Retrospective narrations in Agamemnon and Oedipus Tyrannus
Disclaimer
The article below was originally written as an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2007, during a period when the author’s academic skills were still developing. Although the quality of this article does not match that of later examples of the same author’s work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information for 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, 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 readers consult the web for additional information on any unfamiliar words or specialised vocabulary.
The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, as required for an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work into 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 to narrate past events in ancient Greek tragedies and how such narrations contribute to determining the play's ending. The article is divided into 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, specifically Agamemnon by Aeschylus and Oedipus Tyrannus by Sophocles. The final section concludes with a retrospective narration of the techniques used by the two poets, discussing their similarities and differences.
Retrospective narration in Ancient Greek tragedy
Retrospective narration was a common technique in Ancient Greek tragedy, used not only to describe past events but also 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; however, the retrospective narrations were presented as if the audience were unaware of the events preceding the actual play. Such flashbacks were performed on stage by an actor playing 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 narratives aim to connect the past with the present. At the same time, they were used to remind the audience of the past and to prepare them for the events that were to follow in the play. Through flashbacks, the poets stressed the protagonist’s tragic destiny and, at the same time, allowed the audience to piece together the course of events that connected the story’s most distant past with its scenic present. This process helped the audience anticipate the play’s end, which was also the protagonist’s.
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 of Agamemnon's return 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 within the Mycenaean palace before 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 in which the audience is informed that ten years have passed since the beginning of the Trojan War, while a brief description of the major events to the present is provided (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 in which 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 the goddess Artemis. In terms of the narration technique, this particular incident is used by Aeschylus both as a flashback and as a prediction of the expedition’s future. It is interpreted as a bad omen and the beginning of a crime circle that 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 Aeschylean tragedy: the concept of Atis (Ἄτις). Atis is a mental state of acquired insanity, followed by Hubris (Ὕβρις), the materialisation of sacrilegious 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 first performed in 472 BC. In Agamemnon, the flashback 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 Aeschylean Tisis (Τίσις). In the system of divine justice represented by Aeschylus, every act of disrespect towards divine moral codes provokes a divine reaction that 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 their connection to Helen and Clytemnestra: both men were seduced by their women and ultimately brought to destruction (Thompson 1999, 87). The audience is offered a glimpse into 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 occurred offstage; instead, he uses Cassandra's oracular powers 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 flashback on the same event, Aegisthus’ 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 of both murders. Aegisthus planned both crimes and urged Clytemnestra to their execution; therefore, he is guilty of the offence of premeditated murder design. Realising this, the chorus renounces the crimes and predicts the final punishment of Aegisthus, which is meant to be followed 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 that differs from the original myth: he deliberately excludes Aegisthus from the murder scenes, recognising his role as a preliminary designer rather than an 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 plot's outcome is predetermined. In such dramas, the major events that determine the play's end have already occurred and are 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 predetermined course, 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 would also be his brothers 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 would 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 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 a stranger to the city; he knows nothing about the murder of Laius; he was crowned king and married Laius’ wife after his death, and had children with her. Oedipus wants to be fair to the people and feels morally committed 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’s only child. Later on, he accuses the murderer without realising that he is 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 his people's wishes. The audience already knows who Laius’ murderer is; however, Sophocles uses retrospective narration to show how Oedipus, initially ignorant, reaches the final truth. This retrospective narration stresses the protagonist’s tragic persona: the quest for self-realisation culminates in self-punishment. 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 the end of the play, Oedipus can still see. As soon as he realises his tragic and sacrilegious actions, he strikes himself blind. This act is already known 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 actions, 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 true 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 of Polybus’ death.
Oedipus wonders if Polybus died of sadness due to the absence of his son, and this is the moment when the messenger reveals the truth. In verses 994-1050, Oedipus and the messenger from Corinth engage in a dialogue, where the latter introduces a flashback, which reveals to Oedipus that he is not Polybus’s real son. In reality, he was an abandoned baby found on Mount Cithaeron, and Polybus brought him up in Corinth as if he were 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 to Jocasta, and finally, the birth of his children, who are the product of incest. (Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 1349-1415). The protagonist’s flashback 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 at the beginning of the play.
Conclusions
Retrospective narration techniques are used by both Aeschylus and Sophocles to bridge the events on stage (scenic time) with events preceding the plot and to relate them to the original myth. The drama’s resolution always unfolds in real time, while previous events are recalled by the audience through flashbacks by the actors or the chorus.
In Agamemnon, 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 about past events, such as Tiresias, Jocasta, and a messenger, even though 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 destinies of his protagonists in parallel with the retrospective narrations, which operate harmoniously and justify the sequence of events on stage. In Oedipus Tyrannus, retrospective narration serves as a reminder to the audience and contributes nothing to the events on stage; instead, all the major events of Oedipus’ myth precede the plot. The events on stage are associated with the resolution of the original myth, as foretold by a known oracle, and with the protagonist's final moments. Sophocles’ retrospective narration verifies the myth's end and strengthens 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 known. Despite this precondition, Classical theatre played an important part in the lives of ancient people. Based on their participation in the theatrical events, modern historians can only assume that there was something original and attractive in these performances that was not affected by the repetition of the original myths. It appears likely that the art of tragic 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 dependent 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, Agamemnon, translated by K.Ch. Myris and published in Konstantopoulou (2001)
Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, translated by K.Ch. Myris and published in Konstantopoulou (2001)