she should signal with her
hand i n place of a voice. This i s a retreat t o t h e next level of
communication, the visual; but Kassandra does not i n fact " r e -
ceive" - that i s , accept - Klytemnestra's speech and so i g n o r e s
the compromise Klytemnestra offers.
Klytemnestra, thoroughly incensed b y now, s a y s that Kass-
andra i s mad and " l i s t e n s t o a n e v i l <fy>j\) " (1064), not knowing
how t o bear the bridle (ÂcJox) , 1066 ) ( i . e . of slavery). She
concludes "I w i l l n o t be d i s h o n o u r e d by s a y i n g a n y more" [ov ju"rj\>
TrXtu pctjJM' %r<f.j.eJ6o/~ic ,1068) and departs, leaving Kassandra i n
possession of the stage. Klytemnestra obviously feels that this
scene with Kassandra has been a humiliating defeat, and r e f u s e s
to make i tany worse by c o n t i n u i n g h e r a t t e m p t . She does not, i n
fact, show a s much subtlety and s k i l l i n persuasion i n this scene
as she had with the chorus, the herald o r Agamemnon, a l l o f whom

73
she could control. One has the impression that she began by
underestimating her victim and could not correct the error. Even
so, such power and p e r s u a s i o n as she did use should have been
sufficient with any other slave, even a new and high-born one.
Klytemnestra' s Witeu i s s i m p l y not effective around the seer, who
knows what Klytemnestra i s .
Kassandra's prophecy and scene with the chorus (1072-1330)
links together the parts of the Oresteia; she prophesies the
events of the next play as well as describing a l l of the past
events and supernatural causes which have affected, or will af-
fect, the cycle of ruin she sees. She sets the events of the
Agamemnon in a larger c o n t e x t which has only been hinted at pre-
viously in this play. She i s only partly concerned with Kly-
temnestra. What Kassandra does say about the Queen carries some
weight, for she sees the truth, from a particular, cosmic per-
spective; she sees the final values actions will have, not their
shifting, temporary justifications. For instance, in this play
the audience sees - or will see - a Klytemnestra who is perhaps
unlikeable and fear-inspiring, but not entirely a villain; she is
given an excellent motive for her actions and may even, for a l l
the chorus know, have been nearly justified. By the Eumenides,
Klytemnestra is almost entirely a monster, whose motives are
nearly forgotten. Kassandra's prophecy here does not mention the
motivations of action already discussed in the play, but rather
adds others to them. However, to her, motivations excuse no-
thing. There i s no sense i n her words that the guilt of a crime

74
is lessened or increased depending on t h e r e a s o n s for i t . And t o
her, Klytemnestra i s only an u n n a t u r a l , destructive, lying, adul-
terous and e v i l creature. No e x c u s e s are offered for her. Abso-
lute insight seems to allow no half-measures; evil acts, seen
clearly, are simply evil and have no justification. In this
play, Kassandra provides a useful insight into Klytemnestra's
"essential nature" as i t will eventually appear i n the trilogy.
However, i t should be remembered that in this play, Kassandra's
is not the only viewpoint we a r e g i v e n .
Kassandra first asks Apollo (1085 f f . ) t o what sort of
house he h a s b r o u g h t her. She s e e s i t as a god-hating {ju.i6OQfo0 ,
1090; see Fraenkel 1950: n. a d l o c . ) abode, which has seen many
evil k i n d r e d - s l a y i n g s and f l e s h - c u t t i n g s , man-slayings and ground
sprinkled (with blood). Iphigenia, then, has not been the only
victim. Kassandra next proclaims that (other) children weep over
their roasted flesh, eaten by t h e i r father (1095-98). Next, she
foresees a "great evil" (/^fy* ftJHoD , 1 1 0 2 ) being now plotted in
the house, an e v i l which i s beyond cure. The chorus do not un-
derstand and she continues, addressing Klytemnestra (offstage):
Wretch! W i l l you accomplish t h i s ? Having washed

your husband and bed-partner i n the baths - how
w i l l I t e l l t h e end? F o r q u i c k l y , i t w i l l be; hand
a f t e r hand s t r e t c h e s o u t , r e a c h i n g (towards i t ) .
(1107-1110)
The chorus do n o t know whom she i s a d d r e s s i n g and s t i l l fail to
understand. She continues (1114 f f . ) , s e e i n g a "net of Hades"
which i s the bed-sharing snare (&nu$ , 1116), the person co-re-

75
sponsible f o r t h e murder. Klytemnestra i s the "net of Hades"
here, the snare i n the bed. "ju<Jdt,yU " ( 1 1 1 6 ) i s the f i r s t indi-
cation that anyone or anything other than Klytemnestra takes part
in t h e murder. The reader had n o t b e f o r e been told directly that
there would be a murder, but the chorus' fears o f any person have
been confined (except fora hint a t 549-550) to Klytemnestra.
Now s h e i s c a l l e d a "co-agent". Nets have been spoken of before:
Zeus flung over Troy a "netof all-catching Arn " ( 3 6 1 ) . Now t h e
net of destruction seems s e t to catch the conqueror. Kassandra
calls on " D i s c o r d " ({rises , 1119), whom the chorus identify with
the Erinys (1121), to raise a c r yo f triumph to the race over t h e
sacrifice. The chorus at last (1121-1124) begin t o be frigh-
tened.
Kassandra continues (1125-1129) "Keep the bull from the
cow!" {'ilttijz ^fji /Soo-z yhi fjufod , 1125-26.) A f e m a l e has caught a
male i n a garment, she continues, and s t r i k e s with a "blackhorned
contrivance" (ûe^^/pe . . . juyujJy/mvc , 1126). She t h e n speaks
of a "basin which murders by treachery". {$o\ofl6i)ou hz^y-ros ,
1129).
It i sdifficult t o s a y which i s the bull and which t h e cow
here; as the b u l l i s attacking t h e cow, o n e m i g h t think that the
sexes have been reversed and Klytemnestra i s the b u l l , Agamemnon
the cow. This implication i s strengthened by Klytemnestra's
frequently stressed masculine characteristics (^\)ô^3oo\o\) ( 1 1 ) ,
etc.) and (Podlecki 1983: 34-35), by t h e h i n t s o f Agamemnon's e f -
feminacy ( f o r i n s t a n c e , he e n t e r s the stage i n a chariot; he

76
refuses t o be pampered "like a woman", but i n the end c a p i t u l a t e s
to i t ; h e i s d e f e a t e d b y a woman.
There i s another implication; ordinarily one would keep a
bull from a cow o n l y t o keep her from being bred. 4 0

Kassandra i s
the first person t o speak o f the marriage of Klytemnestra as a
sexual bond (ofia$e/«Jcoi) , 1 1 0 8 ; ^c^gyJos , 1116; and t h i s line).
In fact, she i s the f i r s t t o speak of Klytemnestra i n erotic
terms a t a l l , however vague (or b e s t i a l ) .
The chorus have gathered t h e i m p r e s s i o n by t h i s time (1130
ff.) that this oracle foretells no good thing. Kassandra next
predicts h e r own death, mourns t h e wedding of Paris and r e t u r n s
to the subject of her death (which the chorus this time under-
stand) a n d mourns her c i t y . The chorus still do n o t understand
all and she promises t o speak clearly (1178-1183).
Kassandra now speaks (1186-1193) of the choir of Erinyes
born with the race (6uyô\)u/i) , 1190) which will not leave the
house, drinkers o f human blood, which sings of the f i r s t , begin-
ning "A7rj., the trampling of a brother's bed ( sujlis 'dîfC)
hn7outJ Yi
/ /
, 1193). She p a u s e s for verification of this deed and
the chorus agree that such a crime (Thyestes' adultery with A t -
reus' wife) was committed.
''/\yrj h a s b e e n spoken of before: i t i s the forward-planning
mother of Persuasion. I t induced Helen and P a r i s t o a c t as they
did (399-408). The l i o n c u b , when grown, sacrifices t o 'Arrj ( 7 3 5 -
736); and hubris, giving rise t o worse hubris, eventually becomes

77
a "black " f o r the house, an a v e n g i n g daemon who resembles the
acts she sprang from (763-771). Now i t appears that there has
been an earlier '^fy i n t h i s house than had been spoken of before;
the c y c l e has gone on for a long time.
Erinys or Erinyes have a l s o been m e n t i o n e d before. Zeus
sends a "late-avenging E r i n y s " on transgressors (59); the dark
Erinyes in time wear away the life of a prosperous man without
Justice (463-466); Helen was sent to Troy by Zeus as an Erinys
who brings tears to brides (749); the chorus' spirit sings the
lament of the Erinys when Agamemnon e n t e r s the house (990-991).
Now Kassandra sees, or h e a r s , a whole c h o i r o f E r i n y e s , e v e r y one
that has ever haunted the house, singing together. None o f the
past crimes or past vengeances of the house have left i t ; they
all remain, growing stronger.
Kassandra's v i s i o n continues (1215-1225) w i t h the image of
the children killed by relatives and eaten; and she sees ven-
geance being p l o t t e d against Agamemnon by a "strengthless lion"
(\€oJ"r' 'JJI\M'J , 1224) who lies i n bed and stays at home ( 1224-
1225). This is the first clear reference to Aegisthus in the
play.
Now (1226 - 1241) she turns to Klytemnestra. Agamemnon
does not know what work she will do, with evil fortune, like a
secret 'A*rrj (1230) , after the "hateful bitch" (W« , 1228) - as
noted before, this word has connotations of unchastity as well)

78
spoke s o l o n g and so a m i c a b l y (fijtfyoJous , 1229 ; actually "with
cheerful disposition"). She c o n t i n u e s
toc^St yo\fL*' Qy\us '*lf><s£\Jos <fto\)gus
(1230). Some d e g r e e of "daring" has been seen i n the commission
of each s h o c k i n g c r i m e so f a r n a r r a t e d . The most s h o c k i n g a s p e c t
of t h e coming murder, to Kassandra, i s that a female kills a
male. Kassandra continues, searching f o r a description for Kly-
temnestra - "What sort of hateful noxious beast shall I call
her?" (Tc XAOUSA $</<s0t\is $U«o$ Tujoij^ Hi) ;, 1232-33 ). Kass-
andra suggests a list o f p o w e r f u l and u n n a t u r a l f e m a l e monsters-
an amphisbaena, a Skylla who d e s t r o y s s a i l o r s , a raging mother
from H e l l (hellish - /\tzou , 1235) who " b r e a t h e s war w i t h o u t truce
against her nearest k i n " (1235-1236). That Klytemnestra isa
f e m a l e makes h e r c r i m e p a r t i c u l a r l y h o r r i b l e and makes Klytemnes-
tra herself u n n a t u r a l , a monster; f o r a woman t o k i l l a man o v e r -
sets the natural order.
Klytemnestra cried out i n triumph (ZvukaXuûn-o , 1236) at
the beacon "as i f a t t h e t u r n of b a t t l e " (1237), Kassandra con-
tinues. A woman's b\o\uôs of course should n o t be h e a r d at a
battle; a desire for battle i s not s u i t a b l e f o r women, as Agamem-
non has s a i d (940). She i s " teJroTo\f*.os " (1237 ), like her hus-
band; a n d s h e was o n l y pretending to r e j o i c e a t her husband's
homecoming. (12 38)
The chorus have u n d e r s t o o d nothing a f t e r Kassandra's men-
tion of the feast of Thyestes (1242-1245). Even after under-

79
standing that Agamemnon may be murdered, they ask what man (yi'Jos
Iff/os %J5f>e>s , I 2 5 1 ) w i l l commit t h e c r i m e . The v i s i o n s seize Kass-
andra again (1256 f f . ) and s h e s e e s Klytemnestra as a "§tfws
\ietiJ<* ", t h u s linking her u n m i s t a k a b l y to the l i o n c u b metaphor.
This lioness lies with the wolf (^KaLjucjjuiJrj \u\tco ,1258-1259-

that i s , Aegisthus) i n the well-born l i o n ' s absence, which sounds
not o n l y a d u l t e r o u s but d e v i a n t . She i s p l a n n i n g to k i l l Kass-
andra as w e l l ( 1260 ) and w i l l boast as she "whets t h e sword
against t h e man" (1262) that she "exacts a penalty of death"
(U\)"ri~'r$(6f6&<ii 06i/oi) , 1263) because Kassandra was b r o u g h t there
(1262-1263). The m e a n i n g of these lines i s ambiguous: either
Klytemnestra, while herself committing adultery, will use her
husband's infidelity a s an e x c u s e f o r h i s murder- or, alterna-
tively, she w i l l use Kassandra's presence as a reason to kill
Kassandra herself. The f o r m e r seems t h e o b v i o u s interpretation at
this point i n the play, but the l a t t e r i s what will actually
happen l a t e r on. Both a r e i m p l i e d here.
After prophesying t h e vengeance t o come i n t h e next play
(1279-91), K a s s a n d r a enters t h e house t o f a c e her death, which
she first (1277-1278) d e s c r i b e s a s a s a c r i f i c e , but l a t e r (1309)

s e e s as murder.
To t h e knowledge already given of Klytemnestra h a s been
added now the c e r t a i n t y that she has a l o v e r , Thyestes' s o n , and
that s h e means to k i l l her husband, by d e c e i t , in a bathtub.
Erotic overtones have e n t e r e d t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of Klytemnestra f o r
the f i r s t time i n Kassandra's words; but they a r e d e v i a n t o r e v e n

80
bestial. She has been connected with t h e image of the d e s t r u c -
tive net over Troy and w i t h the l i o n c u b , priest o f 'A tij . She i s
all-daring, a s Agamemnon was at A u l i s . We knew that s h e was
unnaturally i n t e l l i g e n t and p o w e r f u l , f o r a woman. Through Kass-
andra's eyes we s e e h e r a s s i m p l y u n n a t u r a l : e v i l , monstrous and
perverted. The coming murders have been d e s c r i b e d i n s a c r i f i c i a l
terms, though Kassandra i n t h e end r e j e c t s this image; and t h e r e
has been a disturbing vision of a choir o f E r i n y e s who w i l l n o t
leave the house.
Agamemnon i s s t a b b e d inside t h e house, c r i e s o u t t w i c e and
is silent. (1343-1345). The c h o r u s mill about, trying to decide
what t o do. They seem t o assume that Klytemnestra had accom-
plices, a s i s shown by t h e p l u r a l verb forms a t 1354-1355 a n d
1362-1363 ( i f these a r e not simply g e n e r a l i z i n g plurals); perhaps
Aegisthus' role, i f any, i s h i n t e d here. They e x p e c t tyranny to
follow t h e a c t ( 1355-1365). In t h e end, t h e y decide t o do no-
thing u n t i l t h e y know more.
Klytemnestra now appears - probably on the ekkyklema-
standing over t h e b o d i e s o f Agamemnon and K a s s a n d r a .
This scene and t h e next have p r o v o k e d a good d e a l o f a r g u -
ment over t h e "change" i n Klytemnestra's character. The kommos
between Klytemnestra and t h e c h o r u s i s opened by Klytemnestra
with a speech i n which she c l a i m s full, final and a b s o l u t e r e -
sponsibility f o r Agamemnon's death; only 100 l i n e s later, she
blames t h e murder on t h e k\ScTu>p, the avenging spirit. By t h e

81
end of the scene, she is willing to compromise with the daemon-
Klytemnestra, who has never compromised before. This change
surely argues, at the least, a change of attitude. Gilbert
Murray goes the whole way, arguing that until about half-way
through the kommos Klytemnestra i s genuinely possessed by the
daemon; a f t e r the murder, the daemon r e l e a s e s the body to i t s
original i n h a b i t a n t , who is left to cope as best she may. 41
Other i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s have r e l i e d on " i n c o n s i s t e n c y of character"
(Dawe, 1963: 51) - the theory that one should not expect Klytem-
nestra to act like "the same person", because Aeschylus did not
write the scene, or the p l a y , with her character as h i s primary
concern. Therefore, as t h i s theory e x p l a i n s , we are mistaken i n
expecting a consistency of character in this scene, or anywhere
i n the p l a y , as i t would never have crossed the p l a y w r i g h t ' s mind
that such a q u a l i t y was necessary to the drama. This theory,
however, i s unconvincing when one considers the obvious consis-
tency of K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s c h a r a c t e r i n a l l the rest of the play-
if consistency of character d i d not concern Aeschylus at any
time, i t i s hard to imagine why her character should only become
" i n c o n s i s t e n t " here, a f t e r 1300 lines.
Those i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s which do allow Klytemnestra's char-
a c t e r to r e t a i n i t s i n t e g r i t y e x p l a i n her change i n v a r i o u s ways.
Podlecki (1983: 33), for instance, e x p l a i n s that she is seeking
refuge from her g u i l t i n u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c submissiveness (in this
play and the next), hoping thus to appease the w o r l d . He adds
that this could e a s i l y be an elaborate charade on the part of a

82
notoriously deceitful woman. I agree that she i s r e a c t i n g to
"guilt", i f this means " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a crime and realiza-
tion that i t may have consequences" and n o t ( f o l l o w i n g t h e mod-
ern usage) "a f e e l i n g that she had done s o m e t h i n g wrong". Kly-
temnestra never shows any r e m o r s e over Agamemnon's d e a t h , only
unhappiness a t i t s consequences. But i n t h e Agamemnon, a t l e a s t ,
there i s n o t so much "feminine submissiveness" as a d a p t a t i o n t o
new circumstances. The r e a l change i s i n the f a c t that, before
the murder, Klytemnestra has never seemed to adapt; she has a p -
parently controlled a l l circumstances herself and f o r c e d others-
with one e x c e p t i o n - t o a d a p t to her. In f a c t , as w i l l appear,
she d i d not e n t i r e l y control her world; the f o r c e s which combined
to produce the death o f Agamemnon c o i n c i d e n t a l l y agreed with her
own wishes, and thus seemed t o be u n d e r her c o n t r o l . She i s ,
before t h e murder, perfectly adapted to a world i n which a l l
events fall o u t as she has p l a n n e d them, and w h i c h thus appears
to be c o m p l e t e l y i n h e r power. After t h e murder she must adapt
t o a w o r l d w h i c h i s r e v e a l e d t o be o n l y p a r t i a l l y amenable t o h e r
will.
Michelini e x p l a i n s t h e "change" i n Klytemnestra's charac-
ter as born o f h e r new s o c i a l circumstances: she i s now n o t t h e
rebel, b u t t h e m a i n t a i n e r o f a new status quo; h e r a c t i v e role i n
the cycle h a s gone by and i t w i l l next be h e r t u r n to suffer
(1979: 55). Betensky (1978: 12) e x p l a i n s t h e change a s one n o t
so much i n Klytemnestra a s i n t h e way she i s viewed by those
around her. This last interpretation e x p l a i n s a good d e a l o f t h e

83
progression of the t r i l o g y , but i s not as useful i n the first
play, when a change i n t h e way Klytemnestra handles the w o r l d i s
evident as w e l l as i n t h e way i t sees h e r .
More t h a n a n y t h i n g , K l y t e m n e s t r a seems t o me to act l i k e a
person who has not t h o u g h t past a c e r t a i n point, or whose expect-
ations past that point have not been fulfilled. A l l events and
e l e m e n t s o f her w o r l d have u n i t e d , a p p a r e n t l y (to the reader and
to Klytemnestra) under her c o n t r o l , i n order to bring about the
death o f her husband. After that event she (unlike Aegisthus)
had no c l e a r p l a n s , no g r e a t g o a l towards w h i c h t o s t e e r events.
Her immense t a l e n t s f o r m a n i p u l a t i n g p e o p l e and t h i n g s a r e no use
when she has no reason to manipulate them. Moreover, the world
after t h e murder i s not what she expected, i n as much as she
expected anything - she hoped, as she says herself, that the
murder o f Agamemnon w o u l d end the bloodshed i n the house. The
chorus convince her t h a t this will not n e c e s s a r i l y be t h e result
of her crime; that t h e r e may be c o n s e q u e n c e s she d i d not desire
or foresee: that her control, in fact, may have been illusory.
Her goal i s gone and the world she c o n t r o l l e d t u r n s o u t , i n one
respect, t o have been u n c o n t r o l l a b l e , at least by h e r . I t i s no
wonder that adapting to these facts causes her to act a little
differently.
Klytemnestra s 1
" c h a r a c t e r change", whatever i t s c a u s e and
nature, has i n any case been exaggerated by some commentators.
For i n s t a n c e , i t i s true that a t 1372-1398 she claims responsi-
bility f o r Agamemnon's d e a t h and a t 1496-1504 says that i t was

84
entirely the jWrw^'s crime; b u t by 1552-1553 she once again
claims at least partial responsibility, this time using a (per-
haps poetic) plural: "By o u r (hands) he f e l l , he d i e d ; a n d we
will bury him." {Ifpbs fj/<wi) niir*£6( urr9*k uil KinWlpo^tJ
1552-1553). It i s fair, then, to treat h e r a s t h e same character
we met b e f o r e t h e murder and t o i n t e r p r e t accordingly.
Most o f the important issues and images brought out ear-
lier i n the play come together i n t h e kommos, centering around
Klytemnestra . In d i s c u s s i n g the death with the chorus, Klytem-
nestra slowly realizes that there were m o t i v e s and f o r c e s , inde-
pendent o f h e r , which also l e d to the death of her h u s b a n d . 4 2
T h i s d i s c u s s i o n makes h e r w i l l i n g t o compromise a t t h e end o f t h e

43
scene. 0
Klytemnestra begins by a d m i t t i n g that she has s a i d much
"as suited t h e moment" (K<xcpiuiS , 1372) i n t h e p a s t ; she i s not
ashamed now t o do t h e o p p o s i t e - that i s , to t e l l the t r u t h . How
else could one p l a n n i n g hostilities towards "enemies who seem t o
be fi\o$ " ( f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s , 1374) hope t o " f e n c e the nets of
harm" (•nrôjjs <kp«J& r*'r ^

i 7
ybJtp$u£i) ) higher than c a n be leapt
over? (1374-1375) The p h r a s e "an enemy who seemed friendly"
would u n t i l now have been t h o u g h t to describe Klytemnestra's role
towards Agamemnon; Klytemnestra reverses i t . This reversal,
showing the e q u a l i t y of t h e i r separate crimes, echoes the r e c i p -
rocal-action motif which has been brought up i n s e v e r a l places
earlier i n the play and which i s emphasized f r e q u e n t l y by K l y t e m -
nestra in this scene; she i s t r y i n g t o show that her a c t only

85
reciprocated his. The inescapable net of d e s t r u c t i o n which she
speaks of was once draped over Troy by Zeus, and became Klytem-
nestra herself i n Kassandra's vision; now Klytemnestra speaks of
it as a t r a p w h i c h she constructed: she sees the net as being in
her power.
She has thought of this struggle for a long time, she
continues (1377-1378); i t finally ("with time" {GCA) ypoJw , 1378)
- reminiscent of the E r i n y e s , who act late and ypojw , 463) ar-
rived. She is insistent on her personal responsibility:
I s t a n d where I s t r u c k , upon t h e c o m p l e t e d d e e d s .
Thus I d i d , and I w i l l not deny t h e s e t h i n g s .
(1379-1380)
She used deceit to kill him. The figurative inescapable
net has suddenly become real, f o r she threw an endless net, like
a fishnet, around him, "7r\oQ-rJ d^tJ-ros u-i«o\) " ( 1383 ) . This
phrase vividly recalls the tapestries, w h i c h were c a l l e d " fyt-i^ "
(921) and w h i c h were an "evil wealth", as the c h o r a l odes before
and after that scene implied. She struck twice - we heard him
cry out at these blows (1343, 1345) - and after he " l e t his limbs
relax" ( i . e . after his death - 1385) she struck a third time.
She has switched to present tense now (1386) to bring the scene
she d e s c r i b e s more v i v i d l y t o her hearers. The third stroke was
added as an offering to "Zeus Saviour" (Ato's . . . cajr^joos , 1387)-
but the "below-ground" (JW-TJ oeeodos ) Zeus, S a v i o u r "of the dead"
(Jmpwd ). This act is quite possible sacrilegious. Zeitlin
(1965: 473) points out that one ordinarily poured three liba-
87
corpse (1395), her deeds would be j u s t , i n fact, "ufrffSt-'ws 11
(1396); Agamemnon filled a bowl of e v i l s i n t h e house w h i c h he
himself drank down on h i s r e t u r n . (1396-97).
The bowl from which Klytemnestra would be f i t t i n g l y pour-
ing libations i s presumably t h e one Agamemnon filled and drank;
her libations would then be "KJHUI) tyuiu>\) " (1396-1397). This
image thus continues the p e r v e r s i o n of s a c r i f i c i a l imagery; one
does n o t p r o p e r l y pour out curses as l i b a t i o n s t o a god. Her
description o f h e r deeds a s "viftpSiuojs " i s perfectly a c c u r a t e ^ and
damning. Justice, t h e theme o f t h e p l a y , i s a m a t t e r of balance;
one cannot be "more t h a n just" without becoming u n j u s t .
In these 26 l i n e s K l y t e m n e s t r a has a s s e r t e d responsibility
for t h e murder t e n times, i n t h e most forceful language possible.
The chorus 1
first reaction i s i n fact t o her language:
they are surprised a t her boldness o f speech (Qp*i6udrof4.os , 1399)
and that she boasts i n this way over h e r man (kfopc , 1400).
Their surprise i s n o t a t what she has done, b u t a t h e r v i o l a t i o n
of the feminine role t o do i t - n o t "How could you k i l l our
king!" b u t "How could a p r o p e r l y - b r e d woman use such immodest
language!" Their use o f "kJfyc " emphasizes this implication by
giving Agamemnon a s e x u a l r o l e (opposed to Klytemnestra's) .
Klytemnestra shows t h e same reaction s h e h a s had i n t h e
past when slighted and d i s m i s s e d on s e x u a l grounds; h e r answer
shows a touch of offended pride. "You t r y me a s i f I were a
foolish woman" (yvJjtKos u>s 'o(Â6juo\)oi ,1401) she says; but i t

88
doesn't matter, h e r deed still stands. Agamemnon, her husband
(tOSi$ , 1405, g i v i n g only h i s s o c i a l role) lies dead, t h e work o f
her hand, a j u s t craftsman (Stuiu* 'rkwroOos , 1406). This phrase
recalls the " c r a f t e r ( ^ S V Y O J U , 151) o f f e u d s that does n o t f e a r a
man, ... c h i l d - a v e n g i n g ftÔu " (151-155), with which the reader
has always suspect that Klytemnestra was i d e n t i f i e d . That ident-
ification i s now v e r i f i e d : Klytemnestra and t h e Calchas
s p o k e o f a r e one. The p h r a s e also shows t h a t Klytemnestra ident-
ifies her a c t and h e r s e l f with justice and wants i t t o be s e e n
that way, u n b i a s e d by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f t h e s e x e s of the k i l l e r
and victim.
The chorus ask "w " (1407) what she has eaten which
made her take on t h i s "sacrifice" (Quo$ , 1 4 0 8 ) , "casting o f f "
(!/ir{$LK€2 , 1410) - i . e . , n o t c o n c e r n e d with - the curses of the
people (1407-1410). Their implication i s that as she i s female,
her a c t cannot have been the product of a r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n ; she
must have s i m p l y gone mad. They warn h e r t h a t she w i l l be e x i l e d
from the c i t y ('jirono\t$ , 1410).
Klytemnestra p o i n t s o u t (1412-1421) t h a t they sentence her
to exile and h a t r e d of the people, b u t d i d n o t do t h e same when
Agamemnon sacrificed h i s own d a u g h t e r - her "dearest birthpang"
(1418) - l i k e a beast (1415). Why d i d t h e y not banish him? The
crimes were e q u a l , i n short, a s a c r i f i c e for a sacrifice; why do
they judge her alone so h a r s h l y ? But i f t h e y threaten her, she
continues (1421-1425), i t i s on t h e f o l l o w i n g equal terms (PA -y&O
CfioLuiO , 1 4 2 3 ) : i f t h e y win ( t h e a r g u m e n t ) , they w i l l rule; i f the

89
god grants the opposite, then "having been taught, you will
learn, though late, t o be w i s e (To sojfooJtiJ, 1425)". The strict
reciprocity and e q u a l i t y o f judgement Klytemnestra desires i s
stressed in this speech and once again, s h e seems to desire
strife and v i c t o r y , a s she d i d i n t h e t a p e s t r y s c e n e a n d a s women
should not do. 1425 i s r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e Zeus hymn, where
wisdom comes even to the u n w i l l i n g , through suffering. She i s
then promising them s u f f e r i n g here.
The chorus respond (1426-1430) by r e i t e r a t i n g their belief
that she i s insane: she i s o v e r w e e n i n g l y proud (jUfyi\o^^Te5 ,
1426), they s a y , and h e r words h a u g h t y because her i s mad-
dened with the b l o o d - d r i p p i n g crime (foJoXySft y^y* , 1 4 2 7 ) . How-
ever, they accept the idea of a c t i o n paying for action and p r o -
mise that i n requital ('JJî-raJ , 1429) f o r h e r c r i m e she w i l l y e t
pay blow f o r blow, b e r e f t of friends.
Klytemnestra responds t o the suggestion that she w i l l be
6 rtp>of4.fJjd
/
<fii\u\) (1429) by e n u m e r a t i n g h e r s u p e r n a t u r a l and human
allies (1431-1437). She has n o t i n v o k e d an O l y m p i a n i n the p l a y ,
except Zeus Tt\<uo<i a t t h e end o f t h e t a p e s t r y s c e n e (973-974)
("Zeus of the underworld" i s h a r d l y Olympian); now she mentions
Dike TiXetoi) (1432), who i s a s s o c i a t e d with Zeus -i\s.1os , but i s
female. Klytemnestra swears "by J u s t i c e accomplished f o r my
child, by 'hrn and E r i n y s , t o whom I s l e w this man" (1432-1433).
These a r e a l l female deities and have a l l been important i n the
play; Dike, f o r d i s h o n o u r i n g whom t h e E r i n y e s w i l l d e s t r o y a man;
Erinys, who brings punishment f o r crimes, though late;^?^,

90
"Doom" and " F o l l y " b o t h , mother o f t h e P e r s u a s i o n that b l i n d s men
and induces them t o commit acts leading to 'J/Trj (doom).
Klytemnestra thus claims t o be p r i e s t e s s / sacrificer to three of
t h e most powerful forces i n the play. As t h e l i o n c u b grew up t o
sacrifice to ATIJ , this image l i n k s Klytemnestra t h e more strongly
to that metaphor. She c o n t i n u e s and swears "(By these three
goddesses), E x p e c t a t i o n does not s e t foot i n t h e house o f Fear
for me, a s l o n g a s A e g i s t h u s lights the f i r e on my h e a r t h " (1434-
1436), A e g i s t h u s who i s l o y a l as he was b e f o r e and a s h i e l d f o r
her confidence (1436-1437). The f i r s t time Aegisthus i s named,
then, i s by K l y t e m n e s t r a herself; she speaks o f him a s a n ally,
in a military metaphor (%ircs , 1437) and a s a key member of her
household as w e l l , i n an image she f o r m e r l y used o f Agamemnon
(601-602) and w h i c h s u r e l y has e r o t i c connotations. His role i n
her life has been t h e same f o r some time (1436); that i s , their
affair i s a l o n g - s t a n d i n g arrangement, something else which has
only been hinted at before. So, w h i l e Klytemnestra still claims
personal responsibility f o r the a c t , her mention of the three
powers f o r whom s h e s a c r i f i c e d and t h e one on whom s h e r e l i e s f o r
human a i d brings other elements involved i n t h e murder under
consideration f o r the f i r s t time i n the kommos.
Having admitted h e r own i n f i d e l i t y , t h e weak p o i n t o f her
position, she f e e l s compelled to j u s t i f y i t and uses t h e same
method o f r e c i p r o c i t y of action. She t h e r e f o r e s p e a k s o f Agamem-
non's adultery (1438-1443). She has k i l l e d the " d a r l i n g of a l l
the golden girls (Chryseises) at Ilium" (Xpunr^cSc^J <-Y/*-ot >

91
1439) and lover of this "captive, s e e r and bedfellow" (^y/^Xw -

704 .. . WW . . . Hoc\/6\wrpos , 1440-1441 - Kassandra) as
well, the "prophesying bedfellow of this man, trusty consort,
wearer-down of the sailor's benches" (1441-1443). The pair has
not suffered unjustly, she adds: he i s dead, and Kassandra, the
lover of him, lies here also, bringing "an added relish to the
p l e a s u r e s o f my bed (? t e x t uncertain)" (1445).
There i s more anger and bitterness i n her words h e r e than
can be explained without assuming j e a l o u s y on Klytemnestra' s
part. J e a l o u s y need not be based on any sort of a f f e c t i o n , how-
ever and certainly i t i s not here. I t i s not surprising that a
woman who has so f a r shown a desire - and an apparent ability-
to control almost a l l elements of her world would now show evi-
dence of violent possessive feelings towards her husband - that
is, of desire to c o n t r o l , or t o have c o n t r o l l e d , a l l his actions
as well. Such a desire can c e n t r e on hated o b j e c t s as well as
loved ones. 4 4
However, i f Agamemnon's d e a t h repays I p h i g e n i a ' s and his
infidelity balances K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s, then what will repay the
death of Kassandra? Aegisthus 1

death? Klytemnestra s 1
own? By
Klytemnestra' s own rules, i f one infidelity i s punished, the
other must be also; as, in fact, i t will be later on. In fact,
Kassandra has not suffered justly; even Klytemnestra tacitly
admits this by giving such a frivolous reason for killing her
(because i t gave her additional pleasure). This, like her ex-

92
cessive language earlier, shows that Klytemnestra s 1

action was in
fact u^Y'S - 5
The chorus are now brought, perhaps by the thought of
adultery, to think of Helen. Helen and Klytemnestra, always
parallel, are finally linked as closely together in this passage
as the Atreidae were at the beginning of the play. The chorus
mourn their king, who has "suffered many things on account of a
woman/ a n d b y a woman l o s t his life" (yuJuwb* / tiôs yuJjtx -
os , 1 4 5 2 - 1 4 5 3 ) . The chorus' tendency to speak of women a s opposed
to men, rather than naming specific individuals, has been consis-
tent throughout the play, particularly when they speak of Helen.
In the chorus' eyes, - that i s , in the eyes of the male Argive
citizenry whom they represent - a woman's sex, and transgression
of her sexual role, i s more important than her personal charac-
teristics. To the chorus, an act cannot be d i s c u s s e d or judged
in isolation; they must consider also (or even primarily) whether
this act was committed by a woman, a n d i f so, whether i t suits a
woman's p r o p e r role. So, they first establish Helen's sex; they
then address her specifically. They call her insane (irifuJoos ,
1455) and sole destroyer of the many lives at Troy, she who has
now added Agamemnon's blood as a final garland for herself.
(k-HrjOeUu AL^.' , 1 4 6 0 , following Fraenkel' s text (1950: n. ad loc.)
(1455-1461). There was certainly an Eris, woe of males [Uttfor
otyvs , 1461) i n the house, they continue. The Eris (Strife) they
mean is Helen, but Klytemnestra, still standing over her hus-
band's corpse, is the woe to men who comes immediately to mind.

93
The "garland of blood" (1459-1460) - l a s t i n the series of fatal
flowers i n t h i s p l a y - i s another perverted f e r t i l i t y image w h i c h
for that reason reminds one of Klytemnestra while ostensibly
referring to Helen. The final link between the sisters, of
course, i s that t h e y a t t r i b u t e Agamemnon's d e a t h to Helen.
Klytemnestra (1462-1467) does not deny Helen's role in
Agamemnon's murder. This non-denial i s the s i g n of the turning-
point i n her attitude towards her crime; she has not given an
inch until now. She objects, instead, to t h e i r calling Helen a
"man-destroyer" (^J^/W'-Tf <yo' , 1465) and saying that she alone
destroyed ... ohf6££ , 1465-1466) the lives of many Greek
men. She implies i n these l i n e s t h a t Agamemnon and Menelaus were
also guilty (as the chorus itself said i n the first stasimon).
The chorus agree that Helen was not s o l e l y responsible, but gives
her a different assistant; they begin to s i n g (1468-1473) o f the
"SdtyuwJ" who falls on t h e house and on the d o u b l e - n a t u r e d Tantalid
women;" you (i^^tc^t) ) w i e l d a l i k e - m i n d e d power from women ... he
( t h e daemon) e x u l t s , singing a t u n e l e s s song (WO^JS . . . bû) ,
1473-1474), s e t t l e d on the body l i k e a crow The "tuneless
song" reminds one of the "lyreless dirge" of the Erinyes (990-
991); daemon and E r i n y e s are thus associated. "Double-natured"
($LJ>UIOC6L , 1469 ) means either "of different natures" or "each
one of a double nature" ( i . e . two-faced). Given what we have
already heard of the two sisters - the daemon w i e l d s a "like-
souled" power from the women; t h e y are both a bane (o*i-\vi , 1461)
to t h e i r men; t h e y a r e b o t h a d u l t e r o u s and destructive; in short,

94
t h e y a r e shown as v e r y much a l i k e - t h e s e c o n d meaning seems more
applicable. The n a t u r e s o f t h e two s i s t e r s a r e not d i f f e r e n t .
This daemon has now s e t t l e d on Agamemnon's body (1472-1473), thus
showing p l e a s u r e and p a r t - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e d e a t h . This
daemon, finally, fell first on the (Atreid) house, then on t h e
women ($cyu*i6c K J I ... T^û\c^csc , 1467-1468). Kassandra has
already shown t h a t the d i s a s t e r s o f t h e house a n t e d a t e Klytemnes-
tra, which indicates that Klytemnestra's association with the
house, with which s h e so s t r o n g l y identifies herself, in fact
came after t h e daemon settled in i t . Klytemnestra's link with
t h e house i s then n o t as a b s o l u t e a s she has t h o u g h t ; t h e daemon
infested i t earlier and f a r from relinquishing control of i t to
h e r , has - i n t h e c h o r u s ' eyes at least - f a l l e n on h e r a s w e l l .
Klytemnestra has a l r e a d y admitted the a u t h o r i t y of some
supernatural powers. She i s happy to accept t h e daemo, now
(1475) a s a f o r c e i n the crime ( i ti s preferable to implicating
her sister, at least - 1475). They are right t o speak of the
thrice-gorged ( Ypcîû\J ro J , 1476) daemon, she s a y s ,

/ A
f o r he nour-
ishes (i" 'you . . . fpiftwc , 1478-1479) t h e c r a v i n g (fytos , 1478)
for b l o o d , new i c h o r (pus - cjuf* , 1479) b e f o r e t h e o l d h a s c e a s e d
(1479-1480). That is: one crime follows another before the
wounds of t h e o l d one a r e f o r g o t t e n ; and w h i l e the a c t i o n is
still the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the doer, the d e s i r e t o a c t i s promp-
ted by t h e daemon. Klytemnestra's description o f him a s " t h r i c e -
gorged" shows t h a t she i s now w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t the idea that her
action was p a r t of a s e r i e s of actions, not n e c e s s a r i l y beginning

95
with Iphigenia. T h e " t h r e e " t h e daemon h a s f e d o n c o u l d by I p h i -
genia, Agamemnon and Kassandra, butKassandra wasn't really of
the "race" {j£\)\)rjs , 1 4 7 7 ) ; keeping t o thefamily, thrice-gorged
must imply Agamemnon, Iphigenia andThyestes' children. Before,
she hasclaimed that Agamemnon's d e a t h was a s i m p l y blow-for-blow
payment for the death o f h e rdaughter, whose death h a d no his-
tory; s h e i s now b e g i n n i n g t o acknowledge that another context
for h e rcrime exists, one which d i dnot concern her d i r e c t l y and
which she d i dnot c o n t r o l .
The chorus lament the"great andharmfully wrathful (pyrir-
jisujjol, 1 4 8 2 ) d a e m o n " she p r a i s e s a n d move u n h a p p i l y ( luJ ly , 1485)
to considering Zeus " Ijâ^coo 'frAtJipyi-rJ. " (1486) - "what i s ac-
complished (or "ends" -1~z\tirJt ) f o r men w i t h o u t Zeus?" (1487)
Even this crime - a n d even t h e daemon - must be god-ordained
(O*ou\jo*i]'rod , 1488). They have come to this ultimate level of
causation before, i n t h eparodos, i na last-ditch attempt to
understand why e v e n t s fall out as they do; and s o here.
The causes o f Agamemnon's death have moved back from Kly-
temnestra, t o Helen, t o a daemon of the Tyndarids, t o a daemon o f
the (Atreid) house, t o Zeus. However, when they return (1489-
1496) t o lamenting their beloved king ("Oh k i n g , how s h a l l I weep
for you? From a loving mind what shall I say?" (1489-1491) they
return also t o the present and t o the d i r e c t cause o f h i s impious
death, the double-edged weapon wielded by a w i f e ' s hand (1495-
1496).
96
Klytemnestra, however, has l i s t e n e d t o and accepted the
past history and supernatural causes she and the chorus have
brought up between them. She a n s w e r s them with an a s s e r t i o n as
strong as that 100 l i n e s ago, but a p p a r e n t l y opposite i n meaning:
You a r e sure t h e deed i s mine and that . . . I am

Agamemnon's w i f e . But appearing i n the likeness
(faJ'rj.$o/<t\/os i 1500) o f t h e w i f e o f t h i s corpse,
t h e a n c i e n t b i t t e r s p i r i t (itXJ^^/> ) avenging Atreus
the c r u e l feaster, having sacrificed this f u l l -
g r o w n man, r e p a i d h i m ( a s p a y m e n t ) f o r t h e y o u n g
(i.e. Thyestes' children).
(1498-1504)
This i s the ultimate expression of supernatural causes
governing human actions; i t comes a t the end o f a series of such
expressions. It i s surprising because i t i s i n the f i r s t person
and because i t i s said by K l y t e m n e s t r a , who earlier claimed full
personal responsibility. But w i t h i n a theistic (or p o l y t h e i s t i c )
world-view, such as t h e one found i n this play, over-determina-
tion of actions (that i s , the coincidence of divine and human
forces i n t h e same a c t i o n ) i s perfectly plausible. It i s idle to
ask whether either force by itself would have been sufficient to
produce the action; as i t happens, both forces were present.
Klytemnestra expressed t h e human causation first, based on t h e
sacrifice of her daughter, without any supernatural element.
Taught by t h e c h o r u s , t o whom s h e i s w i l l i n g to listen after they
first threaten her with repayment f o r h e r own crime - something
her own code teaches her to fear - she r e a l i z e s that there were
other motives and forces contributing to the crime, which have
acted through her. Her l i n e s here express the s t r i c t l y daemonic

97
causation, based on the Thyestean feast. In fact, both motives
and forces exist now a n d d i d b e f o r e ; sheexpressed them separ-
ately because shed i d n o to r i g i n a l l y acknowledge (or perhaps
realize) the supernatural forces operating outside h e rc o n t r o l .
Now she does acknowledge these forces.
She thus acknowledges andf u l l y identifies herself and her
actions with t h e £)u'<?-r&^> / §Myf<ioJ / 'EptVo* //JyJts /'fy** which has been
connected with t h e house andthe family since lines 154-155. This
identification i s t h el o g i c a l conclusion o f the intermediate
stage she passed through, i n which she suggested that (while t h e
action was s t i l l hers) the desire t o commit the action came from
daemonic powers.
The chorus object to this conclusion (1505-1512). Who
could s a y s h e was e n t i r e l y guiltless? A n ataVruyj might have been
a tfc/Wjtr'ny), a s h a r e r i n t h e crime; but she s t i l l h a s some responsi-
bility. They return t o the present andagain lament their king
(1513-1520). Klytemnestra, also attending to the present (as
both sides do f o r t h e remainder o f t h e kommos) d e f e n d s herself
once again by p o i n t i n g out her immediate justification, that t h e
king killed Iphigenia andhass u f f e r e d worthily f o r what he did-
" OiJlru> ttUjs fatf> ... zpffj " ( 1 5 2 9 ) .

l
The chorus fear the destruction o f t h e house by a "house-
ruining bloody rain" (oju^joou uru-JToJ ZcyofpsXy ">-o) v/^<-?r^coV , 1532-
1533) crashing against i t ; the drizzle Klytemnestra spoke o f
(1390) i sceasing. Nature hasnot returned t o normal, then, as

98
Klytemnestra hoped i twould; her bloody dew may o n l y be a p r e l u d e
to a bloody storm. The chorus also fear that Justice - with whom
Klytemnestra used to identify herself - i s being "whetted on
"other whetstones" by fate (Hoijo*), f o r new harm (1535-1536).
Justice and nature have both passed out of Klytemnestra's
control. Perhaps they, like t h e daemon and perhaps Aegisthus,
were t h e co-workers the chorus and Kassandra spoke o f , and were
never under her control at a l l , despite appearances.
They wonder next (1541-1550) who will bury the king and
sing a dirge f o rhim? I t i s Klytemnestra s 1

duty, b u t how c a n s h e
when she k i l l e d him? Even i f she d i d bury h i m , how could she
speak a eulogy a n d mourn at h i s graveside sincerely {'j\r\$it*
, 1550)?
"That i s no c o n c e r n of yours" (ol es ^po^rfufc r"a yut'X^'
k\{fiii\) -ruhro i 1551-1552), answers t h e Queen. She (or "they"-
plural, 1552) k i l l e d him and w i l l bury him (1552-1553); the
household will n o t mourn (1554), but h i s murdered daughter will
greet him "as i s proper" (OJS ^prj , 1556) a t t h e r i v e r o f woe ( t h e
Styx), with a kiss. This passage makes i tclear that Klytemnes-
tra may a c k n o w l e d g e now t h a t other forces and motives were opera-
ting, but i n her eyes, they i n n o way d i m i n i s h h e r own involve-
ment; she accepts responsibility f o rher a c t and she has not l o s t
her pride (or her v i v i d use o f language).
The chorus cannot answer t h e argument of the death of
Iphigenia. They admit that the case i s hard t o judge (1560).

99
They add that i t i s the will of Zeus that the doer shall suffer
(Titetii) ri\) epfevh-J. , 1564). They see ( t h e r e f o r e ) no end to the
sufferings of the house - Ku6\\q*AL

n
y40os npos %*r*i » (1566).
This pessimistic view of the house's condition and prob-
able future accords with Klytemnestra's original eye-for-an-eye
view of justice; she cannot disagree with i t . Her new knowledge
of the daemonic forces of the world prompt her to try to find
another solution, one very close to a compromise. She answers
the chorus "you enter into this oracle with truth" (1567 ) and
says that she is willing t o swear a compact (bpuovs &i^*(Jrj , 1570)
with the daemon, w h e r e b y i t ceases to torment the house of Pleis-
thenes and "wears out another family with kindred-murders" (1571-
1573); in return, she will give up a l l but a small part of her
possessions and be content, i f only the mutual bloodshed is taken
from the house (1574-1576).
This offer surprising from the woman who was earlier so
extravagant with tapestries and other resources (the sea, the
beacon-lights, etc.). The house "does not know how to be poor"
(962), she said once, in obvious pride; but this scene with the
chorus has had such an effect on her that she is willing to l e t
the house learn poverty, in order to escape worse dangers which
she did not before foresee. Klytemnestra' s TTZ.I&U> has worked on
the chorus in this scene: they no longer condemn her utterly to
exile and their final word is that i t is difficult to judge.
However, they have had an effect on her as well: she now recog-
nizes the forces which were beyond her control a l l the time and
100
which i n fact assisted (and p e r h a p s even influenced) h e r own
actions, when she thought herself and t h e w o r l d entirely, at only
her command. Because of these f o r c e s , she a l s o realizes, this
may n o t be t h e end; she may be t h e v i c t i m o f t h e daemon i n her
turn. She does n o t r e g r e t h e r c r i m e , but understands i t s context
and c o n s e q u e n c e s b e t t e r than she had b e f o r e .
The o p p o s i t i o n between male and f e m a l e (and t h e i r uses of
language), the l i n k between the Tyndarids, the r o l e s of the
chthonic, daemonic and O l y m p i a n powers, and t h e s a c r i f i c i a l and
natural imagery of the p l a y a l l combine and c u l m i n a t e in this
scene. A resolution of the v a r i o u s opposing elements appears to
be c l o s e a t hand; this kommos seems t o be t h e end o f t h e p l a y .
But there i s one l o o s e end, who s u d d e n l y enters at this juncture
(1577) w i t h a bodyguard.
Aegisthus' scene f u n c t i o n s p r i n c i p a l l y as a l e a d - i n to the
Choephoroe; without h i s entrance to destroy the rapprochement
developing between Klytemnestra and t h e c h o r u s , the r e s t of the
trilogy would be u n n e c e s s a r y . His existence (and t h u s adulterous
love as a m o t i v e f o r the death o f Agamemnon), i s very important
in t h e C h o e p h o r o e , and i t i s p r i n c i p a l l y for this reason that he
is introduced here. He a l s o makes v i s i b l e something about Kly-
temnestra which has o n l y been spoken of before: that she i s an
adulteress, that s h e does not l i v e alone; that perhaps she d i d
not a c t alone. The l a s t of the other forces operating i n the
play i s thus presented here.

101
Klytemnestra i s nearly e n t i r e l y silent i n this scene.
Aegisthus g i v e s h i s v e r s i o n of the death of Agamemnon a f t e r h i s
entrance. To him there was only one motive f o r i t - the f e a s t of
Thyestes, which was the r e s u l t of a d y n a s t i c s t r u g g l e (1585). He
does not mention the cause Kassandra does (1193 - Thyestes' a d u l -
t e r y with h i s b r o t h e r ' s w i f e ) , as i t weakens h i s case. Aegisthus
claims that a f t e r J u s t i c e l e d him home from e x i l e , he d e v i s e d the
whole plan f o r the murder (1609) and thus killed Agamemnon,
though he was absent a t the time. Aegisthus, then, also sees
h i m s e l f as an agent of Dike and sees Klytemnestra as o n l y a t o o l
in his plot.
The chorus' hostility, subdued by K l y t e m n e s t r a i n the
previous scene, i s fully reawakened by Aegisthus' speech. They
threaten him with stoning and curses (1616); Aegisthus responds
with t h r e a t s of p r i s o n and e n f o r c e d hunger (1620-1621). The
chorus call him "ÔJJI " (1625), who s t a y e d home from battle,
defiling the bed of t h i s man (^f>t , 1626) while p l a n n i n g this
fate f o r "a man, a g e n e r a l " (MSpS , s~rf>7n-nyZ» , 1627). They add
that he d i d n ' t have the courage to k i l l Agamemnon h i m s e l f (1635).
A e g i s t h u s , who shares the assumptions about women which the other
males i n the p l a y have shown, e x p l a i n s that "Y 0 %\U>SJ<. " (1636)
was c l e a r l y the woman's p a r t ; Agamemnon would have recognized h i s
old enemy. Where Klytemnestra was w i l l i n g to give away most of
the wealth, Aegisthus now announces h i s i n t e n t i o n of using Aga-
memnon's w e a l t h to rule the p e o p l e (1638-1640). The c h o r u s '
early f e a r s of t y r a n n i c a l intent on the part of the k i l l e r s a r e

102
partly justified, i t seems: A e g i s t h u s has such ambitions, a l -
though K l y t e m n e s t r a , who a c t u a l l y performed the murder, never
mentions a d e s i r e t o r u l e a t any t i m e . 4 5
The chorus repeat t h e i r accusation of cowardice i n allow-
ing a woman t o k i l l the king (1643-1646). They now p r a y f o r the
return of Orestes (1646-1648).
A e g i s t h u s responds t o t h i s t h r e a t by c a l l i n g up h i s guards
( 1650 ); t h e c h o r u s square o f ffora fight; and o n l y now does
K l y t e m n e s t r a speak, t o avert bloodshed. She a s k s t h e " d e a r e s t o f
men" (2 ^'^wr' XJSpZjJ , 1654) that t h e y work no f u r t h e r evils;
already t h e r e a r e enough. She w i s h e s t o avoid bloodshed (1656).
She a d v i s e s t h e chorus t o depart " b e f o r e d o i n g makes y o u s u f f e r "
(y*i) 1t&&Ui) fyfjJrrs , 1658); c e r t a i n l y she has taken t h a t l e s s o n
to heart. She s p e a k s of herself and A e g i s t h u s - and t h e c h o r u s
also, perhaps - as " u n f o r t u n a t e l y struck b y t h e daemon's hoof"
(1660) and f e a r s further sorrows. She e n d s h e r s h o r t speech
"Thus y o u have t h e speech o f a woman ( yuJituos ), i f any
think i t worth knowing" (1661).
The distaste f o r further bloodshed does n o t show a major
change i n c h a r a c t e r , a s some (eg.Michelini, 1 9 7 9 : 156) have
thought. I t was o n l y Agamemnon's b l o o d s h e w a n t e d a n d s h e t h o u g h t
the bloodshed would stop there. She w o u l d still prefer this to
be s o , b u t now t h a t she understands t h e daemonic a s p e c t of the
world, she i s a f r a i d that i t will n o t end h e r e , afraid that her
shedding of blood w i l l lead t o more - a s , o f c o u r s e , i t will.

103
She treats Aegisthus with r e s p e c t and a f f e c t i o n , as a w i f e would,
and does not challenge his misconceptions about her as she did
those of the chorus (for instance a t 277, 348 o r 1 4 0 1 ) . The
combination of conventional wifeliness and f e a r o f t h e daemon,
both changes, both appearing i n t h e same s p e e c h , might be signi-
ficant, indicating that she wishes t o appease t h e daemon by no
longer being " u n n a t u r a l " and b e g i n n i n g instead to lead an ordi-
nary feminine life. O r , i t may be t h a t towards Aegisthus, with
whom s h e l i v e s a s a w i f e , and a g a i n s t whom s h e has no g r u d g e , s h e
is prepared t o behave i n a " n o r m a l " w i f e l y manner.
Her last line (1661), however, which certainly sounds
submissive, i s so reminiscent of l i n e 348 ('"TocJun -T-oi ^ ^ o s
4j ût>2 «\ufi$ ") - w h i c h was mock-humble and, i n f a c t , an answer
to the chorus' p r e v i o u s d o u b t s about women - t h a t we s h o u l d pause
here. In f a c t , Aegisthus does listen t o t h e "\6yos ûO^côs » ;
imminent bloodshed i s a v e r t e d by h e r i n t e r v e n t i o n . Her powers o f
persuasion are s t i l l intact, whatever else may have changed. In
fact, the audience would wonder i f , even here, she has s i m p l y
manipulated both sides to avert t h e t h r e a t o f v i o l e n c e by a c t i n g
fearful and f e m i n i n e , a s she m a n i p u l a t e d Agamemnon i n t o treading
the tapestries; and h e r e , as i n the t a p e s t r y scene, succeeded in
her intent. The e x a c t proportions of truth and p e r s u a s i o n i n
this speech, as i n her other speeches, cannot be p r e c i s e l y deter-
mined. Her f e a r of the f u t u r e i s probably real, a s i t was d e v e l -
oped i n the previous scene. However, her use o f t h a t fear here
and h e r show o f a f f e c t i o n f o r Aegisthus, seem t o me t o be p r o o f

104
only that her a b i l i t y t o say the r i g h t thing a t the r i g h t time i s
undiminished.
Aegisthus grumbles and a few more i n s u l t s a r e t r a d e d ; but
Klytemnestra persuades h i m , i n t h e end, t o pay no a t t e n t i o n t o
the "vain yappings" ((/Aûrfei) , 1672) o f t h e c h o r u s . She s p e a k s
of t h e two o f them as e q u a l masters of the household ( s h e does
not, even now, speak of ruling the c i t y ) and ends t h e p l a y hope-
fully, "&rjfo/<fi) . ..Wt\Os " ( 1 6 7 3 ) . They then enter the house.
The last line o f t h e s c e n e and o f t h e p l a y i s hers, as t h e d o m i -
nant character; a n d even in this last scene, after a l l that has
happened, control of events has u l t i m a t e l y passed to Klytemnes-
tra .
The c e n t r a l question Aeschylus asks i n this play i s "Why
did Agamemnon d i e ? " The answer i s revealed t o be complex, to the
surprise o f some o f t h e c h a r a c t e r s and p a r t i c u l a r l y to Klytem-
nestra, who thought s h e was the answer. But t h e p l a y i s not
about her crime, b u t Agamemnon's d e a t h ; she was t h e p r o t a g o n i s t ,
not the purpose,.of t h e drama.
She i s by f a r t h e most vivid and i n t e r e s t i n g c h a r a c t e r i n
the play. This vividness i s the r e s u l t of s e v e r a l combined fac-
tors. In the a c t i o n of the play, she i s t h e major actor: she
seems t o h e r s e l f and t o t h e r e a d e r to c o n t r o l the e n t i r e world of
the play until t h e end o f t h e t a p e s t r y scene, and i s t h r o u g h o u t
the play t h e major human (and o n l y visible) force a f f e c t i n g the
action. The i s s u e s raised i n the play a l l involve h e r , as a

105
principal figure o r major anomaly: i n t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f male and
female, she i s more m a s c u l i n e - that i s , intelligent (possessing
), decisive, aggressive and p o w e r f u l - than any man she en-
counters; i n t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f o i k o s and s o c i e t y , she r e p r e s e n t s
the oikos even to the extent of k i l l i n g t h e head of the society
for undervaluing household bonds; i n the o p p o s i t i o n of t r u t h and
illusion, of v i s u a l and v e r b a l meaning (verbal skills being ap-
propriate to males), she has b o t h the a b i l i t y to manipulate vis-
ual symbols and t h e p e r s u a s i o n a t t e n d a n t on h e r f o r m i d a b l e verbal
skills - she i s b o t h more v i s u a l l y i m a g i n a t i v e and more verbally
eloquent than any o t h e r single character (except perhaps Kass-
andra, who lacks, however, t h e a b i l i t y to convince); she identi-
fies with Justice and i n f a c t a c t s as an a g e n t not o n l y of Jus-
tice, b u t a l s o o f E r i n y s and t h e daemon. The s u p e r n a t u r a l f o r c e s
which u n i t e t o k i l l Agamemnon u n i t e t h r o u g h her a c t .
The vivid imagery o f t h e p l a y l i k e w i s e comes to center i n
her, or i s used primarily by h e r from the beginning. She sees
the world i n terms o f f r u s t r a t e d or n e g a t e d fertility, as a frus-
trated mother h e r s e l f ; and n e g a t i v e fertility images, o r n e g a t i v e
natural images, p e r v a d e t h e p l a y . She i s t h e c h i e f sacrificer in
a play thick with sacrifices. She i s t h e l i o n who turns into a
priestess o f AT*} , t h e n e t w h i c h Zeus threw over Troy and which
she used to k i l l h e r husband. She a r r a n g e d the beacons and t h e
sacrificial fires, thus making even light the negative image i t
becomes i n t h e p l a y . She i s c l o s e l y linked to the other destruc-
tive f o r c e o f the p l a y , her s i s t e r Helen. Her u n n a t u r a l male/

106
female character is the concrete, human manifestation of the
unnatural world of the play. Every image and every theme in the
play, in short, at one time or another is reflected in Klytem-
nestra or seems to be i n her power. If the play were not as
vivid, complex, and interesting as i t i s , neither would Klytem-
nestra be.
But this interpretation treats Klytemnestra only as a
representative of " f o r c e s " and "images", a walking bundle of
themes and motivations, symbolizing everything, nothing in her-
self. Klytemnestra s 1
p e r s o n a l i t y - her unique p e r s o n a l character
- i s more than the sum of a l l of the forces and images in the
play. This p e r s o n a l i t y i s evident i n a l l her speeches and is
illuminated a l s o by the r e a c t i o n of the o t h e r characters to her.
In her own speeches she i s shown as proud, confident,
eloquent, persuasive, and gifted with a vivid imagination. She
dominates every s c e n e she i s i n except her contest with Kassandra
(even Klytemnestra could not compete s u c c e s s f u l l y with Apollo),
but whenever she confronts simple human forces she triumphs.
Even i n the last scene of the p l a y , i n which she hardly speaks at
all, she u l t i m a t e l y gets her own way. Whatever the chorus may
say, her power does not come s o l e l y from her position as Queen;
it springs from the ability to wield a u t h o r i t y which is evident
in everything she does. She shows a t least one strong emotion,
her hatred of her husband. She i s also capable of anger and
perhaps, i n the end, fear.

107
The other characters have different reactions to her,
depending on their positions and their knowledge; thus they show
different facets of her person to us. The watchman is afraid of
her and unhappy in her house. The chorus can be persuaded by
her, but remember their fear and distrust of her whenever she is
not on stage. Kassandra, whom K l y t e m n e s t r a will kill, hates her,
will not submit to her and sees her as a monster, a noxious freak
of nature. Agamemnon treats her like a foolish woman, which
error leads to his death. Aegisthus also underestimates her
intelligence, but seems willing to accept her lead. And though
the other characters are capable of displaying affection for each
other (as the watchman and the chorus do for Agamemnon, the cho-
rus does for Kassandra, Agamemnon for the chorus and Kassandra,
and Klytemnestra for Aegisthus), no character, not even Aegis-
thus, shows the slightest sign of personal liking or loyalty for
Klytemnestra.
Klytemnestra is the vehicle of Justice in this play and
the expression of many other facets of the Agamemnon. Her func-
tion as a vehicle of the themes of the play is an intrinsic part
of her role and, no reader can - or should - ignore it. But
within that context, the Klytemnestra who enthralls the chorus
with her descriptions of Troy, who is irritated when the chorus
underestimate her and enraged when Kassandra ignores her, who
kills her husband and rejoices outrageously in the deed - and
only later begins to consider what the consequences might be-

108
leaves most strongly, at the end of the play, the impression
an intense and vivid personality.

109
NOTES
^ h e r e h a s b e e n s o much a r g u m e n t o v e r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of
character i n Greek tragedy in recent years t h a t I had better
d i s c u s s i t b e f o r e I go f a r t h e r . By " p e r s o n " I do n o t o f course
m e a n " l i v i n g , b r e a t h i n g human b e i n g who has an e n t i r e l i f e , mere
g l i m p s e s o f w h i c h c a n be s e e n o n s t a g e a n d t h e r e s t o f w h i c h may
be reconstructed, or assumed t o e x i s t , e x a c t l y as t h e private
l i v e s o f t h o s e h u m a n s we m e e t e v e r y d a y c a n be a s s u m e d o r recon-
structed." Leaving aside the p o i n t t h a t , even with a human
being, attempts to r e c o n s t r u c t the p a r t s of a l i f e which are
u n k n o w n t o u s on t h e b a s i s o f t h o s e w h i c h a r e known a r e almost
always f u t i l e , I agree t h a t the t e x t of Greek t r a g e d y does not i n
f a c t s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e a d e r e v e r make s u c h a t t e m p t s . The reader
i s never l e d to b e l i e v e , f o r instance, that Aeschylus wanted the
a u d i e n c e t o i n v e n t an e r r a n d t o t a k e K l y t e m n e s t r a offstage every
t i m e she e x i t s , u n l e s s an o f f s t a g e a c t i v i t y i s a c t u a l l y m e n t i o n e d
by someone on s t a g e . A s G o u l d ( 1 9 7 8 : 44) p o i n t s o u t , when c o n -
s i d e r i n g a dramatic character, what t h e r e i s on s t a g e is not
m e r e l y a l l we c a n s e e ; i t i s a l l t h e r e i s . For t h a t reason, the
reader c a n n o t i n v e n t w h a t he h a s n o t b e e n t o l d ; t o d o s o i s n o t
to e x p l a i n the s t o r y a t hand, but t o t e l l a d i f f e r e n t one. At the
same t i m e , an a p p r o a c h w h i c h i n t e r p r e t s t h e l i n e s a t t r i b u t e d t o
Klytemnestra, or any other c h a r a c t e r , as o n l y l i n e s of poetry
s u i t a b l e t o t h a t s c e n e i n t h e p l a y , d e l i v e r e d b y one. c h a r a c t e r
r a t h e r than another a c c o r d i n g to p r i n c i p l e s of "dramatic effect-
i v e n e s s " , c o n v e n i e n c e , and o n l y t h e b r o a d e s t c r i t e r i a of suita-
b i l i t y t o t h e s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r ( i n whom o n e need see l i t t l e or
no c o n s i s t e n c y ) misses a g r e a t d e a l of the o b v i o u s consistency
and p e r s o n a l i t y which characters in Aeschylus - particularly
Klytemnestra - c e r t a i n l y do h a v e . P e r h a p s i t i s wrong t o t r y t o
deduce Klytemnestra's inner s o u l from the lines she speaks.
However, i t i s c e r t a i n l y wrong t o i g n o r e t h e c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h o s e
l i n e s a n d t h u s d e n y t h e p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r who s p e a k s them. Dawe
( 1 9 6 3 : 21) was right to question the premise t h a t c h a r a c t e r i -
zation in Aeschylus i s c o n s i s t e n t , as had h i t h e r t o simply been
assumed. However, h i s c o n c l u s i o n - t h a t i t i s not consistent-
is mistaken. F a r more of A e s c h y l u s can be e x p l a i n e d without
straining i f one assumes c o n s i s t e n c y of character than i f one
i g n o r e s a n d e x p l a i n s away t h e c o n s i s t e n c y w h i c h a c t u a l l y e x i s t s ,
a s Dawe was i n p l a c e s f o r c e d t o do. In s a y i n g t h a t Klytemnestra
i s a " p e r s o n " I s i m p l y mean, f i r s t , t h a t her c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n i n
t h e p l a y i s c o n s i s t e n t , and s e c o n d , t h a t many o f h e r l i n e s just
do n o t f i t an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of her character as n o t h i n g more
t h a n a v e h i c l e f o r a theme, a " d r a m a t i c e f f e c t " an i d e o l o g y or a
supernatural force. T h e e a s i e s t way to e x p l a i n these l i n e s i s to
accept them as e x p r e s s i o n s of a p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r beyond those
themes and c o n f l i c t s w h i c h she c e r t a i n l y a l s o r e p r e s e n t s .
t r a n s l a t i o n s a r e my own. The Greek text used, except

where noted, i s that of Denniston, Page (1957).
3
See Appendix A.
110
4
See Appendix B.
5
M i c h e l i n i ( 1 9 7 4 : 525 n.2) p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e c h o r u s '
a d d r e s s - a n d Agamemnon's l a t e r " d a u g h t e r o f L e d a " - s h o u l d be
t a k e n a s i n n o c e n t l y s a i d , f o r " w i t h two s u c h f a m i l y h i s t o r i e s ,
a l l u s i o n s t o a n c e s t r y c a n h a r d l y be w i t h o u t i r o n y , t o t h e a u d i -
ence a t l e a s t " . T h u s , t h e c h o r u s c a n be assumed t o have i n t e n d e d
no d o u b l e meaning, b u t t h e a u d i e n c e c a n be e x p e c t e d t o have u n -
d e r s t o o d one.
6
It h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d by D e n n i s t o n , Page ( 1 9 5 7 : n. a d
loc.) and t h e s c h o l i a s t on t h i s l i n e t h a t by " s o l e - g u a r d i n g b u l -
w a r k " t h e c h o r u s mean t h e m s e l v e s , n o t K l y t e m n e s t r a , on t h e
g r o u n d s t h a t t h e y f e a r and m i s t r u s t K l y t e m n e s t r a a n d w o u l d n e i -
t h e r r e f e r t o h e r a s a d e f e n c e nor hope t h a t a l l w o u l d h a p p e n a s
she d e s i r e s . T h i s i s r e a s o n a b l e , except t h a t i t i s a t y p i c a l
i n t r o d u c t o r y comment o n t h e e n t r a n c e o f a m a j o r c h a r a c t e r a n d
t h a t t h e f e a r s and d o u b t s o f t h e c h o r u s b e f o r e t h i s comment and
a f t e r i t a r e n o t n e a r l y s o s p e c i f i c a s t h i s : t h e y do n o t r e f e r
d i r e c t l y t o K l y t e m n e s t r a as t h e danger they f e a r e l s e w h e r e i n
t h i s p a s s a g e a n d i t w o u l d be o d d i f t h e y d i d s o h e r e a n d t h e n
f o r g o t i t i n f a v o u r o f d i s m i s s i n g her as a f a n c i f u l , gullible
woman l a t e r on ( e g . 4 8 2 f f . ) . I am i n c l i n e d t o t h i n k t h e r e f o r e
t h a t t h e y speak, w i t h f o r m a l r e s p e c t , of K l y t e m n e s t r a . Their
i m m e d i a t e a d d r e s s t o h e r , e s s e n t i a l l y as t h e s o l e k e e p e r o f t h e
t h r o n e i n t h e a b s e n c e o f i t s owner (who i s t h e p r o p e r "bulwark o f
t h e l a n d " ) would seem t o c o n f i r m t h i s r e a d i n g .
7
Por a f a s c i n a t i n g d i s c u s s i o n of the chorus' search f o r
truth t h r o u g h o u t t h e Agamemnon s e e G o l d h i l l (1984: c h . 1 ) .
8
In l i n e 1669 t h e c h o r u s , a n g r y a t A e g i s t h u s , t e l l h i m t o
"fatten himself" ( ) on ( p r e s u m a b l y v a i n ) h o p e s . I f the
i m p l i c a t i o n s o f nnM™ a r t h e same i n b o t h l i n e s , i t must i m p l y
e
h e r e t h a t she has been c o n v i n c e d by e v i d e n c e she s h o u l d n o t h a v e

trusted. T h e c h o i c e o f word may i n a d d i t i o n be d e l i b e r a t e l y
offensive.
9
I would t h e r e f o r e l i k e t o add my v o i c e t o t h e c h o r u s o f
d i s a g r e e m e n t a t Dawe's comment (1963: 50) t h a t K l y t e m n e s t r a i s i n
t h e b e a c o n s p e e c h " l i t t l e more t h a n a m o u t h p i e c e f o r A e s c h y l e a n
i a m b i c s " , t h r o u g h which A e s c h y l u s i n d u l g e s h i s p a s s i o n f o r geo-
g r a p h y . Were t h i s s o i t would h a r d l y f i t t h e p l a y and K l y t e m n e s -
tra, as w e l l as i t does. P e r h a p s , as he s a y s , t h e l i n e s do n o t
f i t a "wronged mother o r a f a i t h l e s s w i f e " ; b u t t h e y s u i t a pow-
e r f u l Queen.
1 0
" S e m i o t i c s i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h e v e r y t h i n g t h a t c a n be
t a k e n a s a s i g n ... Thus s e m i o t i c s i s i n p r i n c i p l e t h e d i s c i p l i n e
s t u d y i n g e v e r y t h i n g w h i c h c a n be u s e d i n o r d e r t o l i e . " (Eco,
1979: 7.)
Ill
n
T h i s shows up e s p e c i a l l y i n the image o f " d o u b l i n g the
post of a double course" («i/*^«t S<.*6\oo , 344) on t h e homeward
j o u r n e y , or "may the c a p t u r e r s not i n t u r n be c a p t u r e d ! " Goldhill
d i s c u s s e s t h i s a t g r e a t e r l e n g t h (1984: 4 2 ) .
12
S h e o m i t s t h e mourning^ o f p a r e n t s f o r c h i l d r e n , b u t t h a t
of c h i l d r e n f o r parents (ir*t$tf îpoOywO , 328) w o u l d p e r h a p s
s u g g e s t i t . (See G a n t z 1977: 31 n. 32.)
1 3
G o l d h i l l (1984: 44) t h i n k s t h a t o n l y c o r r u p t T>f<*" u s e s
f o r c e - eg. A e g i s t h u s and P a r i s . He a l s o s p e a k s o f f a l s e T I L » J ,
w h i c h K l y t e m n e s t r a uses, t o " f a l s i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between

s p e a k e r and l i s t e n e r " ; and i m p o t e n t nu*<J , l i k e K a s s a n d r a ' s . The
c h o r u s a t t h i s j u n c t u r e , however, c l e a r l y t h i n k o f a l l as
f o r c e f u l and b o r n o f e v i l .
1 4
J o n e s (1962: 84) p o i n t s t h i s o u t and adds t h a t t h e c o n -
n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two b r o t h e r s k e e p s t h e a c t i o n t o t h e one
oikos Aeschylus i s interested i n . Certainly i t simplifies the
matter. He i s c o r r e c t i n t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e h o u s e h o l d , n o t the
p o l i s , i s t h e f o c u s o f a t t e n t i o n i n t h i s p l a y and t h a t t h e c h a r -
a c t e r s a r e a l l shown i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e o i k o s and t h e i r
e f f e c t on i t . He i s wrong, however, i n t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e c h a r a c -
t e r s a r e o n l y u n i t s o f t h e o i k o s , w i t h no c o n c e p t o f i n d i v i d u a l
w i l l o r p e r s o n a l g u i l t (1962: 9 3 - 9 4 ) . Were t h a t s o , t h e l o n g and
e x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n s of p o s s i b l e motives f o r t h e i r a c t i o n s would
never a r i s e . G o l d h i l l (1984: 46) a l s o goes a l i t t l e t o o f a r i n
s a y i n g t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r s a r e not i n d i v i d u a l s , b u t p a r t s o f t h e
oikos. I f t h i s were t r u e we would be u n a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d them
and be u n i n t e r e s t e d i n them. F u r t h e r m o r e , i f t h e y had no w i l l s
o f t h e i r own, s u r e l y t h e y would a c t o n l y i n harmony w i t h t h e good
of the o i k o s . The bonds o f the o i k o s a r e c e r t a i n l y s t r o n g e r i n
t h i s p l a y t h a n t h e y a r e i n most N o r t h A m e r i c a n h o u s e h o l d s now,
b u t t h e y a r e not t h e o n l y f a c t o r w h i c h a f f e c t s the a c t i o n . It i s
t h e c o n f l i c t between t h e i n d i v i d u a l w i l l s o f t h e c h a r a c t e r s and
t h e good o f t h e o i k o s w h i c h p r o d u c e s t h e a c t i o n o f t h i s p l a y .
W i t h o u t i n d i v i d u a l w i l l s t h e r e would be no p l a y . In t h i s s t a s i -
mon, however, i t i s t r u e t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l c o n c e r n o f t h e c h o r u s
i s t h e o i k o s and t h a t t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n i n d i v i d u a l s i s l i m i t e d t o
t h e i r e f f e c t on t h e o i k o s .
G o l d h i l l (1984: 41) d e v e l o p e d t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t ' s

1 5
n o t e n t i r e l y c o n v i n c i n g , but has t h e m e r i t o f e x p l a i n i n g a l i n e
w h i c h has been w h o l l y i n e x p l i c a b l e by anyone e l s e .
16
4 8 9 - 5 0 0 a r e c e r t a i n l y spoken by the c h o r u s , d e s p i t e the
m a n u s c r i p t a t t r i b u t i o n of these l i n e s to K l y t e m n e s t r a . (See
A p p e n d i x B, ).
Peradotto
1 7
(1964: p a s s i m ) . I am i n d e b t e d to t h i s article
for nearly every comment I make on any n a t u r e imagery in the
play.
112
i a
These l i n e s a p p e a r t o r e f e r t o t h e c h o r u s ' comments a t
475 f f . , b u t s h e c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n on s t a g e t h e n (App. B,XXX
XXX) . One could e x p l a i n her words as r e f e r r i n g in fact to a
c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e c h o r u s ' q u e s t i o n s a t 268-280 and t h e i r disbe-
l i e f a t 317-319, p l u s t h e i r o b v i o u s misogyny, to which Klytemnes-
t r a has a p p l i e d her t a l e n t f o r e x t r a p o l a t i o n . This i s unsatis-
f a c t o r y , h o w e v e r ; "how l i k e a woman t o b e p e r s u a d e d a n d rejoice
a t a b e a c o n " i s t o o c l o s e t o t h e c h o r u s ' comments a t 479-482 f o r
h e r t o be r e f e r r i n g t o a n y t h i n g e l s e . To g r a n t h e r s e e r ' s p o w e r s
f o r s u c h a t r i v i a l m a t t e r now, when we h a v e d e n i e d t h e m f o r h e r
major speeches, i s absurd. Perhaps e x t r a p o l a t i o n i s the c o r r e c t
a n s w e r ; o r p e r h a p s t h e r u l e s a b o u t how much o f t h e p l a y o c c u r r i n g
o n s t a g e a n o f f s t a g e c h a r a c t e r was a l l o w e d t o "know" w e r e looser
f o r A e s c h y l u s t h a n N o e l C o w a r d ( w h i c h s t r i k e s me a s m o r e l i k e l y ) .
P e r h a p s s h e was just i n s i d e the door. I h a v e n o t -been a b l e to
think of a w a t e r t i g h t explanation f o r t h i s , but I t h i n k i t i s
i m p o s s i b l e , n e v e r t h e l e s s , f o r her t o have been o n s t a g e .
1 9
It i s not n e c e s s a r y to see "the language e s c a p i n g even
( K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s ) ... c o n t r o l " h e r e , a s G o l d h i l l (1984: 56-57)
does. Why s h o u l d s h e be u n c o n s c i o u s o f , o r n o t i n t e n d , t h e c o n -
notation has t h a t she i s u n f a i t h f u l ? Given the course of
t h e r e s t o f t h e p l a y , i t seems more l i k e l y t h a t , h e r e a s else-
w h e r e , she f u l l y i n t e n d s any d o u b l e m e a n i n g she u t t e r s and that
i t i s h e r i n t e r l o c u t o r s who m i s s t h e m .
2 0
O n e s h o u l d n o t c h o o s e one meaning o f " 1 1
over the
o t h e r a s t h e " c o r r e c t " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; i f a w o r d h a s two connota-
t i o n s ( o r m o r e ) , e a c h s h o u l d be remembered. This i s probably the
moment t o s a y t h a t I a g r e e w h o l e h e a r t e d l y w i t h Aya Betensky's
approach to Klytemnestra's speeches. As B e t e n s k y (1978: 13)
p o i n t s out, i t i s not s e n s i b l e to a c c e p t the m u l t i p l e meanings,
i n v o l v i n g p a s t , p r e s e n t and f u t u r e , o f t h e c h o r a l o d e s , as mean-
ingful, only to dismiss Klytemnestra's equally multi-levelled
s p e e c h e s as m e r e l y " h y p o c r i t i c a l " or "fulsome". Such descrip-
tions tells us l i t t l e about the s p e e c h e s and p r e j u d i c e one's
reading of Klytemnestra's character.
2 1
Goldhill (1984 : 57) t h i n k s t h e u s e o f " ^ V ^ v " (616)
r e f e r s t o t h e v i s u a l r a t h e r t h a n v e r b a l modes o f p r o o f and that
t h e c h o r u s u s e i t t o show t h a t K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s s p e e c h i s m i s l e a d -
i n g , as v i s u a l knowledge tends i n t h e i r o p i n i o n to be. This i s
s e n s i b l e e n o u g h , b u t t h e c h o r u s do n o t a t t a c h s o much importance
t o t h e i r s t a t e m e n t a s t o a l l o w u s t o make much o f i t o u r s e l v e s .
T h i s i s no m o r e t h a n a p a s s i n g r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i r d o u b t o f Kly-
temnestra .
2 2
0 n e c a n n o t be c e r t a i n t h a t , a s G o l d h i l l ( 1 9 8 4 : 68) sug-
g e s t s , t h e a u d i e n c e w o u l d h e r e remember O d y s s e u s ' r e p u t a t i o n as a
devious l i a r , or r e c a l l that i t was O d y s s e u s who suggested the
r u s e o f a m a r r i a g e t o A c h i l l e s t o draw I p h i g e n i a t o A u l i s . If
t h i s a s p e c t of Odysseus r e p u t a t i o n d i d come t o m i n d , Goldhill
b e l i e v e s t h a t i t would have t h e e f f e c t o f c a s t i n g d o u b t on Aga-
113
memnon's a b i l i t y t o j u d g e c h a r a c t e r - t h e o n l y man he c o n s i d e r s a
l o y a l f r i e n d i s t h e most d e c e p t i v e and t r e a c h e r o u s o f a l l t h e
w a r r i o r s at Troy. H o w e v e r , an a u d i e n c e w h i c h remembered i t s
Homer would r e c a l l t h a t O d y s s e u s d i d i n d e e d a l w a y s a c t i n Agamem-
n o n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s a t T r o y , and i n t h e end was t h e a u t h o r o f
t h e r u s e w h i c h won t h e war f o r him; so Agamemnon's judgement o f
h i s l o y a l t y i s not u n r e a s o n a b l e . Moreover, w h i l e Odysseus' a b i l -
i t i e s a t d e c e p t i o n and s t o r y - t e l l i n g were n o t e d f r o m earliest
t i m e s , t h e y were n o t g e n e r a l l y condemned o r t h o u g h t dishonour-
a b l e , i n e x t a n t l i t e r a t u r e a t l e a s t , u n t i l the A t h e n i a n o r a t o r s
o f t h e l a t e r P e l o p o n n e s i a n war u n d e r t o o k t o b l a c k e n h i s r e p u t a -
t i o n , some t h i r t y y e a r s a f t e r t h e O r e s t e i a was p r o d u c e d . Pindar
d o e s condemn him i n Nemean 7 and 8; b u t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t
t h i s judgement o f O d y s s e u s as not o n l y i n v e n t i v e , b u t t r e a c h e r o u s
a s w e l l , was an o p i n i o n g e n e r a l l y h e l d i n 458. Sophocles por-
t r a y s O d y s s e u s s y m p a t h e t i c a l l y i n t h e A j a x ; i t i s not u n t i l t h e
P h i l o c t e t e s , p r o d u c e d much l a t e r , t h a t O d y s s e u s i s shown a s a
c a l l o u s and s e l f - s e r v i n g l i a r . The a u d i e n c e o f 458 may t h e n v e r y
w e l l have a g r e e d w i t h Agamemnon's judgement o f O d y s s e u s ' c h a r a c -
t e r ; a t l e a s t , we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e y d i d n o t . (Interested
r e a d e r s s h o u l d s e e S t a n f o r d 1963: 8-24 and 81-117, who treats
this subject i n greater detail.)
2 3
I am g r e a t l y i n d e b t e d to this article f o r much of my
a n a l y s i s of t h i s scene.
2 4
I am n o t a b s o l u t e l y s u r e what e f f e c t t h e s e l i n e s w o u l d
have on a f i r s t - t i m e a u d i e n c e . To anyone who knows t h e s t o r y , o f
c o u r s e t h e y s o u n d l i k e w i s h e s ; b u t t h e y may have sounded l i k e
p e r f e c t l y o r d i n a r y w a r t i m e rumours t o an a u d i e n c e a c c u s t o m e d t o
war.
2 5
G o l d h i l l ( 1 9 8 4 : 56) h a s some i n t e r e s t i n g comments on
this point. He r e c o g n i z e s t h a t i t i s u s u a l l y K l y t e m n e s t r a who
makes t h i s s o r t o f s t a t e m e n t and t h i n k s i t i s b e c a u s e s h e , un-
l i k e t h e r e s t , does not assume t h a t words must be t r u e , b e c a u s e
she i s a c c u s t o m e d t o a r b i t r a r y d e f i n i t i o n s o f them. I t h i n k he
may t a k e t h i s a r g u m e n t t o o f a r , b u t i t i s an i n t e r e s t i n g a p p -
roach.
26
Some c r i t i c s ( e s p e c i a l l y B e t e n s k y 1978: 16) h a v e s e e n
h e r e an e x p r e s s i o n o f f r u s t r a t e d m a t e r n i t y . The k i l l i n g o f h e r
d a u g h t e r has " d r i e d up" t h e f e r t i l i t y o f w h i c h t h i s d a u g h t e r was
the o n l y proof Klytemnestra accepted. (There a r e o t h e r c h i l d r e n ,
b u t t h e y d o n ' t seem t o m a t t e r t o K l y t e m n e s t r a ; O r e s t e s i s o n l y
s p o k e n o f t o e x p l a i n h i s a b s e n c e and E l e c t r a i s n o t e v e n men-
tioned i n this play.)
2 7
I am i n d e b t e d t o B e t e n s k y ( 1 9 7 8 : 16-19) f o r h e r dis-
c u s s i o n o f t h i s p a s s a g e , a l t h o u g h I do not see a l l o f t h e f e r t i l -
i t y i m a g e r y she does h e r e .
114
2 8
W h a l l o n (1980: 66-72) has a r g u e d t h a t the t a p e s t r i e s may
not n e c e s s a r i l y be b l o o d c o l o u r e d , or even r e m i n i s c e n t o f blood.
F i r s t , t h e d e c o r a t i o n s , w h e t h e r woven o r e m b r o i d e r e d , w o u l d be
e i t h e r g e o m e t r i c or p a r t l y g e o m e t r i c i n shape; i n e i t h e r c a s e
t h e y would be t o o r e g u l a r t o c a l l t o mind t h e i r r e g u l a r s h a p e o f
bloodstains. S e c o n d , the t e r m "ir°f0o/°£°t » w a s d to d e s c r i b e a
u s e
w i d e r a n g e o f c o l o u r s , f r o m v i o l e t - b l a c k t o v e r m i l i o n ; i t need
not r e f e r t o b l o o d - c o l o u r . T h i r d , no/«fy>f<>*
a,
" may have been u s e d
by Homer t o mean n o t " p u r p l e " , f r o m t h e noun " -nop^y** " (shell-
f i s h ) , but " t h r o b b i n g " , from the verb " » ( throb).
t o
L a t e r a u t h o r s , he s u g g e s t s , u s e d t h e a d j e c t i v e n o t b e c a u s e i t
d e s c r i b e d t h e c o l o u r o f b l o o d , w h i c h i t d i d n o t , but b e c a u s e i t
was t h e word Homer u s e d t o d e s c r i b e b l o o d , and had become t h e
traditional epithet. However, t h e a u d i e n c e w i l l not have been so
c l o s e t o t h e s t a g e as t o be a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h p e r f e c t l y between
a r e g u l a r and an i r r e g u l a r b l o t c h o f c o l o u r : nor s h o u l d one as-
sume t h a t a b s o l u t e n a t u r a l i s t i c r e a l i s m i n s u c h a m a t t e r w o u l d
have been t h o u g h t n e c e s s a r y by e i t h e r t h e p l a y w r i g h t o r t h e a u d i -
e n c e . P e r h a p s a r e a l b l o o d s t a i n w o u l d be i r r e g u l a r i n s h a p e ; a
s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f one need not be. Any blood-coloured
s p o t c o u l d c a l l t o mind a b l o o d s t a i n . As f o r t h e c o l o u r , Goheen
( 1 9 5 5 : 115-117) has shown t h a t w h i l e nroîôfot r e f e r r e d t o many
d i f f e r e n t c o l o u r s , t h e most h i g h l y - v a l u e d one seems t o have b e e n
the c o l o u r of d r i e d blood. Furthermore, f o l l o w i n g the recipe
g i v e n f o r T y r i a n p u r p l e ( t h e most e x p e n s i v e dye) p r o d u c e d e x a c t l y
that colour, TO? juntos may have b e e n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l H o m e r i c
d e s c r i p t i o n o f b l o o d , but seems t h u s t o have been a f a i r l y a c c u -
r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f i t s c o l o u r as w e l l . The h i g h e c o n o m i c v a l u e
o f t h e s e t a p e s t r i e s i s e m p h a s i z e d by b o t h K l y t e m n e s t r a and A g a -
memnon, and i t makes s e n s e t o t h i n k t h a t t h e i r ( a l s o e m p h a s i z e d )
c o l o u r i s an a s p e c t o f t h a t e c o n o m i c v a l u e - t h a t t h e dye u s e d
was t h e m o s t e x p e n s i v e one a v a i l a b l e , t h a t i s , t h e c o l o u r of
d r i e d blood. I b e l i e v e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the d e c o r a t i o n an c o l o u r
o f t h e t a p e s t r i e s c a n be assumed t o have r e m i n d e d t h e a u d i e n c e
very s t r o n g l y of b l o o d s t a i n s .
29
W h a t e x a c t l y were t h e s e re-™*/*-*™ " ( 9 0 9 ) ? They were
p r o b a b l y g a r m e n t s o f some s o r t ( i f / ^ t t , 9 2 1 ) , and b o r e e i t h e r
e m b r o i d e r e d o r woven d e c o r a t i o n s (nro^^kÔ t 926). W h a l l o n (1980:
64-66) a r g u e s p e r s u a s i v e l y t h a t t h e y were p r o b a b l y e i t h e r ffrrrXo<.
o r fapi* , b o t h o f w h i c h were b l a n k e t - s h a p e d and c o u l d be s p r e a d
o u t , were o f t e n d e s c r i b e d as e m b r o i d e r e d , and (particularly
4*/i>tU ) w e r e a p p r o p r i a t e a t t i r e f o r h i g h - r a n k i n g n o b l e s . I am
l e s s c o n v i n c e d by h i s argument t h a t K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s u s e o f the
p l u r a l t o d e s c r i b e them ( e g . ti/*^^ r 960) i s an e x a g g e r a t i o n ,
and o n l y one Wiriot or tffrof i s i n fact spread out. The text
i t s e l f does not make c l e a r what the s p r e a d - o u t c l o t h s were: t h e y
a r e d e s c r i b e d v a r i o u s l y as c o v e r l e t s ( 9 0 9 ) , g a r m e n t s ( 9 2 1 ) , and
footwipes (926). I t h i n k W h a l l o n i s r i g h t i n d e s c r i b i n g them as
g a r m e n t s , w h i c h the a u d i e n c e w i l l remember when t h e m u r d e r - r o b e
i s d e s c r i b e d by K l y t e m n e s t r a (1382-83) or d i s p l a y e d by O r e s t e s i n
the next p l a y . However, t o p r e s e r v e the a m b i g u i t y o f t h e o r i g i -
n a l t e x t , and b e c a u s e no one word i n E n g l i s h c o n v e y s a l l o f t h e s e
115
meanings, I s h a l l r e f e r t o them as " t a p e s t r i e s " . T h i s word a t

l e a s t has t h e n e c e s s a r y c o n n o t a t i o n s o f d e c o r a t i o n and g r e a t
expense.
I am n o t
3 0
c e r t a i n t h a t t h i s was t h e G r e e k v i e w o f t h e
event. The i d e a t h a t t h e k i n g must p h y s i c a l l y s e t f o o t on t h e
ground t o c l a i m i t sounds more m e d i e v a l t o me; f u r t h e r m o r e , I s e e
no h i n t o f i t i n the t e x t here. However, i t ' s an i n t e r e s t i n g
thought.
She i s r i g h t a l s o i n p o i n t i n g out that s a y i n g "your

3 1
s p e e c h was l o n g " was n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e i n s u l t t o an a n c i e n t

Greek t h a t i t would be t o us now. We t h i n k o f a l o n g s p e e c h as a
d u l l one; t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e G r e e k s d i d t h e
same. ( C o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r a d m i r a t i o n f o r o r a t o r y , i n f a c t , t h e r e
i s every reason t o b e l i e v e they d i d not.)
T h i s p o s i t i o n i s f o u n d elsewhere i n A e s c h y l u s and i s
3 2
a l w a y s shown a s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r women and b a r b a r i a n s , u s u a l l y i n

t h e w o r s h i p o f g o d s . (Couch, 1930: 316-318).
3 3
" N o t t h i n k i n g e v i l l y i s the g r e a t e s t g i f t o f the gods",
f r o m a man whose mind was s e i z e d by r e c k l e s s d a r i n g and i m p i e t y
a t A u l i s ; " o n l y c a l l b l e s s e d t h o s e who end t h e i r l i v e s i n p r o s -
p e r i t y " , f r o m a man i n h i s p o s i t i o n ; and f i n a l l y , " i f I s h o u l d
a c t ( o r " s h o u l d have a c t e d " ) t h i s way i n a l l t h i n g s , I w o u l d be
f u l l o f c o n f i d e n c e " , f r o m a man who has n o t a c t e d t h u s i n t h e
p a s t and who i s a b o u t t o make t h e same m i s t a k e a g a i n .
3 4
T h e s e l i n e s a r e an e x c e l l e n t example o f t h e use o f
s t i c h o m y t h i a to f u r t h e r the a c t i o n . Throughout, Agamemnon i s
c o n s i s t e n t l y c u t o f f b e f o r e he c a n m u s t e r a s t r o n g a r g u m e n t
against Klytemnestra's p o s i t i o n . (See G o u l d , 1978: 5 5 ) .
3 5
I have here a c c e p t e d the emendations of t h i s l i n e sug-
g e s t e d by W e i l l (Kpa^s ), B o t h e ( - ^ c i V ) and W e c k l e i n ( d e l . W )
r a t h e r t h a n t h e d i f f i c u l t m a n u s c r i p t r e a d i n g ("nteoZ -vpS-ros
zîjroc 'HJ.fti y ! <<w>) ")• F r a e n k e l (1950: n. ad l o c . ) a c c e p t s
t h e s e e m e n d a t i o n s i n h i s t e x t , and D e n n i s t o n , Page (1957: n. ad
l o c . ) s p e a k f a v o u r a b l y o f them, b u t r e t a i n t h e m a n u s c r i p t text
and o b e l i z e " Kp£y 0i . . . y ". Even o m i t t i n g t h e p o r t i o n o b e l i z e d
by D e n n i s t o n , Page, t h e g e n e r a l s e n s e "be p e r s u a d e d ... w i l l i n g l y
by me" r e m a i n s , and t h e p r e s e n c e o f some f o r m o f t h e word "
" a t l e a s t i n d i c a t e s t h a t power, o r t h e l o s s o f i t , i s a t
issue. P r e s u m a b l y , K l y t e m n e s t r a would w i s h t o r e a s s u r e Agamemnon
a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t t h e r e was no l o s s o f power ( o r f a c e ) i n v o l v e d
i n g i v i n g i n t o her w i l l i n g l y ; i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o t h i n k o f a n o -
t h e r r e a s o n f o r her t o m e n t i o n vpirtoi. n eT suggested emendations
do p r o d u c e s u c h a r e a s s u r a n c e . However, e v e n w i t h o u t t h e emend-
a t i o n s , the sense of a request f o r w i l l i n g obedience i n response
t o Agamemnon's l a s t q u e s t i o n ("does i t r e a l l y mean s o much t o
y o u ? " , 942) i s p r e s e r v e d . This request i s i t s e l f s u f f i c i e n t to
116
support the interpretation of the scene which I have presented

here.
3 6
I think that Betensky ( 1 9 7 8 : 15) o v e r e m p h a s i z e s these
l i n e s when s h e s a y s t h a t K l y t e m n e s t r a e a g e r l y d e s i r e d h e r h u s b a n d
t o come home s a f e l y s o t h a t s h e c o u l d k i l l h i m h e r s e l f . Perhaps
some o f t h e e a g e r n e s s s h e shows i s s i n c e r e a n d e x i s t s f o r t h e
reason Betensky suggests; perhaps i t i s wholly simulated; there
i s n o way o f k n o w i n g . I t i s my f e e l i n g t h a t K l y t e m n e s t r a would
not have l i f t e d a f i n g e r t o save her husband's l i f e and than any
p l e a s u r e she expresses i n his safe arrival i s wholly hypocrit-
ical; but that i s perhaps going too f a r i n the opposite direc-
t i o n . T h i s i s n o t one o f t h e q u e s t i o n s t o which A e s c h y l u s sup-
p l i e d an answer.
3 7
I am i n d e b t e d t o B e t e n s k y ( 1 9 7 8 : 19) f o r h e r a n a l y s i s of
negative f e r t i l i t y imagery i n t h i s passage.
3 8
Winnington-Ingram's e x p l a n a t i o n - that the daughter of
P r i a m d o e s n o t f e e l s h e n e e d g i v e way t o t h e w i f e o f a h a l f - c i v i -
l i z e d G r e e k p r i n c e (1948: 134) - i s an i n t e r e s t i n g e x p l a n a t i o n .
He o v e r - e m p h a s i z e s i t , b u t some s h a d e o f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s
true: Kassandra has a g r e a t d e a l o f p r i d e , as K l y t e m n e s t r a r e -
c o g n i z e s a n d - w h e t h e r b e c a u s e o f h e r a n c e s t r y , o r f o r some o t h e r
reason - she does not t o l e r a t e being t r e a t e d as a s l a v e , except
by A p o l l o .
G o l d h i l l ' s d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s scene
3 9
(1984: 81-88) deals
with t h e exchange o f language throughout very t h o r o u g h l y .
4 0
I a s k e d a f r i e n d who g r e w u p o n a b e e f f a r m a b o u t this
( b y way o f v e r i f i c a t i o n ) a n d i t was t h e f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n he
t h o u g h t o f when t h e l i n e was q u o t e d t o h i m .
4 1
As cited i n Anderson (1929:'136-138).
S e e D o d d s ( I 9 6 0 : 30) f o r a much m o r e d e t a i l e d
4 2
analysis
of t h e l e a r n i n g K l y t e m n e s t r a does, here and l a t e r , about the true
nature o f the world she i n h a b i t s .
Interested
4 3
r e a d e r s s h o u l d see Conacher (1974: 324-329)
and Dodds (1960: 29-31) f o r u s e f u l a n a l y s e s o f t h i s s c e n e . I am
indebted also to G o l d h i l l ( 1 9 8 4 : 8 9 - 9 8 ) i n my d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e
kommos, t h o u g h more f o r t h e method o f a t t a c k t h a n t h e c o n c l u s i o n s
reached.
4 4
I do n o t a g r e e w i t h W i n n i n g t o n - I n g r a m (1948: 135) t h a t
K l y t e m n e s t r a i s j e a l o u s n o t o f t h e o t h e r women's s e x u a l r e l a t i o n -
s h i p w i t h Agamemnon, b u t r a t h e r o f t h e i r sharing h i s military
l i f e - C h r y s e i s at Troy, Kassandra on t h e s h i p - w h i l e s h e , w i t h
a t e m p e r a m e n t m o r e a c t i v e a n d m i l i t a r y e v e n t h a n A g a m e m n o n ' s , was
f o r g o t t e n a t home. K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s a g g r e s s i v e n a t u r e makes this
117
an a t t r a c t i v e h y p o t h e s i s , but I see no sign of this reason for

j e a l o u s y i n the t e x t .
4 5
I t h i n k t h i s must s t a n d as an answer t o Winnington-Ing-
ram's t h e s i s (1948: p a s s i m ) , a t l e a s t as f a r as t h e Agamemnon i s
concerned. L i k e Z e i t l i n ' s a r t i c l e , Winnington-Ingram's e x p l a i n s
some e l e m e n t s o f t h e Eumenides w e l l ; but t h e y a r e b o t h wrong i n
r e a d i n g i n t o t h i s p l a y ( o r t h e n e x t ) any p o l i t i c a l a m b i t i o n i n
K l y t e m n e s t r a - a t l e a s t , I can f i n d none.
118
APPENDIX A
THE ORESTEIA TRADITION AND AESCHYLUS' INNOVATIONS
Aeschylus' version of the death of Agamemnon, in manner
and motive, was strikingly different from the version of the myth
which prevailed in his era or i n the preceding tradition. When a
playwright goes against h i s audience's expectations of a story in
such important ways, one can assume that i t was intended to be
noticed and that the changes are important to the interpretation
of the play.
This Appendix will show that Aeschylus d i d make important
changes in his version of the myth, by discussing what evidence
exists for other versions. This argument cannot be conclusive,
as a great deal of i n f o r m a t i o n has been lost and much of the
argument i s consequently from silence. However, assumptions have
been made about precursors to the Oresteia which are not justi-
fied by the available evidence and which either invent unverifi-
able theories or i g n o r e some o f the little that i s known. I will
try to avoid both of these errors.
The story of the fatal homecoming of the conqueror of Troy
had existed at least since the time of Homer and in the minor
details there were many variations. The place varied from one
author to the next - Homer put i t in Aegisthus' house outside
Mycenae (Od. 3.304, 4.517-518), Stesichorus and Simonides in
Sparta , 1
Pindar at Amyclae (Pyth. XI.32) and Aeschylus at Argos.
Some of these changes of city were undoubtedly made by the poet

119
for political reasons (see Costa, 1962; 23-28), but they did not
otherwise affect the story. The avenging son, who had a memor-
able role, i s Orestes i n a l l sources, but the names of the daugh-
ters varied. In Homer, there are three daughters, Iphianassa,
Laodike and Chrysothemis ( I I . 9.145) . 2

In a recently published
Hesiodic fragment 3
there are two daughters, Electra and Iphimede
(5a, 1.4-5). Iphimede can be identified with Iphigenia, because
in the fragment Iphimede is sacrificed to Artemis, as Iphigenia
is in the play; Laodike and Electra are equated by a seventh-
century western poet, Xanthos, who explains that this daughter
was named Laodike, but a c q u i r e d the nickname Electra ("Unchosen")
because she could not marry. 4

In Aeschylus the children are
Iphigenia, Electra and Orestes; Chrysothemis reappears in Sophoc-
les. These changes are for the most part unimportant ; 5

but even
the motive and identity of the murderer varied in different ver-
sions and were greatly altered i n Aeschylus' hands.
From the earliest times the record of art shows evidence
of two different versions of the story. In the earliest surviv-
ing depiction of the death of Agamemnon, a terracotta pinax found
at Gortyn, Crete, Klytemnestra i s the killer. (Davies, 1969: 229-
230.) In this relief, dated to the second quarter of the seventh
century, Agamemnon i s shown enthroned and holding his spear dia-
gonally before him, in the style of a warrior-king. Klytemnes-
tra, on the right, wearing a long Cretan gown, is about to stab
him with a dagger she holds in her right hand. Aegisthus ap-
proaches from behind Agamemnon and has grasped Agamemnon's spear

120
tip with his left hand over Agamemnon's shoulder, while with his
right he holds, or drops, some sort of fabric (a net?) over Aga-
memnon's h e a d . On a steatite disk seal from central Crete, dated
to the same period or a little earlier, Klytemnestra is again
shown stabbing a seated Agamemnon; Aegisthus does not appear at
all. (Davies 1969: 224-228). Finally, on two early sixth cen-
tury bronze reliefs from shield straps, one found at Olympia and
one at Aigina, Aegisthus is shown pinning Agamemnon while Kly-
temnestra stabs him in the back. (Vermeule 1966: 13). The fact
that the earliest representations are Cretan in origin and style
might lead one to suspect that there existed an early Cretan
version of the myth i n which the Queen was the protagonist . 6
In the other tradition, seen more in Attic vase-painting,
Aegisthus is the killer. In fact there is only one surviving
painting of the death of Agamemnon before the fifth century, the
proto-Attic vase of the Ram Jug Painter, dated to the second
quarter of the seventh century. (Davies 1969: 252-256 ) . 7

In
this painting one man, sword in hand, stands behind another man
and with his free hand pulls a net over the head of the man be-
fore him. A woman stands in front of the pair, facing away from
them and tearing her cheeks in despair. The armed man is com-
monly identified as Aegisthus and his victim as Agamemnon.
Aside from this painting, no other d e p i c t i o n s of the death
of Agamemnon are found until the fifth century; the scene from
the O r e s t e i a most often painted was the death of Aegisthus. This
scene suddenly became very popular after 500 B.C. (Vermeule 1966:
121
14). This would indicate that Aegisthus was seen as a prime
agent of Agamemnon's d e a t h and thus the principal object of Ores-
tes' revenge. 8
The earliest surviving painting of the death of Agamemnon
in Attic a r t i s the Boston K r a t e r by the Dokimasia painter, which
was painted very close to the time of Aeschylus' play. 9

Agamem-
non i s shown draped in a gauzy material (a net?) and otherwise
naked; Aegisthus has just stabbed him with a sword. The net and
Agamemnon's nakedness (as i f he had just stepped from the bath)
might have been influenced by Aeschylus' play, i f i t was painted
after the production; but whenever the vase was painted, the
tradition that Aegisthus was the murderer must have been too
prevalent f o r the painter to ignore.
In fact, even after Aeschylus, the murderer of Agamemnon
is shown as Aegisthus in Attic vase-painting until the end of the
fifth century. (Vermeule, 1966: 14). So while two versions of
the story were available for Aeschylus to draw upon, the version
most common i n h i s own time - i f the surviving art i s anything to
judge by - made Aegisthus the killer and thus the primary victim
of Orestes' revenge.
The literary tradition varies as well. The longest sur-
viving account of the Oresteia before Aeschylus is found in
Homer. Homer seems to have known two versions of the myth and
used each one according to the needs of h i s own story. The first
four books of the Odyssey are concerned with Telemachus' growth

122
to manhood and acceptance of h i s adult responsibilities, i . e . the
defence o f h i s household. Most of the references to the O r e s t e i a
myth i n these four books are intended (sometimes explicitly) to
spur him towards that end 1 1

; a l l b u t one are said directly to
Telemachus 1 2
; and a l l , without exception, name Aegisthus as the
plotter and k i l l e r 1 3
, with Klytemnestra, i f she i s mentioned at
all, playing a clearly secondary role. 1 4
Agamemnon, who speaks of h i s death every time we meet h i m ,
tells another version of the story. When explaining h i s presence
in the Underworld to Odysseus (Od. 11.409-453), he at first
agrees substantially with t h e O l d Man o f t h e Sea's account ofh i s
death, adding only h i s baneful wife's assistance (11.409-410) to
Aegisthus' plotting and executing of the deed. Twelve lines
later he says that Klytemnestra killed Kassandra "over me"
(11.422-423), which gives Klytemnestra a more active and violent
role i n proceedings than we had heard of before, and adds that
she abandoned h i m a s he l a y d y i n g , without even closing h i s mouth
and eyes (11.425-426), which places Klytemnestra i n the immediate
vicinity right after Agamemnon was stabbed - again new informa-
tion. A little later, he s a y s that i t i s Klytemnestra who plotted
the deed and d e v i s e d her husband's death (11.429-430); i t i s her
"ruinous thoughts" which shame a l l women; and by t h e end o f h i s
account (11.452-453), Aegisthus has been forgotten and Agamemnon
says that h i s wife killed him. Klytemnestra's role thus moves i n
the space of 43 lines from passive accomplice, through active
plotter, to actual murderer. I n book 24 Agamemnon again refers

123
to h i s death, first as at the hands of Aegisthus and h i s wife
(24.97) and l a t e r as being plotted and executed by h i s w i f e alone
(24.199-200).
The d i s c r e p a n c y between the accounts o f Agamemnon's death
given i n v a r i o u s p l a c e s i n the Odyssey can e a s i l y be e x p l a i n e d i n
several ways. 1 5
But whatever e x p l a n a t i o n one accepts, i ti s
clear that Homer h a d two s t o r i e s i n mind, both o f which he felt
free t o use a t need.
Klytemnestra s 1
motive f o r betraying her husband, insofar
as Homer gives h e r one at a l l , i s Aegisthus' seduction of her
(Od. 3.262-264); the s a c r i f i c e of Iphigenia i s not mentioned.
Between Homer a n d A e s c h y l u s only fragmentary references to
the myth of the Oresteia survive. There are three Hesiodic re-
ferences. Pausanias tells us that according to Hesiod's Catalogue
of Women, I p h i g e n i a was not k i l l e d , b u t became Hecate "by t h e
will of Artemis" 1 6
. According to a scholiast, Hesiod said that
Aphrodite was jealous of the daughters o f Tyndareus and so caused
them a l l t o be unfaithful to their husbands. 1 7

Finally, in a
recently p u b l i s h e d H e s i o d i c fragment concerning the daughters of
Leda, we are told that the Greeks sacrificed "Iphimede", the
daughter of Klytemnestra and Agamemnon, to Artemis, but that
Artemis saved (or healed) h e r a n d made her immortal; and that she
is now called "wayside Artemis" 1 8

. In t h i s fragment Orestes grew
up and "repaid h i s (male) father killer and k i l l e d h i s mother" 1 9

.
124
To this poet, then, Aegisthus was the murderer, but Klytemnestra
was not innocent.
The seventh-century author of the Cypria tells the story
of the attempted sacrifice of Iphigenia, saying that Artemis
rescued her, r e p l a c i n g her with a stag, transported her to Tauris
and made her immortal. 2 0

Agias of Troezen says that Agamemnon
was killed by A e g i s t h u s and K l y t e m n e s t r a . 2 1

. Xanthos, a seventh-
century western poet, i s reputed t o have influenced Stesichorus'
work with h i s treatment of the Oresteia myth, but nothing ofh i s
work survives. (Vermeule 1966: 1 1 ) .
Stesichorus, i n the sixth century, wrote an O r e s t e i a which
is nearly entirely lost. The absence o f most o f h i s work has
inspired various critics to attribute t o i t themes and actions
seen elsewhere, f o r which they would like to find a source.
Wilamowitz, f o r example, thought that Stesichorus introduced the
death of Iphigenia as a motive f o r Klytemnestra. 2 2

While were
are told that Stesichorus closely followed Hesiod i n saying that
Iphigenia became Hecate 2 3

, as During (1943: 107) p o i n t s o u t ,
there i s no m e n t i o n of s a c r i f i c e , or of a reaction by Klytemnes-
tra, i n this fragment. In f a c t , i n another o f t h e few surviving
fragments of Stesichorus' work, Stesichorus i s reported to have
said that Aphrodite, angry that Tyndareus forgot her at a sacri-
fice to a l l t h e gods, made a l l of h i s daughters faithless
("twice-wed and thrice-wed and h u s b a n d - l e a v i n g " ) . 2 4

This would
indicate that Stesichorus gave Klytemnestra's motive as love f o r
Aegisthus, i f he c o n s i d e r e d her motive at a l l .

125
Several scholars (During 1943: 106, Vermeule 1966: 12,
Davies 1969: 249) a g r e e that Stesichorus' poem probably stimula-
ted production of the death-of-Aegisthus vase paintings, like the
Boston Krater, which suddenly became p o p u l a r around 500 B . C . ; b u t
the conclusions they base on this differ greatly. During be-
lieves that Stesichorus probably made Klytemnestra the murderer,
using an axe; Davies thinks that Stesichorus had A e g i s t h u s stab
Agamemnon with a sword and Klytemnestra finish him o f f with the
axe; and Vermeule, t h e most moderate, says only that Stesichorus
probably introduced t h e axe and Klytemnestra's skill with it. 2 5
All three agree that Stesichorus 1

Oresteia probably emphasized
the death of Aegisthus rather than Agamemnon (the t i t l e alone
strongly implies this) and that Stesichorus i s unlikely to have
dwelt on the o r i g i n a l murder. I think this last, and perhaps
Klytemnestra's motivation by A p h r o d i t e rather than Iphigenia, are
really the only conclusions that can safely be drawn from what
few fragments of Stesichorus survive.
The last poet certain t o have treated any p a r t o f t h e myth
before Aeschylus i s Simonides. A fragment o f a commentary on h i s
poem (or part of i t ) has recently been published. 2 6

The poem
under discussion i n this papyrus i s probably by Simonides 2 7

and
speaks of the mourning a t Mycenae over the s a c r i f i c e of a human
female (unnamed). The g r i e f o f t h e mother cannot be o v e r c o m e and
the killing i s i n honour of a god. The o n l y known myth consis-
tent with these details i s that of the s a c r i f i c e of Iphigenia. If
that i s the subject of t h e poem, i t contains the f i r s t surviv-

126
ing reference to Klytemnestra's grief at her daughter's death.
However, there is no indication that Klytemnestra takes the step
from grief to vengeance in this poem.
Pindar's eleventh Pythian ode was written to commemorate
the victory at Delphi of a Theban runner, Thrasydaios. (Hering-
ton, 1984: 143). In i t , Pindar refers to Klytemnestra as the
sole murderer of Agamemnon and speculates on her motive - was i t
the killing of Iphigenia, or habitual infidelity with Aegisthus,
which prompted her act? (Pyth. XI, 23-28). There were two Pyth-
ian victories by so-named Theban runners, in 474 and 454. It has
generally been assumed that Pythian XI was written to commemorate
the Thrasydaios of 474, and that Pindar's magnification of Kly-
temnestra' s role and his speculation on her motives influenced
Aeschylus. However, as Farnell 2 8

, During (1943: 108-114) and
Herington (1984: 140-146) argue, from different angles 2 9

, i t is
far more likely that Pindar's ode was written to commemorate the
second Thrasydaios and was inspired by Aeschylus' play.
It would of course be unwise to state categorically that a
poet "must have been" inspired by one thing, or "cannot have
been" inspired by another. But Pindar in Pythian XI does give
the impression that he is referring briefly to a myth which was
already fully developed elsewhere, in the form in which he pre-
sents i t . He can assume that his audience thought of Klytemnes-
tra as the murderer and of the sacrifice of Iphigenia as a poss-
ible motive; he did- not need to explain or elaborate on these
points himself. There i s only one author who is certainly known

127
to have presented the myth in precisely the form i n which Pindar
uses i t , and that i s Aeschylus. Aeschylus alone of the ancient
authors presents Klytemnestra as the sole killer; the death of
Iphigenia i s the principal motive f o r her crime i n the first play
and love for Aegisthus is given as her motive in the second. 3 0
If we need assume a definite inspiration for Pindar's question in
Pythian XI, Aeschylus' trilogy o b v i o u s l y s u p p l i e s one and nothing
else surviving does. Thus I am inclined to agree with During
and Herington that Pythian XI should be dated to 454 rather than
474.
In the record of art there are two traditions before Aes-
chylus' time and he seems, on the evidence available, to have
defied the one prevailing in his own era and region in making
Klytemnestra the murderer. In the literary tradition there again
seem to have been two traditions, but after Homer the one giving
Klytemnestra the role of sole killer seems to have fallen en-
tirely out of fashion - even in Homer she is rarely, and never
unquestionably, given that role - and she is regarded as, at
most, a co-conspirator in Aegisthus' crime. There are references
to the sacrifice of Iphigenia before Aeschylus, but before Simon-
ides they seem to have dwelt chiefly (or entirely) on her trans-
figuration to the immortal Hecate; and nowhere, including Simon-
ides, is there any evidence that the sacrifice of Iphigenia was
considered a motive for Klytemnestra's part (however small) in
the murder. On the contrary, Homer, the H e s i o d i c poet and Stes-
ichorus a l l explain Klytemnestra's disloyalty to her husband as

128
due to love: Hesiod and Stesichorus ascribe i t to Aphrodite and
Homer to the persuasion of Aegisthus.
Aeschylus thus seems to have altered the story his audi-
ence expected i n two major ways, first i n making Klytemnestra the
only murderer and second in making the death of Iphigenia her
primary motivation in the first play of the trilogy. Both of
these changes have the effect of almost completely suppressing
the role of Aegisthus; and the story is entirely changed in em-
phasis from the love-triangle murder (or p o l i t i c a l a s s a s s i n a t i o n )
found in Homer. These changes form the basis for the Agamemnon
and for the portrayal of Klytemnestra i n that play. The audience
cannot help but wonder i f Klytemnestra was justified in her ac-
tions; her guilt was never in question, before Aeschylus. This
violent and perhaps righteous Klytemnestra thus poses her audi-
ence difficult questions of guilt, innocence, and the workings of
justice, which are the theme of the whole trilogy and which are
not resolved until the last play. The changes introduced into
Klytemnestra*s role thus draw the audience's attention to the
central theme to be worked out i n the trilogy.

129
N O T E S T O A P P E N D I X A
!
D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford: 1962); p. 287,
fr. 44.
Iphianassa i s usually
2
i d e n t i f i e d with Aeschylus' Iphi-
g e n i a . I f t h i s i s c o r r e c t , Homer m u s t n o t h a v e known t h e s t o r y o f
h e r s a c r i f i c e , o r h a v e i g n o r e d i t a t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e poem; f o r
Agamemnon a t T r o y s p e a k s o f h e r a s a l i v e .
3
Oxyrhynchus Papyri 28 (1962), ed. E. Lobel; 2481, f r . 5a,
col. 1 (pages 8-11).
4
Cited i n Vermeule (1966: 12).
5
However, t h e change o f venue o f t h e murder itself, from
A e g i s t h u s ' h o u s e t o Agamemnon's own, i s not i n s i g n i f i c a n t . This
move c o n s i d e r a b l y i n c r e a s e s t h e e l e m e n t o f d o m e s t i c t r e a c h e r y ,
while decreasing the importance of the p o l i t i c a l or dynastic
motives involved. Aeschylus' treatment, which c o n c e n t r a t e s a l -
most e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e d o m e s t i c a s p e c t o f t h e c r i m e , demonst-
rates this.
6
Davies (1969: 236-238) d i s c u s s e s this more fully.
7
Vermeule ( 1 9 6 6 : 13) b e l i e v e s t h a t this i s a death of
A e g i s t h u s a n d t h a t t h e w e e p i n g woman s t a n d i n g i n f r o n t o f t h e two
males i s Klytemnestra. But t h a t does not e x p l a i n t h e net w h i c h
the murderer i s c l e a r l y p u l l i n g over the v i c t i m ' s head and which
e l s e w h e r e i s a s s o c i a t e d e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h t h e d e a t h o f Agamemnon.
T h e w e e p i n g woman, w h o s e e x p r e s s i o n a n d p o s e a r e c e r t a i n l y too
striking t o be l i k e l y to denote a simple serving-woman, could
s u r e l y be K a s s a n d r a .
T h e r e i s a bronze Cretan mitra of the 7th cent,

8
which
shows O r e s t e s k i l l i n g an e n t h r o n e d K l y t e m n e s t r a (Davies 1969:
237). I n t h e C r e t a n v e r s i o n o f t h e myth, K l y t e m n e s t r a seems t o
have been seen as the k i l l e r and O r e s t e s ' vengeance i s a c c o r d -
i n g l y d i r e c t e d towards her.
Vermeule
9
( 1 9 6 6 : 19) a r g u e s t h a t i t was p a i n t e d a f t e r 458
and i n s p i r e d by t h e p l a y i t s e l f ; D a v i e s ( 1 9 6 9 : 258) s e t s i t i n
the 470's, where s t y l i s t i c a l l y i t belongs.
1 0
V e r m e u l e a r g u e s t h a t the p a i n t e r used a male r a t h e r t h a n
a f e m a l e m u r d e r e r b e c a u s e h e was b o r r o w i n g f r o m t h e i c o n o g r a p h y
o f t h e d e a t h o f A e g i s t h u s , a s t h e d e a t h o f Agamemnon h a d no tra-
d i t i o n a l i c o n o g r a p h y o f i t s own. I find this unconvincing. Even
a s s u m i n g - a s V e r m e u l e h a s c o n v i n c e d me o n e s h o u l d - t h a t the
p o s i t i o n i n g o f t h e f i g u r e s i n t h e d e a t h o f Agamemnon was borrowed
from the t r a d i t i o n a l poses of the death of A e g i s t h u s , a p a i n t e r
130
who c o u l d c h a n g e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l v i c t i m f r o m a seated, clothed

l y r e - p l a y e r t o a s t a n d i n g , naked man i n a n e t could surely also
a l t e r t h e k i l l e r f r o m a male t o a f e m a l e .
1 1
F o r i n s t a n c e , A t h e n a (Od. 1.298-300) m e n t i o n s t h e renown
O r e s t e s won i n k i l l i n g A e g i s t h u s , h i s f a t h e r ' s m u r d e r e r ; and N e s -
t o r ( O d . 3.199-200) a d v i s e s T e l e m a c h u s t o be b r a v e a s O r e s t e s
was, who t o o k v e n g e a n c e on h i s f a t h e r ' s k i l l e r .
1 2
T h e e x c e p t i o n i s t h e gods on Olympus (Od. 1 . 2 9 - 4 3 ) . One
m i g h t e x p e c t t h e gods t o know "what r e a l l y h a p p e n e d " and t h e r e -
f o r e t h i n k t h a t A e g i s t h u s was " r e a l l y " , i n Homer's e y e s , s o l e l y
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r Agamemnon's d e a t h . But t h e g o d s i n Homer a r e
p a r t o f t h e s t o r y , l i k e e v e r y t h i n g e l s e , and t e n d t o s a y what
s u i t s t h e needs o f t h e s t o r y a t t h a t p o i n t . T h e r e i s no r e a s o n
t o e x p e c t them t o r e f l e c t t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e p o e t .
1 3
T h e gods s a y so (Od. 1.36); A t h e n a s a y s t h i s (1.299-300
and 3 . 2 3 5 ) ; N e s t o r d o e s ~ T 3 . 1 9 4 and 3.255-310, e s p e c i a l l y a t
3.305); M e n e l a u s s a y s t h i s ( 4 . 9 1 - 9 2 ) ; and t h e O l d Man o f t h e S e a ,
a s M e n e l a u s q u o t e s him (4.514-537, e s p e c i a l l y a t 4 . 5 3 7 ) .
1 4
A t h e n a (Od. 3.235) s a y s t h a t Agamemnon was k i l l e d by t h e
d e c e i t o f A e g i s t f n u s and h i s w i f e ; N e s t o r (3.255-310) s a y s t h a t
K l y t e m n e s t r a , b e i n g f o r m e r l y ^ptsc
n
. . . "(either "with
h o n e s t h e a r t " o r s i m p l y " i n t e l l i g e n t " ( 3 . 2 6 6 ) , was seduced by
A e g i s t h u s ; M e n e l a u s (4.91-92) s a y s t h a t " a n o t h e r " (male - )
k i l l e d Agamemnon "by s u r p r i s e u n l o o k e d - f o r and by h i s b a n e f u l
w i f e ' s t r e a c h e r y " . In none o f t h e s e i s K l y t e m n e s t r a more t h a n an
accessory to Aegisthus' plot.
1 5
F o r i n s t a n c e , a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n c o u l d say t h a t
w h i l e the v e r s i o n g i v e n i n the Telemachy, w i t h A e g i s t h u s as
k i l l e r and K l y t e m n e s t r a as p a s s i v e a c c o m p l i c e , i s " c o r r e c t " , and
Agamemnon knows t h i s , he i s so s h o c k e d a t t h e f a c t t h a t h i s w i f e
h a d a n y hand i n i t a t a l l t h a t he c a n n o t h e l p d w e l l i n g on h e r
r o l e and c o n s e q u e n t l y e v e n t u a l l y e x a g g e r a t i n g i t i n h i s own m i n d .
T h e more common l i t e r a r y e x p l a n a t i o n ( f o u n d , f o r i n s t a n c e , i n
D'Armes 1 9 4 6 : 211-212) p o i n t s o u t t h a t K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s r o l e i s
emphasized whenever a c o n t r a s t t o P e n e l o p e ' s c o n d u c t i s d e s i r e d
and t e l l s us more a b o u t P e n e l o p e t h a n a b o u t K l y t e m n e s t r a - j u s t
a s A e g i s t h u s ' r o l e i s emphasized- whenever i t i s n e e d e d as a s p u r
to Telemachus.
Pausanias
1 6
i.43.1, i.116 Sp. (quoted in Page, Poetae
Melici G r a e c i p . 115, n . l ) .
1 7
schol. on E u r . O r e s t e s 249.
P . Oxy.
1 B
28 (1962), 2481 f r . 5a c o l . 1, e d . E . L o b e l ,
1.8-11 a"ncl 1 5 - 1 8 . I t may be t h i s p a s s a g e t o w h i c h P a u s a n i a s
referred.
131
1 9
Ibid., 21-25.
2 0
Stasinus ( ? ) , Cypria, i n Hesiod, Homeric Hymns a n d Ho-
mer i c a ( H e i n e m a n n , L o n d o n ) , 2~92-29<n
2 1
Nostoi, as summarized by P r o c l u s , Chrestomathy.
2 2
As cited by D u r i n g (1943:1 0 7 ) .
2 3
Philodem., de p i e t . , p . 24 Gomperz (quoted i n Page, op.
c i t . , p . 1 1 5 , f r . 215T7
2 4
Schol. on E u r . O r e s t e s 2 4 9 .
2 5
A l l a g r e e t h a t S t e s i c h o r u s must h a v e i n t r o d u c e d t h e a x e
w h i c h K l y t e m n e s t r a h o l d s i n most p a i n t i n g s , a s t h e y c a n f i n d no
o t h e r s o u r c e f o r i t . I would l i k e t o s p e c u l a t e t h a t t h e axe - a
l a b r i s , f o u n d f r e q u e n t l y i n C r e t a n a r t - was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e
apparently Cretan source of the female-protagonist version of the
myth and thus a c c o u n t f o r i t s appearance i n the paintings, but I
have n o t as y e t found s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e f o r t h i s n o t i o n . One
should add that Vermeule ( 1 9 6 6 : 6) s t a t e s that Ag^ 1 1 2 7 and1 2 6 2
r e f e r t o an a x e , b u t I don't t h i n k t h a t t h i s i s j u s t i f i e d by t h e
text.
2 6
P. Oxy. 25 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 2434 Fr. l a ( 5 ) .
2 7
As Lobel reconstructs line 2.
2 8
L. R. Farnell, The Works of Pindar (London: 1932), 223-
224
^ F a r n e l l b e l i e v e s t h a t P i n d a r must have composed

y
under
t h e s t r o n g i m p r e s s i o n l e f t o n h i m by A e s c h y l u s ' Agamemnon. Dur-
i n g 's a r g u m e n t i s p r i n c i p a l l y b a s e d o n p a r a l l e l s i n w o r d s u s e d t o
describe t h e a c t and i t smotives and i n the g e n e r a l l i n e o f
thought. The s t r o n g e s t p a r t o f H e r i n g t o n ' s argument i s t h a t
P y t h i a n XI 22-25, t h e a l t e r n a t i v e q u e s t i o n s as t o t h e m o t i v e o f
the a c t , a r e unique i n P i n d a r and i n f a c t i n a l l o f n o n - d r a m a t i c
Greek p o e t r y - e s p e c i a l l y i n that they a r e l e f t unanswered. He
s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e Agamemnon, w h i c h o f f e r s b o t h m o t i v e s i n the
order found i n P i n d a r ' s poem a n d d o e s n o t d e c i d e b e t w e e n them,
would i n s p i r e p r e c i s e l y that unanswered q u e s t i o n i n P i n d a r ' s
mind.
I n H e r i n g t o n ' s o p i n i o n (1948: 142), both motives a r e

3 0
g i v e n , i n t h a t o r d e r , i n t h e Agamemnon i t s e l f ; t h e d e a t h o f I p h i -
genia i s s t r e s s e d u n t i l Kassandra's v i s i o n and l o v e f o r A e g i s -
thus thereafter.
132
APPENDIX B
KLYTEMNESTRA'S ENTRANCES AND EXITS
In analysing a character's role i n a play i t i s useful to
know when he was on the stage, a n d what lines he spoke. In the
last fifty years, however, there has been some controversy i n
both areas, concerning Klytemnestra.
Klytemnestra's entrances and e x i t s are not c l e a r l y signal-
led i n this play. Taplin (1972: 89) 1

thinks that the central
Skene door had been invented only a few years prior to the pro-
duction of the O r e s t e i a , and that Aeschylus d i d not f e e l i t as
necessary t o announce entrances and e x i t s through t h e new central
door a s he d i d movement from the wings. In f a c t , the abruptness
of a sudden, untelegraphed entrance through the central door and
directly into (or out of) the action could be u s e d t o good effect
by an innovative playwright; a n d was so used i n the portrayal of
Klytemnestra. The l a c k of indication of her appearances or exits
has l e d , however, to a good deal of confusion and disagreement
among later critics. At the farthest extreme are Denniston, Page
(1957: 7 6 ) who say that i t i s "possible, and perhaps preferable"
to believe that Klytemnestra enters at line 40 (or at l a t e s t 83)
and does not exit again until 1068, a f t e r her scene with Kass-
andra. 2
They add that "the tension and power of the scenes,
503-37 and 615-80, are greatly enhanced by her presence, and
particularly by h e r s i l e n c e , throughout."
133
I cannot agree with this view. First, i n a l l of the time
she i s assumed to be s p e e c h l e s s l y on stage, the chorus and other
actors do not n o t i c e her or interact with her i n any way (except
at 83-103, of which more shortly). As Taplin (1972: 58ff.)
points out, i f a character's silent presence is intended to be
noticed, the chorus and actors will refer to him, w o n d e r , why he
has not spoken, and otherwise draw attention to his existence. If
his presence i s not significant (as, for i n s t a n c e , Danaus' is not
during the first choral song of the Suppliants), the other char-
acters will ignore i t . By this standard, i f Klytemnestra is to
be assumed to be on stage for most of the play, her presence
cannot be thought significant. It seems to have no dramatic
function; i t i s unnoticed, i t has no effect on any other charac-
ter's a c t i o n s or speeches, and i t does not even appear to affect
Klytemnestra's. Denniston, Page's sinister figure lurking in the
background adding an aura of impending doom to proceedings (Denn-
iston, Page 1957: 76) does not exist; even i f Klytemnestra were
on stage, there is no reason to believe that she would be per-
ceived as sinister by an audience whose attention i s never drawn
to her. As Taplin (1972: 90, 97) says, a figure can be mutely
significant in the foreground, like Niobe, or mutely insignifi-
cant in the background, like Danaus; but "what is meant to be
significant i s there i s the words i n the foreground".
But i f her presence is not significant, why is she on
stage at all? Electra in the Choephoroe, or Danaus in the Supp-
l i a n t s , must enter with the chorus, and have thus a good tech-
134
nical reason t o be on stage, i n the background, when they are not
part of the action; but Klytemnestra has not even technical rea-
sons to be present. Finally, there are speeches (for instance,
the Herald's at 503-537 or again at 551-582, or Agamemnon's, in
particular, at 810-854) i n which i t i s hard to understand why she
is not addressed, i f she i s present; and others ( f o r example the
Chorus' song at 975-1033) i n which her presence might be expected
to suppress the expression of the sentiments found there. Alto-
gether, i t is far easier to assume that a c h a r a c t e r who has no
reason to be on stage, and whose presence there would frequently
be inconvenient, is not on stage except when her presence i s
obviously actively required (as, f o r instance, when she is speak-
ing). It seems best at this point to go through the play and
discuss Klytemnestra's entrances and exits each in turn. (These
are t h e movements assumed i n the paper.)
Klytemnestra first enters at line 258. There is no rea-
son f o r her to enter with the chorus at line 40, or to be present
throughout the parodos; and she i s not.
Debate has been hot on this point, centering around Kly-
temnestra's presence (or absence) during lines 83-103, which the
chorus address directly to her, asking for i n f o r m a t i o n about the
sacrifices they have seen being performed around the city.
Those who believe that she i s on stage at 83-103 fall into
two groups. First, there are those, like Denniston, Page (1957:
76) and Gilbert Murray (1920: xii-xiii), who believe that she
135
enters with the chorus at line 40, or, at least, some time be-
tween 40 and 83, in time to be addressed; and that she then re-
mains silently on stage until 258, when the chorus greet her and
repeat their questions, which, this time, she answers. The se-
cond group, including Hermann , 3

Rose (1958: 11-12) and more re-
cently Pool (1983: 71-116) and Goldhill (1984: 17-18 and n.20),
seeing no reason to keep her on stage throughout the choral song,
believe she enters sometime before 83 and exits at 103 or 104
without having spoken, to re-enter at 258.
Taplin (1977: 282-284) a r g u e s convincingly that Klytemnes-
tra' s silent and ignored presence during the choral song (104-
258) is indefensible for several reasons: i t has no purpose, i t
would distract attention from the chorus' important lyrics, i t is
common procedure i n tragedy to clear the actors offstage (if any
are on) before a strophic song, and, as supporting evidence, an
ignored silence of that length i s unparalleled elsewhere in Greek
tragedy. There remains, then, the second theory, that she enters
at around 83 to leave silently at 103.
Discussion of this theory can be summarized as follows.
If Klytemnestra is not on stage at 83-103, why then does the
chorus address her in the manner they do? If she is on stage,
what i s she doing there? Why doesn't she answer the questions of
the chorus? And why don't they comment on her silence (as they
do on Kassandra's later i n the play?)

136
Those who believe that Klytemnestra was not on stage (eg.
Taplin 1977: 278 f f . ) usually explain the chorus 1

address as a
choral apostrophe to an absent character. Other examples of
these exist in Greek tragedy, the closest parallel being Euri-
pides Hipp. 141 f f . , i n which the chorus, anxious over Phaedra's
health, come to the gates of the palace and ask her directly
"what i s troubling you?" However, other critics do not find the
two addresses much alike. Denniston, Page (1957: 76), for in-
stance, find no similarity in questions about a situation inside
the palace which the chorus cannot see, and questions about a
situation outside which they can see but do not know the reasons
for. But i n both cases the chorus wants i n f o r m a t i o n about some-
thing, and comes to the palace to ask the only person who can
give i t to them; so there i s no real difference on that score.
Pool (1983: 86-87, 95) p o i n t s out that in a typical choral
apostrophe, the chorus ask questions about the state of the ab-
sent character whom they address, not about other people or
things. In the Hippolytus, for i n s t a n c e , the chorus ask the Queen
what's wrong with her; but in the Agamemnon, they ask Klytemnes-
tra about events at Troy. Pool adds that in a typical apostro-
phe, the character questioned is at the centre of the interest
and attention, or anxiety, of the chorus; in fact, that the pur-
pose of the address is to create a bond of affection with, or
intensification of emotion towards, the absent character (Pool,
1983: 95). I n Ag_. 83-103, however, there i s no such concern with
Klytemnestra's welfare or activities, and the chorus, far from

137
feeling any emotional bond with her, dismiss her entirely from
their minds after 103. He concludes that on these grounds, this
address, i f i t is an apostrophe to an absent person, is unlike
any other i n Greek tragedy.
While i t i s true that the state of the character addressed
is not the principal concern of the chorus, as i t is in other
apostrophes, Pool has not shown conclusively that such personal
concern is a necessary condition for an apostrophe, or the only
reason that one would ever be made. This argument, therefore,
while interesting, does not seem to be of overwhelming impor-
tance. However, Pool does show q u i t e clearly that this apostrophe
is unique on other grounds as well. First, the sequence of tit-
les and vocatives, a formal Homeric mode of address, i s never
used elsewhere except to a c h a r a c t e r on stage. 4

(Pool, 1983: 91-
92; Rose, 1958: II, 11.) Second, the questions in 85-87 are
direct requests for information, unlike the rhetorical questions,
questions arising from simple curiosity, or surmises which do not
ask a question so much as suggest an answer, which one finds in
other apostrophes, including Hipp. 141 f f . (Pool, 1983: 83-85).
Third, Ag. 97-103 are essentially a direct request f o r an answer
(99-103) p l u s a polite formula giving permission not to tell more
than she wishes (97-98). Neither of these make much sense i f
Klytemnestra i s not there to hear them, and neither occur in any
form i n any undisputed apostrophe to an absent character. (Pool,
1983: 90, 93-94). Altogether, in form and content, this apo-
strophe i s unlike any other i n Greek tragedy, i f i t is addressed

138
to an absent c h a r a c t e r , but is (as Pool also shows) in no way
anomalous i f K l y t e m n e s t r a i s present.
Vetta (1976: 17) suggests that the reason the chorus ad-
dress Klytemnestra i n a manner which strongly suggests that she
is present i s because, in the excitement of the moment, they
"visualize" her so s t r o n g l y that she seems t o them t o be present.
This is not entirely convincing, in that the only thing that
suggests the "excitement" and "visualization" of the chorus at
this point i s , in fact, the address to Klytemnestra, and i t seems
unwise to use a c o n c l u s i o n drawn from the text as a premise for
explication of that text. Vetta also p o i n t s out that the ques-
tions they ask, especially lines 86-96, perform the standard
dramatic function of informing the audience about events - in
this case, sacrifices - offstage. This function of the address
has usually been overlooked.
Those who believe that Klytemnestra i s on stage at 83-103
explain her presence variously. Gilbert Murray (1920: x i i -
xiii) b e l i e v e s she i s at the sacrificial altar i n an "agony of
silent prayer", preparing herself f o r her intended crime. Win-
nington-Ingram (1948: 130) b e l i e v e s she is presiding over the
sacrifices, as does Rose (1958: I I , 11). It i s important to
Goldhill (1984: 17) and particularly to Z e i t l i n (1965; 467) 5

that
Klytemnestra be a s s o c i a t e d with the sacrifices. However, while
the chorus describe in detail sacrifices going on i n the city,
they don't mention or refer t o one being performed before them;
and in fact the text g i v e s us no reason to b e l i e v e that there i s

139
one occurring on stage as they speak. Vetta has shown (1976:
109-112) that for several reasons, i t is highly unlikely that
sacrifices were being performed on stage at this point in the
play. Whatever Klytemnestra i s doing on stage, then, i t cannot
be presiding over a sacrifice.
Pool, accepting this, suggests that she merely stands at
the door for twenty lines and then re-enters the palace (1983:
103-104). This enigmatic action, he believes, i s i n keeping with
Klytemnestra's unique and enigmatic c h a r a c t e r , and with the way
she is characterized in the trilogy. It would also, he feels,
strengthen and emphasize Klytemnestra's connection with the house
early i n the play, reinforce the fear and uneasiness of which the
watchman speaks which surrounds the household, lend visual point
and dramatic effect to Calchas' prophecy at 154-155, and finally,
it would make Klytemnestra's first entrance i n each of the three
plays an unexpected one. (Pool, 1983: 106-110).
These arguments are not convincing. Klytemnestra's con-
nection with the house i s marked enough later i n the play that an
otherwise m o t i v e l e s s appearance at this point i s not necessary to
reinforce i t . The audience, which has been given no hint that i t
should do so, would be unlikely to connect Klytemnestra s 1

en-
trance here with the obscurely expressed fears of the watchman.
If they remembered her entrance, i t could indeed lend dramatic
effect to Calchas' prophecy at 154-155, but Calchas 1

words do not
lack point even without her appearance; and reinforcement of
something said thirty lines later seems insufficient reason to

140
bring Klytemnestra on stage now. This appearance i s not, i n
fact, i n keeping with a c h a r a c t e r which, whatever else i t may be,
is not noted for silence: Klytemnestra has the l o n g e s t speech in
the play (even her husband remarks on i t ) a n d by f a r the g r e a t e s t
number of non-choral lines o f any c h a r a c t e r . Finally, while this
would make her first entrance i n a l l three plays unexpected, in
the other two plays her entrance has a purpose beyond mere sur-
prise: i n the Choephoroe t o speak with Orestes, and i n t h e Eumen-
ides to rouse the Furies against him. I t does not increase the
"menace and mystery" surrounding her c h a r a c t e r (Pool 1983: 1 1 1 ) ,
for the simple reason that the chorus show no fear of her at this
point which would direct the audience's minds towards suspicion.
Were she to stand i n t h e doorway f o r twenty lines only to exit
silently, the audience's reaction could i n fact only be confu-
sion .
Finally, assuming that she i s on stage, why doesn't she
answer the questions of the chorus, and why does the chorus not
comment on her silence? Murray (1920: xii-xiii) seems to think
it i s because her prayers have put her i n something very close to
a trance-state, akin to Kassandra's, deaf to a l l around her.
Earp (1950: 54) a n d others believe i t i s evidence o f her haughty
nature; Pool (1986: 113) also thinks her lack of answer can be
explained by h e r i m p e r i o u s c h a r a c t e r and contempt f o r the chorus,
and that i t demonstrates her control over the situation.
Throughout the rest o f the p l a y , however, she i s always more than
willing to explain and justify her actions to the chorus; her

141
imperiousness, i f i t exists, does not even manifest itself in
brevity, l e t alone s i l e n c e . Her undeniable control of the chorus
elsewhere stems from her ability to manipulate words, not from
her lack of them. And again, mere silence will not indicate
haughtiness or contempt to an audience whose thoughts have not
been directed that way by other things - for example, by the
choral reaction to i t . And the chorus do not react to her
silence i n any way.
Two technical reasons have been suggested f o r her silence,
and the chorus' lack of comment. First, Pool (1983: 105) sug-
gests that i t would not be traditional for the transition from
anapaests to lyric i n the chorus' opening scene to be broken by a
character's speech, and that a choral comment on her silence
would also have been most untraditional. It is possible that a
speech of a second character at this point might have seemed
disruptive to a Greek audience; but the content of the chorus'
song itself i s surely i n the hands of the poet. Aeschylus, more-
over, should not be thought of as bound hand and foot by a tradi-
tion which he in large measure developed, and in which he was
renowned for innovation. If he had desired a choral comment on
Klytemnestra's s i l e n c e , he could c e r t a i n l y have introduced one.
Second, Michelini (1974: 531 and n.18) suggests that char-
acters are not always expected to take notice, in the spoken
(iambic) sections, of what was said in the anapaests. Her other
examples of this, however, (Ag. 781 f f . and 829; Supp. 973-979
and 993) do not show this principle clearly. Altogether, the

142
lack of response, and the chorus' lack of comment, must be consi-
dered unexplained. 6
Finally, one should not forget the point raised by Fraen-
kel (1950: n. ad loc.) that i f Klytemnestra enters and exits
without speaking at 83-103, i t i s the only such appearance by a
major character i n a l l of Greek tragedy. I t s uniqueness does not
prove that i t did not happen (as Goldhill 1984: 16 n.20 points
out), but i t does give one reason to think that i t would not
happen here without a purpose. The choral apostrophe has been
shown by Pool to be unique also, i f i t i s addressed to Klytemnes-
tra i n her absence. In the end, one can only t r y to choose which
of two unique events i s the more likely.
If 83-103 i s addressed to Klytemnestra in her absence, i t
performs the function of informing the audience about events
offstage. Why she is addressed so specifically, and in such
language, is unclear. Vetta's "visualization" seems a l i t t l e
far-fetched, but c o u l d have an element of truth. Ewans (1982: 7-
8) explains i t as a request by the Council of Elders for a coun-
c i l meeting, which, at 258 f f . , Klytemnestra grants them; the
request i s made at the palace gates, knowing that Klytemnestra,
inside, will hear them and eventually come o u t . This also is not
entirely convincing. Either hypothesis, however, does take into
account what information there i s .
If Klytemnestra i s on stage, the wording of the address is
explained. However, she has no reason to be there. She is not

143
sacrificing, and standing about in a doorway will not convey an
air of menace, imper i o u s n e s s , or anything else to an audience
which could only be bewildered and distracted by her purposeless
appearance. Perhaps a reply to the chorus' questions would dis-
rupt the standard format of the opening choral scenes, but the
lack of one is still very strange. The lack of choral reaction
to her silence i s completely inexplicable.
Of the two possibilities, then, while a certain answer is
impossible, an address to her in her absence seems more easily
explained, and thus r a t h e r more likely, than her silent presence
at 83-103.
Klytemnestra enters, then, at 258, and is greeted by the
chorus. She responds to their questions with her two famous
speeches at 281-316 and 320-350, ending at 347-350 w i t h a formula
very typical of exit-lines; the chorus responds with lines very
typical of those spoken to exiting characters. (Taplin, 1977:
289-290). So i t seems safe to say that she exits somewhere be-
tween 350 and 354, and returns at 586, when she speaks to the
herald. There is no reason for her to be on stage during the
act-dividing song of the chorus, and she is not.
The real argument in this segment of the play centers on
lines 489-500, which the manuscripts F and Tr attribute to Kly-
temnestra. If she speaks these lines, then she is probably on
stage during the song, and must surely stay on after 500 to hear
the herald.
144
The two strongest reasons to believe that Klytemnestra
spoke lines 489-500 are the manuscript attribution, and the argu-
ment that her speech at 586 f f . shows that she knows what the
herald said, and t h e r e f o r e must have heard his speech. (Dennis-
ton, Page 1957: 116-117.) 7

Of these, the manuscript attribu-
tions should not be weighted too heavily, as the same manuscripts
which give these lines to Klytemnestra give the beacon-speech to
a messenger. Those who do not believe that Klytemnestra was on
stage during the h e r a l d ' s speech (for instance Taplin, 1977: 300,
and Scully, unpub.: 7) have felt that the second argument re-
quired an answer. They tend to explain Klytemnestra's knowledge
of what the herald said by referring to her "clairvoyance" and
"power", as she i s p o r t r a y e d by Aeschylus. 8

This i s not necess-
ary, however, as there is in fact nothing in her speech at 586
ff. that she could not reasonably have said. She arranged the
beacons, and knew that she could trust them; she therefore a l -
ready knew that Troy had fallen, and did not need the herald to
tell her. If the chorus did not trust the beacons, i t is no
concern of hers. Since she received the b e a c o n - s i g n a l , she would
expect Agamemnon to arrive home sooner or later; when a herald
arrives, i t makes perfect sense for her to assume that i t is the
one she expects. She knows that he's a herald because of his
staff, and she knows that Agamemnon has arrived safely both be-
cause the herald has got there and because he wears an olive
wreath ( 494 ) , the sign of a bearer of good news. (Scully,
unpub.: 9). No omniscience is necessary here, only ordinary

145
deductive abilities on the part of anyone who trusted the bea-
cons. It i s not necessary, then, to believe that Klytemnestra is
on stage to hear the herald's speech.
Finally, lines 489-500 (or 489-502) suit the chorus better
than they do Klytemnestra. Their tone i s doubtful, as i f spoken
by one who is not sure what news the herald brings, and follows
very well on the tone and concerns of the chorus 1

song immediate-
ly previous. Klytemnestra does not share the concerns the chorus
sing of in their act-dividing song, and i t makes no sense for her
to reflect them; and she i s sure of the h e r a l d ' s news. It seems
safe to say, then, that she does not speak those lines and is not
on stage to hear them spoken. She enters at line 586.
She exits again at line 614 9

and enters at 855, after
Agamemnon's homecoming speech. No further notice i s taken of her
presence after 613, and i t would be odd i f , having said that she
need not hear anything from the herald when she is about to get
the whole story from her husband (598-599), she were then to stay
on stage to listen to the herald. There i s again no reason for
her to stay on stage during the choral ode after the herald's
exit (681-781), and she does not.
There are two good reasons to believe that Klytemnestra
cannot have been on stage d u r i n g Agamemnon's speech. First, in a
speech which addresses the land, the gods, and the old men at
some length, he does not mention his wife. There are several
ways of explaining this - that he i s so taken up with his politi-

146
cal role, as a king returning to h i s land, that he has entirely
forgotten h i s domestic role as a husband and f a t h e r returning to
a home ; 10
that Klytemnestra i s invisible i n the background (why?
and why would she s t a y there, on seeing Agamemnon's entrance?);
or that he i s d e l i b e r a t e l y slighting h i s wife ( a g a i n , why?) None
of these quite explain why he does not address her; surely i t i s
easier to believe that she simply i s not there.
Second, i n his last four lines (851-854), Agamemnon clear-
ly signifies that he i s intending t o go immediately into the
palace. Instead, Klytemnestra begins t o speak, and he does not
go i n . What better reason for this than that she has suddenly
appeared i n t h e doorway and blocked h i s path? 1 1

H i s comment a t
916 might be interpreted partly as annoyance at being frustrated
in h i s original intent, as well as at being forced to wait
through a long and embarrassing speech. 1 2
Klytemnestra exits shortly after Agamemnon, a t 974. Her
final couplet i s probably not intended t o be heard by Agamemnon
(973-974), and so i s most likely delivered after h i s exit.
(Taplin 1977; 308-309; Fraenkel 1950: n. a d loc.) This couplet
is, again, very good as an exit-line, and as t h e r e i s no reason
to keep Klytemnestra on stage through the choral song (975-
1033) 1 3
, we may assume i t was u s e d as one.
The remainder of Klytemnestra's movements are fairly
clearly marked. She enters at 1035, l o s e s i n her attempt to

147
control Kassandra, and e x i t s a t 1068. Entering again a t 1372,
she remains on s t a g e until the end o f the p l a y .
One more point needs t o be made on the subject of stage
directions. Aegisthus admits that h e was not i n the house ("&<J-
p*ioi wO", 1608). He and h i s bodyguard must therefore have come
on from a side entrance. (Taplin 1977: 3 2 9 ) . Klytemnestra has
used only the central door into t h e house throughout the play,
and has c o n t r o l l e d i t s u s e by a l m o s t everyone else. The herald
is not permitted to enter; Agamemnon enters only on her disast-
rous terms; and A e g i s t h u s , from outside the palace, i s permitted
to enter with her at the play's end. Only Kassandra frustrates
Klytemnestra's attempt to completely control entrance to the
oikos and enters under compulsion not of Klytemnestra, but of
Apollo. This failure foreshadows Klytemnestra's eventual doom,
by command of t h e same god; but i n the f i r s t play, we should
remember that visually, Klytemnestra's control o f , and authority
over, the palace will have been obvious, and her self-proclaimed
role a s "dog o f t h e house" perfectly clear throughout the play.

148
NOTES TO APPENDIX B
l
Ee c i t e s Wilamowitz* a r t i c l e i n Hermes 21 (1886) 597 f f . ,
which a r g u e s t h e same p o i n t .
2
L a t t i m o r e ' s t r a n s l a t i o n a l s o assumes t h i s c o n t i n u a l pre-
sence. (Richmond L a t t i m o r e , O r e s t e i a , translation. (Chicago:
1953).
3
As cited by T a p l i n (1977: 284). I am indebted to this
work f o r much o f the argument o f t h i s appendix.
4
V e t t a ( 1 9 7 6 : 11) s h o w s t h a t t h i s i s n o t a common f o r m o f
address to a c h a r a c t e r e n t e r i n g f o r the f i r s t time and (1976:
1 1 7 - 1 1 8 ) t h a t t h e a d d r e s s a t 2 5 8 - 2 6 0 i s m o r e common u n d e r those
circumstances. H o w e v e r , t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f v o c a t i v e s , common o r
not, s t i l l suggests that Klytemnestra i s present.
5
Z e i t l i n ' s d i s c u s s i o n of s a c r i f i c i a l imagery i n the Ores-
t e i a i s e x t r e m e l y e n l i g h t e n i n g , a n d I do n o t w i s h t o w e a k e n h e r
argument. However, K l y t e m n e s t r a s absence
1
a t 83-103 d o e s not
weaken i t ; as she has o r d e r e d the s a c r i f i c e s , her responsibility
f o r the r i t e s (which the chorus emphasize) remains t h e same w h e -
t h e r or not she i s present. Her r e l a t i o n s h i p with the sacri-
f i c e s i s thus unchanged, a l t h o u g h v i s u a l l y the impact is less-
ened.
6
N e i t h e r 9 7 - 9 8 n o r 263 o u g h t t o be t h o u g h t o f a s c o m m e n t s
o n K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s s i l e n c e ; b o t h c a n be e x p l a i n e d m o r e e a s i l y as
merely p o l i t e formulae appended to r e s p e c t f u l r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r -
mation .
7 T
h e r e are other arguments, m e n t i o n e d b y S c u l l y ( u n p u b . 2-
3), but they are t r i v i a l ( a s he demonstrates) and easily dis-
missed.
8
e g . T a p l i n ( 1 9 7 7 : 300) - " s h e d i d n o t n e e d t o be p r e s e n t
to have t h i s superiority, which i s t y p ical of her role", or
S c u l l y ( u n p u b . : 7) - " ( S h e ) d o e s n o t n e e d t o be p r e s e n t a t 489 to
know t h a t Agamemnon h a s a r r i v e d a t A r g o s . Earlier Aeschylus has
made h e r d e s c r i b e t h e s c e n e i n t h e r u i n e d c i t y of Troy."
9
T h e MSS F and T r g i v e 612-613 t o the h e r a l d , but as
Fraenkel ( 1 9 5 0 : n. ad l o c . ) d e m o n s t r a t e s , t h i s s h o u l d be disre-
g a r d e d , i f n o t b e c a u s e i t w o u l d be e x t r e m e l y u n u s u a l f o r a s e c o n d
a c t o r to break i n w i t h an answer b e f o r e t h e c h o r u s s p e a k , then
because t h e r e s e e m s no r e a s o n f o r t h e h e r a l d t o s a y t h e m ; but
they a r e good e x i t - l i n e s f o r K l y t e m n e s t r a .
O f c o u r s e , Agamemnon's g r e a t w e a k n e s s a n d t h e s o u r c e o f
1 0
h i s d o w n f a l l i n t h e p l a y i s p r e c i s e l y t h a t he d o e s o u t r a g e h i s
domestic ties f o r the sake of h i s p o l i t i c a l role. One cannot
149
d o u b t t h a t i n t h i s h o m e c o m i n g s c e n e A e s c h y l u s s h o w s u s a man who
i s , a t t h a t moment a t l e a s t , e n t i r e l y p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h h i s p o s i -
t i o n as k i n g . Were h i s s p e e c h not s u f f i c i e n t t o t e l l us this,
Klytemnestra's speech a d d r e s s i n g him e x c l u s i v e l y as husband and
head of the household emphasizes the "regal" t o n e o f h i s own
words. B u t e v e n a k i n g w o u l d m e n t i o n h i s r e g e n t - w h i c h we know
Klytemnestra t o be f r o m l i n e s 258-260 - on homecoming, i f t h e
r e g e n t were p r e s e n t . Agamemnon d o e s n o t .
n
Taplin ( 1 9 7 7 : 307) p o i n t s t h i s o u t . I t i s foreshadowed
a t 5 8 7 , when s h e b l o c k s t h e h e r a l d ' s e n t r a n c e . (The h e r a l d l i k e -
wise has not addressed her.) See a l s o Ewans ( 1 9 8 2 : 7 - 8 ) , who
d e v e l o p s t h e theme o f o b s t r u c t e d , o r p e r v e r t e d , h o m e c o m i n g .
1 2
See M i c h e l i n i (1974: 527-530) f o r an i n t e r e s t i n g inter-
p r e t a t i o n . She s u g g e s t s t h a t h i s comment i s intended p a r t l y to
mark t h e t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n a f o r m a l r h e s i s a n d t h e r e t u r n t o t h e
" a c t i o n " o f t h e p l a y , and c i t e s o t h e r examples o f t h i s usage.
A n d some t o t a k e h e r o f f - w o u l d t h e c h o r u s
1 3
have ex-
pressed their f o r e b o d i n g s so c l e a r l y i f the agent they feared
were s t i l l on stage?
150
BIBLIOGRAPHY
T E X T S AND COMMENTARIES
D e n n i s t o n , J o h n Dewar a n d D e n y s P a g e , e d s . ( 1 9 5 7 ) . Aes-
c h y l u s ; Agamemnon. I n t r o d u c t i o n a n d Commentary by
the editors. (Oxford.)
F r a e n k e l , Eduard, Ed. (1950). Aeschylus: Agamemnon. 3

Volumes, w i t h commentary. (Oxford.)
Rose, H. J . (1958). A Commentary on t h e S u r v i v i n g P l a y s

of A e s c h y l u s . 2 Volumes. (Amsterdam: N.V. N o o r d -
Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij).
REFERENCES
Alsina, J . (1959). "Observaciones sobre l a f i g u r a de

Clitemestra" (with English resume). Emerita
XXVII, 297-321.
Anderson, F l o r e n c e Mary B e n n e t t . (1929). "The C h a r a c t e r

of K l y t e m n e s t r a i n t h e Agamemnon of Aeschylus".
TAPhA 1929, 136-154.
. (1932). "The C h a r a c t e r o f C l y t e m n e s t r a i n
the Choephoroi and t h e Eumenides o f A e s c h y l u s . "
AJPh 1932, 301-319.
Bachofen, Johann Jakob. (1967). Myth, R e l i g i o n , and

Mother R i g h t : Selected Writings. R a l p h Manheim,
trans. ( B o l l i n g e n S e r i e s 84, P r i n c e t o n . )
Bamberger, J . (1974). "The myth o f m a t r i a r c h y : why

women r u l e i n p r i m i t i v e s o c i e t y " , i n Women, C u l t u r e
and Society, M. R o s a l d o and L. Lamphere, e d s .
(Stanford). 263-280.
Betensky, Aya. (1978). "Aeschylus' Oresteia: The Power

of Clytemnestra". Ramus V I I , 1 1 - 2 5 .
B u r k e r t , W. (1966). "Greek T r a g e d y and S a c r i f i c i a l Rit-

ual". GRBS V I I , 8 7 - 1 2 1 .
C a m p b e l l , A . Y. (1936). "Resume o f p a p e r on the Aga-

memnon" , P C P h S C L X I I I - C L X V , 1-2.
Conacher, D. J . (1974). " I n t e r a c t i o n between Chorus and

Characters i n the Oresteia." A J P 95, 323-343.
Costa, C. D. N. (1962). "Plots and P o l i t i c s in Aeschy-

l u s " , G&R IX, 22-34.
151
Couch, H. N. (1931). " P r o s k y n e s i s and Abasement i n Aes-

c h y l u s " , CPh 1931, 316-318.
D ' A r m e s , E d w a r d F . , a n d K a r l K. H u l l e y . (1946 ). "The

Oresteia-Story i n t h e Odyssey." T A P h A 77 ( 1 9 4 6 ) ,
207-213.
Dawe, R. D. (1963). "Inconsistencies of Plot and Char-

acter i n Aeschylus". P C P h S 9, 2 1 - 6 2 .
Davies, M. I . (1969). "Thoughts on t h e O r e s t e i a b e f o r e

Aischylos". B u l l e t i n de C o r r e s p o n d a n c e H e l l e n i q u e
93, 214-260.
Dodds, E . R. (1951). The Greeks and the I r r a t i o n a l ,

especially "Agamemnon's A p o l o g y " , 1-27, a n d "From
Shame-Culture", 28-64. (University of C a l i f o r n i a
Press, Los Angeles).
. (1960). "Morals and P o l i t i c s i n the Ores-

t e i a " , PCPhS V I , 19-31.
Doyle, R. M. (1961). " A e s c h y l u s ' Agamemnon: A Study in

S e l f i s h n e s s " , CB X X X V I I I , 22-26.
During, Ingmar. (1943). " K l u t a i m e s t r a - v ^ A ^ s yvOZ . A
study of the development of a literary motif."

E r a n o s 41 (1943), 91-123.
Earp, F . R. (1950). "Studies i n Character. Agamemnon".

G&R X I X , 4 9 - 6 1 .
E a s t e r l i n g , P. E . (1973). "Character i n Aeschylus". G&R

20, 3 - 1 9 .
Eco, Umberto (1979). A Theory o f S e m i o t i c s . (Indiana:

Indiana University Press.)
Ewans, M. (1982). "The D r a m a t i c Structure o f Agamemnon."

Ramus X I , 1 - 1 5 .
Fontenrose, J . (1971). "Gods a n d Men i n the Oresteia."

TAPhA C I I , 71-109.
Forbes, P. B. R. (1948). "Law a n d P o l i t i c s i n the Ores-

t e i a " . CR 1 9 4 8 , 9 9 - 1 0 4 .
Gantz, Timothy. (1977). "The F i r e s of the Oresteia."

J H S 97 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 2 8 - 3 8 .
Gantz, Timothy. (1983). "The C h o r u s o f A i s c h y l o s ' Aga-

memnon. " H S C P h 87 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 6 5 - 8 6 .
152
Goheen, Robert F. (1955). "Aspects of Dramatic Symbol-

ism: Three S t u d i e s i n t h e O r e s t e i a . (Cambridge.)
G o l d h i l l , Simon. (1984). Language, Sexuality, Narrative:

the O r e s t e i a . (Cambridge.)
Gomme, A . W. (1925). " T h e P o s i t i o n o f Women i n A t h e n s i n

t h e F i f t h a n d F o u r t h C e n t u r i e s " . C P h XX, 1 - 2 5 .
Gould, John. (1978). "Dramatic C h a r a c t e r a n d 'Human

Intelligibility' i n Greek Tragedy". PCPhS n . s . 24,
43-67.
H a m m o n d , N . G. L . (1965). " P e r s o n a l Freedom and i t s

Limitations i n theOresteia." JHS LXXXV, 4 2 - 5 5 .
Henle, Jane. (1973). Greek Myths: A Vase-Painter's

Notebook. (Bloomington, Indiana.)
Herington, John. (1984.) " P i n d a r ' s E l e v e n t h P y t h i a n Ode

a n d A e s c h y l u s ' Agamemnon", i n Greek P o e t r y and
Philosophy: S t u d i e s i n Honour o f L e o n a r d Woodbury.
Douglas E. Gerber, ed. (Scholar's Press: Chico,
California.) 137-146.
H o e r n l e , E . S. (1921). The Problem o f t h e Agamemnon.

(Oxford). r e v i e w e d , V . S.., J H S 1 9 2 4 , 2 9 9 . (book
itself unavailable.)
Jebb, R. C . , e d . Sophocles: Electra. With notes and

i n t r o d u c t i o n by e d i t o r . (Oxford.)
Jones, John. (1962.) On A r i s t o t l e , a n d G r e e k Tragedy.

( C l a r k e , I r w i n and Co., T o r o n t o . )
Kirk, G. S. (1974). The Nature o f Greek Myths. (Penguin

Books Canada, Markham.)
Knox, B. M. W. ( 1952 ) . "The L i o n i n t h e House". CPh

X L V I I , 17-25.
Kuhns, R. (1964). The House, t h e C i t y and t h e Judge:

the Growth o f Moral Awareness i n t h e O r e s t e i a .
(New York.)
L a n a h a n , W. F . (1974). " L e v e l s o f Symbolism i n t h e Red

C a r p e t S c e n e o f Agamemnon." CB L I , 2 4 - 2 7 .
M c D o n a l d , W. A. (1960). "A d i l e m m a . Choephoroi 691-

699." C J LV 366-370.
Michel i n i , A n n N. ( 1974 ). "M.W/M«) / V '*ff** >*'

l,
".
Hermes 102, 524-539.
153
. (1979). " C h a r a c t e r s and C h a r a c t e r Change i n

Aeschylus: C l y t e m n e s t r a a n d t h e F u r i e s . " Ramus 8,
153-164.
Murray, Gilbert. (1920). T h e Agamemnon of Aeschylus.

(Oxford.)
Ortner, S h e r r y B. (1974). " I s Female t o Male as Nature

is to Culture?" i n Women, C u l t u r e a n d S o c i e t y . M.
Rosaldo and L. Lamphere. eds. (Stanford.) 67-
89.
Pearson, A . C. (1930). "Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1525 f f .

CR 1 9 3 0 , 55.
Peradotto, John J . (1964). "Some P a t t e r n s o f Nature

Imagery i n t h e O r e s t e i a " . AJP 85, 378-393.
P o d l e c k i , A. J . (1966). The P o l i t i c a l Background of

Aeschylean Tragedy. (Ann A r b o r ) .
P o d l e c k i , A. J . (1983). "Aeschylus' Women". Helios n.s.

10, 2 3 - 4 7 .
Pool, E . H. (1983). "Clytemnestra s First Entrance i n

1
A e s c h y l u s ' Agamemnon: Analysis of a Controversy."

Mnemosyne S e r . 4 V. 36, 71-116.
P u g s l e y , J . W. (1929). "The F a t e M o t i v e a n d i t s E c h o e s
in the Oresteia". TAPhA 1 9 2 9 , 38-47.
Riele, G.J.M.J. Te. (1955). L e s Femmes Chez Eschyle.

(Groningen, Djakarta.)
Rose, H. J . (1956). "Aeschylus the Psychologist". SO

X X X I I , 1-21.
S c h e f o l d , K. (1966). Myth and Legend i n Early Greek A r t .

(New York.)
Scully, S. E . "Aeschylus, Agam. 489 f f . : d i d C l y t e m n e s t r a

speak these l i n e s ? " (U. V i c t o r i a : unpublished.)
S i m p s o n , M. (1971). "Why does Agamemnon yield?" PP

XXVI, 94-101.
Stanford, W. B. (1937 ). "yuJ^hs ^ ^ ' ^ . U f ^ . ^

Klup ". CQ 1 9 3 7 , 9 2 - 9 3 .
. (1963). T h e U l y s s e s Theme: A Study i nthe

A d a p t a b i l i t y o f a T r a d i t i o n a l Hero. (Second Edi-
tion.) ( B l a c k w e l l , Oxford.)
154
Taplin, 0. (1972). "Aeschylean Silences and Silences in

Aeschylus". HSCP 7 6 , 5 7 - 9 7 .
. (1977). The S t a g e c r a f t of A e s c h y l u s : the

D r a m a t i c Use o f E x i t s and E n t r a n c e s i n Greek Tra-
gedy . ( O x f o r d ) .
Vermeule, Emily. (1966). "The Boston Oresteia Krater".

AJA 70, 1-22.
Vetta, Massimo. (1976). "La Prima A p p a r i z i o n e d i C l i t e -

mestra Nell'Agamemnone d i E s c h i l o . Problemi d i
Scena T r a g i c a . " M a i a 28, 1 0 9 - 1 1 9 .
Whallon, William. (1958). "The Serpent at the Breast".

TAPhA 89, 271-275.
. (1964). "Maenadism in the Oresteia". HSPh

LXVII, 317-327.
. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . P r o b l e m and Spectacle: Studies in the

Oresteia. (Heidelberg.)
Winnington-Ingram, R. P. (1933). "The Role of Apollo in

the O r e s t e i a . " CR 1933, 97-104.
. (1948). "Clytemnestra and the Vote of

A t h e n a " . JHS L X I X , 130-1947.
. ( 1893 ) . "Agamemnon and t h e T r o j a n War", in

Studies i n A e s c h y l u s , R. P. Winnington-Ingram.
(Cambridge.) 78-100.
Z e i t l i n , F. I . (1965). "The M o t i f o f Corrupted S a c r i f i c e

in Aeschylus' Oresteia". TAPhA XCVI, 463-508.
. (1978). "The Dynamics of Misogyny: Myth and

Myth-Making i n the Oresteia". Arethusa XI, 149-
184.

Klytemnestra in The Agamemnon of Aeschylus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Klytemnestra in The Agamemnon of Aeschylus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KLYTEMNESTRA I N T H E AGAMEMNON OF A E S C H Y L U S

LAUREL MARJORIE BOWMAN

B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1981

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We accept this thesis as conforming

to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA

© Laurel Marjorie Bowman, 1986

In the last eighty years a great deal has been written

about the character and s y m b o l i c s i g n i f i c a n c e of Klytemnestra i n

Aeschylus' trilogy, the O r e s t e i a . These s t u d i e s have contributed

much that i s useful t o the understanding of Klytemnestra's char-

acter and her r o l e i n the t r i l o g y . However, by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on

her position i n the O r e s t e i a , some aspects o f her r o l e i n the

first play ( t h e Agamemnon), o f which she i s t h e p r o t a g o n i s t , have

been neglected because they a r e not a b s o l u t e l y relevant to the

themes o f t h e whole trilogy. Equally, t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f some

aspects o f her c h a r a c t e r and r o l e i n t h e Agamemnon have frequent-

ly been blown o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n i n that play simply because they

become i m p o r t a n t later i n the t r i l o g y .

This t h e s i s a t t e m p t s , by c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the text

of t h e Agamemnon alone, to a r r i v e at a balanced view of Klytem-

n e s t r a 's character and r o l e i n that play. Her p e r s o n a l charac-

teristics, and her r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e themes developed and

images u s e d i n t h e Agamemnon, are discussed i n the order i n which

they a r e revealed i n the t e x t .

Appendix A traces t h e development of the O r e s t e i a myth i n

literature and a r t b e f o r e Aeschylus, and d i s c u s s e s t h e c h a n g e s he

Appendix B analyses t h e arguments surrounding Klytemnes-

t r a ' s stage movements i n t h e Agamemnon, and s u g g e s t s a sequence

of e n t r a n c e s and e x i t s which s a t i s f i e s most o f t h e p o i n t s raised.

APPENDIX A: The O r e s t e i a Tradition and Aeschylus'

APPENDIX B: K l y t e m n e s t r a ' s Entrances and E x i t s 132

I would like t o thank my advisor, Dr. P o d l e c k i , and Dr.

Edinger, for their thoughtful advice and a s s i s t a n c e i n this the-

sis, and f o r t h e i r unfailing patience. I am a l s o grateful to

R o b e r t , C a r o l and Edward f o r t h e i r cheerful help i n proofreading,

and f o r allowing me to discuss problems i n the text at length

with them i n t h e c o u r s e o f my work on t h e t h e s i s ; a n d t o Matthew,

for showing me what graduate students are really supposed t o be

doing. Finally, I would particularly like t o thank my parents

for their unceasing moral (and f r e q u e n t financial) support over

the l a s t three years.

To interpret properly Klytemnestra's r o l e i n the Agamemnon

one should keep two p r i n c i p l e s i n mind. First, she is a person , 1

not m e r e l y an expression of a p o l i t i c a l or social theme. Second,

she i s not the point of the play. Neither of these principles

has been a m a t t e r of common agreement among c r i t i c s ; in fact, one

or the other i s usually ignored, by omission or deliberate neg-

lect. For this reason, I would like to discuss my reasons for

holding them b e f o r e going on.

In the Oresteia, Aeschylus attempts to resolve abstract

questions of justice and divine will, which he explores through

the conflict of male versus female, oikos versus society, and

other i n a l l three plays, but they become c l e a r e s t i n the Eumen-

ides, where they are i s o l a t e d from human activities and judged

rather than enacted. (The fact that many c h a r a c t e r s i n the Eumen-

of the trilogy.) In the Agamemnon, however, the characters are

human, and the issues are not as well-defined or as abstract as

they later become. It i s a mistake t o t r e a t them as i f they are.

It i s equally a mistake to treat the issues developed and