Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:57:59.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Purification and pollution in Aeschylus' Eumenides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Keith Sidwell
Keith Sidwell
Affiliation:
Saint Patrick's College, Maynooth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘The issues surrounding Orestes’ purification are some of the most difficult in all of Aeschylus’ wrote A. L. Brown in 1982. Despite the appearance since then of an overall treatment of pollution and three editions of the play, there continue to be disagreements about the matter. In this paper I suggest that we may be better able to understand the treatment of purification if we focus on the importance of Orestes’ pollution to the particular version of the story constructed in Eumenides.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , May 1996 , pp. 44 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 JHS 102 (1982), 30.

2 Parker, R. C. T, Miasma (Oxford, 1983).Google ScholarSommerstein, A. H, Aeschylus, Eumenides (Cambridge, 1989).Google ScholarPodlecki, A. J, Aeschylus, Eumenides (Warminster, 1989).Google ScholarWest, M. L, Aeschylus, Tragoediae (Stuttgart, 1990). These works are cited by author's name only. 3 Sommerstein, p. 16.Google Scholar

3 Sommerstein, p. 16.

4 E.g. Dem. 21.105. Cf. 612–13 where Orestes asks Apollo in relation to the justification of his deed and 682 where Athena describes the trial as

5 Parker, p. 107.

6 Appendix 5 (pp. 366–9).

7 See Sourvinou-Inwood, C, Reading Greek Culture (Oxford, 1991), pp. 3–23 for a discussion of the theoretical problems of and a methodology for reconstructing the ancient readings of texts and images.Google Scholar

8 Sommerstein, p. 16 with n. 57.

9 See Taplin, O, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford, 1977), pp. 381–4;Google ScholarBrown, A. L, ‘The I Erinyes in the Oresteia’ JHS 103 (1983), 13–34; Parker, pp. 386–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 P. 107. See also Brown (n. 9), p. 24, and id. (n. 1), pp. 30–32.

11 See Parker, p. 125; MacDowell, D. M, Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators (Manchester, 1963), pp. 25, 132–40, 144–6.Google Scholar

12 See Parker, p. 387. However, it may be better to regard the treatment of purification not as a matter of fact, but as something open to varying points of view—for example, those of the family of the perpetrator versus those of the murdered individual.

13 Athena's view at 473f. that Orestes is pure (unequivocal in the received text) is given by an Olympian supplicated by a man who would be breaking all taboos if he had approached her shrine while still polluted and then dared to speak. But if the purification procedure is a matter of fact, the question of Orestes’purity is a matter of opinion (see n. 12). The problem for Athena, even if she believes that Orestes is pure, is to convince the wronged parties (here the actual agents of pollution) that the purification has been effective. The process of law offers a remarkable way of doing it (and the split verdict a way of showing that it is a matter of judgement, decided in an arbitrary manner). It is worth noting that Athena's arguments for establishing a court are articulated precisely in terms of (a) Orestes’claim to be pure (473–4) and (b) the danger from the Erinyes as the agents of pollution (476–9). I am grateful to the editors for suggesting this line of argument. The passage is textually corrupt, and it seems possible that in the original version, Athena may not have declared Orestes pure tout court. However, if the play has been specifically designed to produce an Orestes pure and able to return to his homeland as ruler, then it is not especially surprising that the odds are stacked against the Erinyes so clearly.

14 Sommerstein on 657–66. Podlecki, on 657, is slightly less sceptical: a theory which would perhaps not have sounded as ludicrous to Aesch.'s audience as it does to us. But lower down he adds:‘Of course the point remains that… Orestes did violence to one of the most basic and sacrosanct of human relationships, that between a child and a mother.

15 References in Roberts, D. H, Apollo and his Oracle in the Oresteia (Göttingen, 1984 Hypomnemata 78), pp. 61–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 See further n. 19

17 Parker, Appendix 8, p. 393.

18 Contra Sommerstein, p. 207, paragraph (3).

19 It is not at all clear what is meant by opKos in the first two passages. Elsewhere I will argue that in fact we should interpret this as "OpKos (cf. Soph. OC 1767), which thus represents the whole area of the Erinyes’operation, rather than any specific oath. West also suggests reading the word as a personification in his apparatus at 621.

20 The first point was made to me in correspondence by Alan Sommerstein (and see his commentary on 721–2 and 730). For the second, see Winnington-Ingram, R. P, Studies in Aeschylus (Cambridge, 1983), p. 121.Google Scholar

21 But see below for reservations about the latter passage.

22 Sommerstein notes here:‘Even Apollo can hardly seriously believe that the Erinyes are despised by the older as well as the younger gods’and refers back to 73. But this mentions only the hatred of men and of the Olympians for the Erinyes, does not necessarily imply hatred.

23 In my view (cf. also Podlecki ad loc.), this is Apollo's last line (Sommerstein and West allot 748–51 to him). Elsewhere I will argue that its finality and the reply of the Erinyes suggest that the god makes a sudden exit after he has spoken it.

24 Goldhill, S. D, Language, Sexuality, Narrative: the Oresteia (Cambridge, 1984), p. 246. See Sommerstein ad loc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 In my view, 676–7 should be assigned to Orestes rather than Apollo or the Chorus. (1) It is he who controls the conduct of his case (609–14 is an instruction to his advocate and witness); (2) 677 alludes to the right of the defendant to leave after his first speech in the Areopagus court (Dem. 23.69, cf. Antiphon 5.13; see MacDowell [n. 11], pp. 114–15).

26 See references in Sommerstein, p. 3 n. 6.

27 Lysias 3.46, Lykourgos 12–13, Aristotle, Rhet. 1354a22–3, Lucian, Anacharsis 19. See MacDowell [n. 11], pp. 43–4:‘We are not told whether the herald decided for himself whether particular remarks were relevant or how he received instructions to intervene. But the rule must certainly have discouraged the irrelevant pleadings and personal attacks which are a conspicuous feature of extant Athenian speeches delivered before other juries, and have helped the Areopagus to focus their attention on the true merits of the case.’Cf. also Antiphon 6.9 with MacDowell, p. 93.

28 Likewise, there are problems with 762f. I propose to deal with these passages elsewhere.

29 This reading is therefore justified whether or not the passages which specifically mention the Argive alliance are interpolations. If they are, they will have been inserted to create an even stronger focus on this aspect.

30 See Brown, A. L, ‘Eumenides in Greek tragedy', CQ 34 (1984), 260–81.Google Scholar

31 See Parker, p. 141. Generally, see MacDowell [n. 11], pp. 11 –25; Oliver, J. H, The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law (Baltimore, 1950);Google ScholarJacoby, F, Atthis: the Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford, 1949), pp. 8–51.Google Scholar

32 See Parker, p. 374 n. 29

33 The fact that Apollo's words at 667–73 also fall on the schema which justifies his role at the trial adds another argument against the authenticity of this passage. See above n. 28.

34 See for example Taplin (n. 9), pp. 381–4; Brown (n. 1), pp. 30–32; Parker, pp. 386–8; Sommerstein ad 237.

35 E.g. Parker, p. 386.

36 E.g. Sommerstein ad 237.

37 E.g. Taplin (n. 9), p. 383.

38 See Parker, p. 387 for the position of the trial in actual practice (before exile) and in the play (after exile).

39 On the problems presented by this line, see Garvie, A. F, Aeschylus, Choephori (Oxford, 1986), ad loc. Brown (n. 1, pp. 31–2) constructs his discussion the other way round, which has the effect of implying that these references are out of line with everything else.Google Scholar

40 Dyer, R. R, JHS 89 (1969), 39 n. 5 for a list of the various ways in which the question has been answered. It is not enough to say that these‘contain their own refutation’and‘ m a k e n o sense in terms of dramatic technique’(Brown n. 1, p. 30). The answer offered below contains aspects of several of them.Google Scholar

41 For the staging of this scene see Taplin (n. 9), pp. 363–5 and Brown (n. 1), pp. 29–30, Sommerstein, p. 93 and ad 64.1 agree with the last two against Taplin that the ekkyklema is used here. Though I have some sympathy with West's case for movable screens (M. L. West, Studies in Aeschylus [Stuttgart, 1992], pp. 264– 71), I d o not think we know enough about the dimensions of the ekkyklema to rule out the possibility of its having been able to contain the whole scene described by the priestess.

42 Sommerstein ad loc.

43 Parker, p. 387.

44 Even if multiple purification was possible (as Parker allows, p. 387), and this passage reflects that possibility, it is not evidence that Orestes did not receive his first purification at Apollo's hands. This must be considered a datum, since it is said openly at 578, and is backed up by the treatment of the requirement for silence.

45 Above (n. 40).

46 Dyer (n. 40), plates 3.3 a nd 4.5. See also A. Kossatz-Deismann, Dramen des Aischylos auf 1 Westgriechischen Vasen (Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Komission fur Antike I Mythologie. Schriften zur Antiken Mythologie IV. Mainz am Rhein, 1978), p. 108 with n. 607.

47 P. 139 n. 142, p. 228 with n. 121 a nd p. 386.

48 Cf. Brown (n. 1), p. 31 n. 32.

49 See Dyer (n. 40), p. 39 n. 5 and Brown (n. 1), pp. 30–32 for references.

50 Parker, p. 370. This was the view of Verrall and he was followed by many others (Brown, [n. 1], p. 30, n. 28). The drama, and not the make-up, makes clear the state of Orestes’hands (contra Brown, [n. 1] p. 31).

51 Brown (n. 1), p. 30 n. 28.

52 Sommerstein and West follow Burges in transposing 85–7 before 64, but Podlecki keeps the ms. order. Sommerstein has Apollo enter after 87 in response to Orestes’appeal, but Podlecki has them enter together. See also Taplin (n. 9), pp. 363–5 and Brown (n. 1), pp. 29– 30. See n. 41 for my view of the staging.

53 See above nn. 40, 46 for references.

54 A correspondent suggests that it is odd for the Pythia of all people not to be able to see Apollo. However, if the resolution of the paradox is as suggested here, then the audience will certainly not have given this issue another thought, except to use the available schemata to interpret it, especially as the Pythia's parting words invite Apollo to deal with the awful scene.

55 See Kossatz-Deismann (n. 46), p. 108 n. 604, for this idea and its proponents.

56 Whether Hermes is actually present or not is irrelevant to this argument. See Taplin (n. 9), pp. 364–5 for the view that he does not appear and also Sommerstein ad 89–93. Podlecki ad89 disagrees and has a mute Hermes appear. The argument is finely balanced, but the current investigation marginally favours a mute Hermes for two reasons: (1) the drama is generally managed in a highly visual and symbolic manner. It is out of character for an opportunity for visualization to be missed; (2) if Orestes really is worried about being left alone to face his pursuit, then a mere verbal appeal from Apollo will not help. If he did appear, the following arguments of Sommerstein cannot stand up: (1) where is Hermes at 235f.? (here the audience will assume that Hermes had left Orestes once he had delivered him safely into the protective zone of Athena); (2) there is no traditional connection between Delphi and Hermes which would account for his being present, unsummoned, within Apollo's temple there. But at 89 the audience would assume that Apollo had already planned to have Hermes at hand to protect Orestes, so that the close bond between the two (expressed by Apollo's avrdSeXfov alfia Kal KOIVOV Trarpos in 89) is sufficient explanation.

57 Roberts (n. 15), pp. 4 8 – 9 with n. 23. Taplin (n. 9), pp. 363–4 for objections to the use of to begin the conversation. Another point made by Taplin is the abnormality of opening a scene in tragedy with two characters in mid conversation. But the Eumenides is full of abnormalities (such as the emptying of the stage at 33 and 234 and the surprise entry of Apollo at 574). And with Orestes only just purified, there would from the viewpoint of ritual have been no earlier moment for either to speak, so that it is a misapprehension to call it‘mid conversation'. The resumption of speech by Apollo is in mid scene, referring via the ritual just completed to the promise reported in Cho. 269.

58 The argument of Blass, F. W (Die Eumeniden des Aeschylos, Berlin, 1907, p. 77), recently given prominence by West (n. 41 above, p. 272), that one has to suppose a request such as 85–7 to be answered by Apollo's ovroi., is not especially forceful given this scenario (see also n. 57 above). Nor, given this explanation of the backward and forward reference of 8 5 – 7 in situ, is his next point, that Orestes’words make it seem that Apollo has not promised him any protection, and that Apollo's words in 88 make no reference to the request, ignoring the intervention and thus rendering Orestes’words pointless.Google Scholar

59 I am grateful to Dr David Braund for suggesting this in conversation.

60 See Sommerstein, pp. 4–5 for earlier versions of the story.

61 And probably another, viz. the need to change the Erinyes of Orestes into Semnai Theai. See Brown (n. 30).

62 This paper has benefited enormously from careful criticisms of an earlier version by Alan Sommerstem, whom I thank for his kindness.