Retrospective narrations in Agamemnon and Oedipus Tyrannus

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written in the form of an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2007, during a period when the author's academic skills were still under development. Although the quality of this article does not match the quality of later examples of the same author's work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information to nowadays students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based on, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author's best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that for any unknown words or specialised vocabulary, the readers should refer to the web for additional information.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, matching the requirements of an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work in English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.

Introduction

This article discusses the techniques used for the narration of past events in ancient Greek tragedies, and the way such narrations contribute in determining the end of the play. The article is divided in four sections. The first section presents a general introduction to the use of retrospective narration by ancient Greek poets. The following two sections focus on two representative plays of ancient Greek tragedy, and more specifically, Agamemnon by Aeschylus and Oedipus Tyrannus by Sophocles. The final section concludes on the retrospective narration techniques used by the two poets, discussing their similarities and differences.

Retrospective narration in Ancient Greek tragedy

Retrospective narration was a common technique by Ancient Greek tragedy poets, which was not only used to describe past events, but to bridge real time and scenic time. It is important to note that the audience was in most cases familiar with the myths on which ancient tragedies were based on; however, retrospective narrations were used as if the audience was unaware of the events preceding the actual play. Such flash-backs were executed on stage by an actor who played a secondary character in the story, usually a messenger, an oracle or a mythological figure, and in fewer cases by the chorus.

In principle, retrospective narrations aimed in connecting the past with the present. At the same time they were used to remind the past and to prepare the audience for the events that were to follow in the play. Though the use of flash-backs, the poets stressed the protagonist’s tragic destiny, and at the same time, they allowed the audience to put together the course of events that connected the story’s most distanced past with it scenic present. This process helped the audience in foreseing the play’s end, which was simultaneously the protagonist’s end.

Retrospective narrations in Agamemnon by Aeschylus

Agamemnon (Ἀγαμέμνων) is the first part of Aeschylus’ trilogy Oresteia (Ὀρέστεια), written sometime between 475 BC and 470 BC. It speaks about the return of Agamemnon to Mycenae after the fall of Troy, and his final assassination by his wife Clytemnestra (Κλυταιμνήστρα) (Andrianou 2001a, 58). The play begins with a monologue from one of the palace’s guards. He stands on the roof of a palatial building in the middle of the night, waiting for a sign of fire on the horizon, which will announce the fall of Troy (Lesky 1981, 371). In this particular introductory scene, Aeschylus does not produce a retrospective narration; however, the guard’s monologue implies something terrible that is meant to happen soon, given that the situation in the palace has changed since the time Agamemnon ruled before the war. In a climate of fear and insecurity, the guard introduces the audience to the world of secrecy and conspiracy, which exists in the Mycenaean palace prior to the king’s arrival (Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1-316).

The first retrospective narration in the play, follows the guard’s monologue and is performed by the chorus, which enters on stage right after. There is a long introduction where the audience is informed that there has been ten years after the beginning of the Trojan War, while there is a brief description of the major events till present (Chourmouziadis 1991, 88-9). The audience is informed about the Atreids’ (Ἀτρείδαι) expedition against Paris (Πάρης) and the events that took place in Aulis prior to the departure of the Greek warships.

During the fleet’s stay in Aulis there was a symbolic incident, where two eagles attacked and killed a pregnant female rabbit. The oracle saw that the rabbit’s killing projected the behaviour of the two Atreid kings (Agamemnon and Menelaus), who provoked the wrath of goddess Artemis. In relation to the narration technique, this particular incident is simultaneously used by Aeschylus as a flash-back and as a prediction for the expedition’s future. It is translated as a bad omen and the beginning of a crime-circle, which will eventually lead to Agamemnon’s assassination. The chorus continues with a description of the events associated with Iphigenia's sacrifice (Ἰφιγένεια), which was performed in order to convince Artemis to release favourable winds that would lead the Achaean warships to Troy. Iphigenia was sacrificed by her own father “under the yoke of necessity” (Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 218) . In the end, Agamemnon lost his mind (“an evil wind blows in his mind”, as explained in verse 219) and performed a sacrilegious and abusive act: he executed his own child in order to fulfil his ambitious war plans (Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 763-771).

The above retrospective narration introduces the basic motive of Aeschylian tragedy, which is the concept of Atis (Ἄτις). Atis is a mental state of acquired insanity, which is followed by Hubris (Ὕβρις), the materialisation of sacrilege acts that defy moral boundaries and provoke the gods. The interaction between Atis and Hubris is noted again in Aeschylus’ Persians (Πέρσες), the only surviving historical drama, which is relatively contemporary with the Oresteia and was played for the first time in 472 BC. In Agamemnon, the flash-back introduced by the chorus describes Agamemnon’s circle of sacrilege, while the preceding hymn to Zeus implies the protagonist’s punishment and final collapse, which represents the concept of Aeschylian Tisis (Τίσις). In the system of divine justice represented by Aeschylus, every form of disrespectful act towards divine moral codes provokes a divine reaction, which leads to final punishment. In Oresteia’s introduction, this is represented by a comparison between Paris, who was punished by the gods for abducting another man’s wife, and Agamemnon, who is meant to be punished for Iphigenia’s sacrifice (Lesky 1981, 371-3).

The retrospective narration by the chorus is followed by the arrival of a messenger who announces Agamemnon’s return to his homeland. The messenger contrasts this cheerful piece of information with a misfortunate event: the destruction of Menelaus’ fleet during a storm on its way back to Greece. Then, the chorus stresses the similarity between Paris and Agamemnon in relation to the connection between Helen and Clytemnestra: both men were seduced by their women and were finally brought to destruction (Thompson 1999, 87). The audience is offered a glimpse in the future and a prelude to the crime that is meant to follow, while at the same time, Aeschylus produces a tragic irony: although Agamemnon’s murder has been pre-determined as the result of divine justice, Menelaus, who provoked the Trojan War and is now missing, will finally arrive safe and sound back home. The return of Menelaus is part of the satyric drama Proteus, which follows the Oresteian trilogy, but is unfortunately lost (Andrianou 2001a, 58).

The second retrospective narration is noted in verses 1215-1294, during an on-stage discussion between Cassandra (Κασσάνδρα) and the chorus. In this specific scene, Aeschylus does not use the traditional messenger to announce events that have already happened afar from the stage; instead, he uses the oracular powers of Cassandra to predict the future as a rational result of preceding circumstances. Cassandra stares at the royal palace and visualises the bloody past of House Atreidae. She speaks about the Thyestean Feasts and the curse that burdens Agamemnon’s family. She senses the plot orchestrated by Aegisthus (Αἴγισθος), who is a descendant of Thyestes (Θυέστης), and Clytemnestra (Κλυταιμνήστρα), who has an affair with him and wishes to support him to the throne. Via Cassandra, the audience learns about Aegisthus’ part in Agamemnon’s assassination: he is determined to avenge the murder of his brothers by Atreus (Ἀτρεύς), and the sacrilegious dinner that Atreus offered to his father Thyestes with the cooked body-parts of his own sons. Finally, she predicts Orestes’ revenge (Ὀρέστης); she accepts her own destiny and enters the palace to die together with Agamemnon (Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1215-1294).

The third retrospective narration is in verses 1537-1618, right after the assassination of Agamemnon and Cassandra by Clytemnestra, when Aegisthus appears on stage. Aegisthus recalls the Thyestean Feasts from his own perspective. Unlike Cassandra’s flash-back on the same event, Aegysthus’ narration does not affect Agamemnon’s future, as he is already dead. Despite this detail, the retrospective repetition of the Thyestean Feasts is used by Aeschylus to portray Aegisthus as the abettor for both murders. Aegisthus planned both crimes and urged Clytemnestra to their execution; therefore, he is guilty on the offence of premeditated murder design. Realising this, the chorus renounces the crimes and predicts the final punishment of Aegisthus, which is meant to follow by Orestes in the second part of the Trilogy, the Libation Bearers of Choephoroi (Χοηφóρoι) (Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1537-1618). It is important to note that in this specific scene, Aeschylus introduces an innovation, which differs in relation to the original myth: he purposely leaves Aegisthus out of the murder scenes, recognising his participation as preliminary designer but not executioner (Lesky 1981, 370-1). Furthermore, he allows a comparison between Aegisthus and Orestes: the latter will avenge his father’s death, but unlike Aegisthus, he will be acquitted in court.

Retrospective narrations in Oedipus Tyrannus by Sophocles

Oedipus Tyrannus or Oedipus Rex was most likely written by Sophocles sometime between 430 BC and 420 BC. It is characterised as the “tragedy of the oracles” and according to the technical structure of its plot, it belongs to the genre of Analytical Drama (Andrianou 2001b, 75). The term Analytical Tragedy or Analytical Drama refers to plays, in which the outcome of the plot is already determined. In such dramas, the major events that determine the end of the play have already preceded and are already known to the audience. In principle, the protagonist is trapped by the story’s tragic events and has surrendered to his destiny. On the other hand, the audience knows how the plot ends and witnesses the protagonist’s final moments (Lesky 1981, 407). Any Analytical Tragedy demands previous knowledge of the entire myth and every event that has preceded the play; therefore, Sophocles’ retrospective narrations are there to remind and confirm these events to the audience, and to contribute to the protagonist’s tragic destiny on stage.

The entire story of Oedipus is based on a pre-determined course, which was announced to his father by the Oracle of Delphi before the protagonist’s birth. According to the oracle, Oedipus was destined to kill his biological father, marry his biological mother and have children who will also be his bothers and sisters. His father, king Laius (Λάϊος) of Thebes, ordered one of his shepherds to expose baby-Oedipus on Mount Cithaeron with his feet bound, so that he will be eaten by the wild animals. Instead, the Shepherd felt sorry for the baby and handed it over to another Shepherd, who worked for king Polybus of Corinth; this way, Oedipus grew up in Corinth under the impression that king Polybus (Πόλυβος) and his wife Merope (Μερόπη) were his biological parents. During one of his visits to Delphi, Oedipus found out about his tragic destiny and decided to flee Corinth in order to avoid killing his father, Polybus. On his way to Thebes, however, he crossed paths with his real father, Laius, whom he killed due to a misunderstanding. After solving the Riddle of the Sphinx, he was welcomed to Thebes as a Hero; he married Laius’ wife and queen Jocasta (Ἰοκάστη) without knowing that she was his biological mother, and together they produce two sons, Eteocles (Ἐτεοκλῆς) and Polynices (Πολυνείκης), and two daughters, Antigone (Ἀντιγόνη) and Ismene (Ἰσμήνη) (Lesky 1981, 407-8). Sophocles’ story begins right after this point, while the oracle is gradually being fulfilled, leading to Oedipus’ self punishment.

The first part of the play describes a catastrophic plague in the city of Thebes. The chorus, which comprises the Council of the Eldest, asks Oedipus to help them discover the man responsible for Laius’ death; according to the most recent oracle, the murderer is also responsible for the plague, which is believed to be a divine punishment (Lesky 1981, 408). in verses 216-275, Oedipus announces his authority as the king of Thebes and conducts the first retrospective narration, in which he connects the events of his past with his present status. He is foreign to the city; he does not know anything about the murder of Laius; he was crowned king and was married to Laius’ wife after his death, and had children with her. Oedipus wants to be fair to the people and feels morally committent to justice; therefore, he agrees to help in finding Laius’ murderer. This retrospective narration carries a tone of tragic irony. In order to stress his connection to the murdered king, Oedipus admits that his children would have been brothers with Laius’ children, provided that he had any. In reality he is unaware that he is Laius’ only child. Later on, he courses the murderer without knowing that he is actually the one ( Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 216-275).

In the first part of the tragedy, Sophocles portrays Oedipus as a just king and a charismatic ruler, who respects the wishes of his people. The audience already knows who Laius’ murderer is; however, Sophocles uses retrospective narration to demonstrate how Oedipus, who is initially ignorant, reaches to the final truth. This retrospective narration stresses the protagonist’s tragic persona: the quest towards self-realisation leads to the protagonist’s self-punishement. The tragic persona of Oedipus is not only characterised by his pre-determined destiny, but also by the ignorance of the things he did in the past.

In verses 345-362, the Elders of Thebes call Tiresia (Τειρεσίας) in front of Oedipus in order to name the man responsible for Laius’ murder. Although Tiresias is blind, he is not ignorant of the truth due to his oracular powers; he knows the man responsible for Laius’ murderer, and so does the audience. Unlike Tiresias, at this past of the play Oedipus can still see. As soon as he realises his tragic and sacrilege actions, he strike himself blind. This act is already know to the audience and is used to increase the tragic irony in the dialogue between Oedipus and Tiresias.

At this point, Oedipus proceeds with his second retrospective narration: he believes that he is equipped with enough sense and knowledge to discover the murderer, as he once solved the Riddle of the Sphinx. By contrast, both Tiresias and the audience know that solving the Sphinx’s Riddle was part of Oedipus’ destiny, which gradually unravels on stage until the moment of full realisation. As the play continues, the tragic persona of Oedipus becomes clearer: instead of accepting responsibility for his action, he accuses Creon (Κρέων) and Tiresias of conspiracy and a deliberate attempt to charge him with Laius’ murder (Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 345-362).

After the dialogue with Tiresias, Oedipus partly suspects his guilt but is still incapable of grasping the connection between his actions and the older oracle, which Laius received many years before. In Oedipus’ mind, the oracle never came real as Laius was killed by bandits and not by his son, who was abandoned on Mount Cithaeron and was never found alive. The mystery is solved with the arrival of a messenger from Corinth, who informs Oedipus on Polybus’ death.

Oedipus wonders if Polybus died of sadness due to the absence of his son, and this is the moment when the messenger reveal the truth. In verses 994-1050, Oedipus and the messenger from Corinth engage in a dialogue, where the latter introduces a flash-back, which reveals to Oedypus that he is not Polybus’ real son. In reality, he was an abandoned baby found on Mount Cithaeron, and Polybus brought him up in Corinth as if he was his own son. During this scene, Oedipus realises his true identity and the fulfilment of the old oracles (Lesky 1981, 408-9).

The final retrospective narration is by Oedipus himself in verses 1349-1415, when he appears blind on stage and recalls the events that determined his shameful destiny. These events were his abandonment as a baby, his childhood in Corinth, the murder of Laius on the forest’s path, his arrival in Thebes, his marriage with Jocasta, and finally, the birth of his children, who are the product of incest. (Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 1349-1415). The protagonist’s flash-back is introduced by Sophocles as an act of self-awareness, which leads to the gradual resolution of the plot. The image of Oedipus as a blind and broken man contrasts with the image of the proud and just king noted in the beginning of the play.

Conclusions

Retrospective narration techniques are used by both Aeschylus and Sophocles to bridge the events taking place on the stage (scenic time) with the events preceding the plot and relate to the original myth. The drama’s resolution always takes place in actual time, while previous events are being recalled by the audience through flash-backs by the actors or the chorus.

In Agamemon, Aeschylus uses secondary characters for his retrospective narrations, such as the palace guard, the messenger, Aegisthus and the chorus, who speak directly about past events. In Oedipus Tyrannus, Sophocles uses secondary characters to convey information related to past events, such as Tiresias, Jocasta and a messenger, although there is no direct narration. A complete review of the entire past is performed by the play’s main character, Oedipus, at the end of the play. This retrospective narration has the form of a logical synthesis of the events that lead the protagonist to self-awareness.

In Agamemnon, Aeschylus forges the destiny of his protagonists parallel to the retrospective narrations, which operate in a harmoniums manner and justify the sequence of the events taking place on stage. In Oedipus Tyrannus retrospective narrations function as a reminder to the audience and have nothing to contribute to the events on stage; instead, all major events of Oedipus’ myth precede the plot. The events taking place on stage associate with the resolution of the original myth according to a known oracle and the final moments of the protagonist. Sophocles’ retrospective narrations verify the end of the myth and strengthen the tragic destiny of his protagonist as he realises his shameful deeds. Due to this specific technique, Oedipus Tyrannus is categorised as an Analytical Drama.

In both plays, and in every surviving play of ancient Greek tragedy, the audience already knew the original myth; the plot could have been pre-assumed and the end was already know. Despite this precondition, Classical theatre played important part in the lives of ancient people. Based on their participation in the theatrical events, modern historians can only assume that there used to be something original and attractive in these performances, which was not affected by the repetition of the original myths. It appears likely that the art of tragedy poets, such as Aeschylus and Sophocles, could have been found in the ways, in which they placed their audience in the position of their main protagonist. Ancient drama allowed the members of the audience to visualise the events and live through the plot with their own imagination. This art offered originality and caught the audience’s attention without being depended on the rigidity of the original myths.

Bibliography

Andrianou, E., 2001a, ‘Aeschylus and the transitional period of tragedy between the Archaic and Classical phase’, in Konstantopoulou, D. (ed.) Ancient Greek Theatre. The Drama from Aeschylus to Menander, Patra: Greek Open University, 47-68.
Andrianou, E., 2001b, ‘Sophocles and the Classical phase of tragedy’, in Konstantopoulou, D. (ed.) Ancient Greek Theatre. The Drama from Aeschylus to Menander, Patra: Greek Open University, 69-82.
Konstantopoulou, D. (ed.) 2001 Ancient Greek Theatre. Abstract Anthology of Drama and Poetic Art, Patra: Greek Open University.
Chourmouziadis, N., 1991, Terms and Transformations in Ancient Greek Tragedy, Athens: Gnosi.
Lesky, A., 1981, A History of Ancient Greek Literature (original title: Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur), fifth edition, translated by A.G. Tsombanaki, Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Bros. SA.
Thomson, G.D., 1999, The Evergreen Tree. Lectures and Articles on Greek Culture, edited by C. Alexiou, 5th edition, Athens: Kedros.

Original sources

Aeschylus, Agamemon, translated by K.Ch. Myris and published in Konstantopoulou (2001)
Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, translated by K.Ch. Myris and published in Konstantopoulou (2001)