The Representation of the Trojan War in Aeschylus' Agamemnon

Author(s): D. M. Leahy
Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 95, No. 1 (Spring, 1974), pp. 1-23
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/293815 .
Accessed: 16/07/2013 22:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR IN

AESCHYLUS' AGAMEMNON

"Descriptions of warfare in Greek tragedy" writes Page in

discussing the second speech of the Herald in the Agamemnon
"are as a rule conventional: this one is a notable exception."'
The fact to which he refers, that this description of conditions at
the siege ofTroy contains a great deal of fifth-century realism, is
generally agreed by the commentators; but there is considera-
bly less agreement on what effect Aeschylus meant this speech
to have on his audience and, more particularly, what relation it
has to the meaning of the play as a whole. Indeed, anyone who
wishes to go so far as to maintain that the speech is quite
irrelevant can cite the distinguished support of Murray;2 and
even Fraenkel, though he avoids this extreme, comes near at
one point to suggesting that the details of contemporary realism
have been included primarily because Aeschylus felt obliged to
afford his Athenian audience an opportunity for personal
reminiscences.3

J. D. Denniston and D. L. Page, Aeschylus' Agamemnon, p. xxxiii.

2 G. Murray,Aeschylus, the Creator
of Tragedy, 214: "551-82: War Speech:
splendid realism of detail ... but no special dramatic service, except perhaps to
suggest the false hope that already rT Ei vevixr]xev." (Italics mine.) On the
suggestion of false optimism, see below, p. 7.
3 E.
Fraenkel, Aeschylus Agamemnon, II, 293: "Supposing now the king
entered without being preceded by the Herald, he would have been the only
representative of the returning army. In that case it would have been almost
inevitable that the common experience which was so near to the hearts of

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2 D. M. LEAHY.

That Aeschylus was capable of inserting into his plays pas-

sages on topics which either interested him personally or
seemed to him likely to coincide with a current popular interest,
without regard for strict relevance, may be accepted as a gen-
eral principle of criticism;4 but in any given case, the conclusion
that we have to accept this explanation of a passage is legitimate
only when we are left with no reasonably clear alternative. A
closer examination therefore appears to be required before we
dismiss the contemporary realism as interesting but irrelevant.
One point which immediately commands attention when we
look for a further explanation is the emphasis which the com-
mentators place on the "plain man" character of the Herald.s
He is regarded by them as a typical home-coming soldier, gar-
rulously and perhaps ungrammatically rambling on about what
it was like at the front; and there is undoubtedly an element of
truth in this view (though in fact it relies heavily on this second
speech rather than an overall impression of the Herald's
performance).6 Some commentators indeed go so far as to
stress this aspect exclusively, as if it were itself a sufficient
explanation of why the Herald presents so realistic a picture of
the War. But this is not enough. For, whereas it may be fairly

Aeschylus and his countrymen . . . should at any rate find expression in the
speeches of the first man to appear, the king." (Italics mine.) If this sort of thing
was "almost inevitable," one may be tempted to wonder why descriptions of
warfare in other Greek plays are, in Page's words, "as a rule conventional."
Fraenkel does subsequently (11, 294) allow that Aeschylus keeps in mind the
oixovouia of his plot; but he continues to place the emphasis of his explanation
on topical interest in descriptions of campaigning.
4 R. D. Dawe,
'Inconsistency of plot and character in Aeschylus," PCPS,
NS 9 (1963) 21-62, though perhaps overstated, is a salutary warning against
over-ingenious attempts to make every last detail of an Aeschylean play an
integral part of the play structure.
5 Fraenkel, II, 293; Denniston-Page, p. xxxiii; A. W. Verrall, The Agamem-
non of Aeschylus, 68; R. Postgate, The Agamemnon of Aeschylus, 47, 96.
6 There
appears to be some doubt about how far Aeschylus has made the
language of the Herald portray an individual character. The difference in tone
between much of the first speech and that of the second can be explained on the
basis of "So far my king and master, so much my office," but the style of much
of the third speech is, despite some apparent oddities of syntax, much more like
the elevated style customary in messenger speeches. Cf. U. von Wilamowitz,
Aeschvlos-Interpretationen, 170-71. See also below, n.27.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 3

conceded that Aeschylus is capable of including in his plays

passages which are interesting but not strictly relevant, the idea
that he ever indulges in character drawing for its own sake rests
on very slight evidence indeed;7 and it is much more likely that
such character as the Herald possesses is there to make credible
what he says, than that his speech is intended to portray his
character. And, more decisively, the note of contemporary
realism is not confined to the report of the Herald but is to be
found in several other passages in the play.
It will perhaps be useful to establish as a beginning precisely
which these passages are, since some disagreement exists. The
most obvious one is the second speech ofClytemnestra, with its
imaginative portrayal of the sack of Troy. The realism of this is
not seriously in doubt, though views on its appropriateness in
the mouth of Clytemnestra vary widely.8 More controversial is
the third speech of the Herald, the storm narrative. Reference is
commonly made to the fact that this theme is taken from the
Nostoi, 9 and this is of course true. But all the main events in the
Agamemnon have their roots somewhere in the epic tradition,
and this has not prevented some of them being coloured with
contemporary realism. The loss of the Nostoi makes it impossi-
ble to check adequately the Herald's description against the one
which occurred in that poem; but there is perhaps some slight
evidence that Aeschylus had a different picture in mind.10 And
what is striking about the Herald's account, with its alliance of
"fire and sea" and the sea next morning "flowering" with
corpses and wreckage"1 is its similarity to what the men who
fought at Artemisium remembered and afterwards told
Herodotus: "When darkness came on... there was unceasing

7 The
only possible case appears to be the Nurse in the Choephoroe; and on
this cf. H. D. F. Kitto, Greek Tragedy, (London 1961) 85.
8 Contrast
e.g. Wilamowitz, Aesch. Int. 168, and L. Golden, In Praise of
Prometheus, 67.
9 Cf. e.g. Fraenkel II, 294.
10It appears that in the Nostoi, as in the Odyssey (3).130ff. and 306ff.),
Menelaus was represented as setting out from Troy separately from Agamem-
non, and being involved in a separate storm; cf. G. L. Huxley, Greek Epic
Poetry, 163-65.
11650-52; 658-60.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 D. M. LEAHY.

rain throughout the night and crashing thunder from the direc-
tion of Pelion, and the corpses and wrecks were swept to
Aphetae and swirled round the prows of the ships and impeded
the oar-blades."'2
The other main passage, which has also been the subject of
some dispute, is that in the First Stasimon where the Chorus
describe the reception of the urns containing the ashes of the
fallen by their families at Argos: this raises the question whether
we have here a deliberate reminder of the contemporary Athe-
nian custom of bringing home the cremated remains of those
killed in overseas campaigns for a public funeral. Jacoby'3 in his
discussion of the Athenian public funerals regards it as self-
evident that there is such a reminder, and though a contrary
case has been argued by Gomme,'4 it is not convincing. His
unsupported assertion 'I do not believe that he (i.e. Aeschylus)
was given to deliberate anachronism of this kind" is hard to
square with the Areopagus scene of the Eumenides, not to
mention the Herald's description of the siege. A more serious
argument of his is that the Chorus refer to the sending of the
remains to individual homes, not to a public ceremony; but even
the public ceremony, as described by Thucydides,15 allowed for
private participation, and since we do not know what happened
to the remains between their arrival at Athens (which presuma-
bly might occur at any stage in the campaigning season) and the
public ceremony late in the year, we cannot be sure that they
were not returned in the first instance to individual families.16

12
Herod. 8.12.1. That the storm is described in contemporary terms is
affirmed by K. Reinhardt, Aischylos als Regisselr und Theologe, 82. (Storms
such as the Herald describes are of course far from uncommon in the Aegean: it
is the wreck of a battle fleet in a storm that is distinctive.) For another possible
link between Aeschylus and Artemisium cf. Fraenkel, II, 116, n.1.
13 F.
Jacoby, "Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athens and the Public Ceme-
tery in the Kerameikos,' JHS 64 (1944) 44.
14 A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 95. (The validity
of Gomme's main arguments against Jacoby's dating of the first public funeral
does not depend on his treatment of the present passage of Aeschylus.)
'5 II, 34: private participation, 11, 34, 2-4; 46, 1.
16 One
might even argue, in our present lack of further detailed knowledge,
that this passage should be considered as possible evidence that the remains
were entrusted to relatives until the time of the public funeral.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 5

But apart from the merits of individual arguments, it is hard to

believe that a description of the cremated remains of soldiers
killed overseas being brought back by ship, to the sorrow of
their bereaved relations, could have failed to strike a chord in
the experience of Aeschylus' audience, or that Aeschylus had
not so intended.
There is thus a very considerable amount of material in the
Agamemnon which bears the stamp of contemporary realism:
what effect might Aeschylus expect it to have on his audience?
From the Persian Wars down to the contemporary expedition
to Egypt the period had been filled with almost continuous
campaigning, most of it overseas; and there could have been
few in the first audience of the Agamemnon who had not come
to know what warfare was like, either from first-hand experi-
ence or from the reports of kinsfolk and friends, or who had not
waited anxiously at home for news from one of the many expe-
ditions that sailed out from the Piraeus.
The details of the warfare given in the Agamemnon are
clearly intended to evoke feelings associated with this experi-
ence. The likeness of the Herald's description of the storm to
the scene at Artemisium has already been indicated, and other
similarities can be traced. The siege of Troy itself is presented in
terms totally unlike the epic picture of a Greek camp by the
shore and sorties from camp and city to battle in the intervening
plain: instead the Greek army is represented as investing the
city walls closely, in conformity with fifth-century practice. The
stress which the Herald places on the hardship which winter
brought to the troops so stationed suggests conditions such as
may have been endured at the siege of Eion, which seems to
have lasted through the winter of 476/75 B.C.,17 and perhaps at
Sestos-only a few miles from Troy itself-where the Athe-
nians stayed on into the winter to invest the city after the other

17 Herod. 7.107.1; Thuc. 1.98; Plut. Cim. 7, 1-8, 2. That the siege lasted
through the winter is an inference from the use of the word XQVEQOV in 1.3 of the
first inscription cited by Plutarch (the variant xQarCQ6vappears in Aeschines'
quotation of the same lines in 3, 183-85). This inference is however doubted by
Jacoby, "Some Athenian epigrams from the Persian Wars," Hesperia 14 (1945)
211, n. 194.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 D. M. LEAHY.

Greeks had sailed home.'8 The grim business of occupying a

captured city, visualized by Clytemnestra, must have been
familiar to those who had been present at those sieges, or had
participated in the taking of Scyrus, where the Athenians en-
slaved the population.19 And the cramped conditions on ship-
board, described by the Herald, must have been only too well-
known by those who had rowed the fleets of those years.
Fraenkel writes of "the common experience which was so
near to the hearts of Aeschylus and his countrymen, home-
coming after a long absence, warfare in remote lands, sea voy-
age and so forth,"20 which suggests that he pictured the Athe-
nian audience as indulging in pleasurable reminiscence. If so,
this is surely not borne out by the evidence. When the overall
effect of the realism is examined, it appears that Aeschylus has
deliberately used it to convey a mood of gloom. Clytemnestra's
visionary description of the sack of Troy shows the victors with
no sense of glory or exultation: they wander through the cap-
tured city, weary and hungry, in search of such food as it still
contains, thankful to have the roof of a Trojan house over their
heads instead of suffering frost and dew, and ready to regard a
night's sleep unbroken by guard duty as sheer bliss.21
The same grey mood is evoked by the Chorus' reference to
the funerals of the war dead. If one may judge from the extant
funeral orations, the emotions proper to such occasions were
pride and grief combined. Both appear here: but the pride in the
men who died is frustrated and the grief embittered by a sense

18
Herod. 9.114-18; Thuc. 1.98.2. The information kindly supplied by the
Department of Turkish Geography, University of Istanbul, suggests that it is not
practicable to trace any very exact relation between the general pattern of early
winter conditions in this region and Aeschylus' description. The one clear point
appears to be that the prevailing wind is from the direction of Mt. Ida; though
snow when it comes is more likely to be brought by a north wind. The value of a
comparison with the hardships suffered by British troops at the Dardanelles at
the end of November 1915 is arguable; it was alleged that the conditions were the
worst for the time of the year for 40 years, but similar blizzards in fact occurred
in November of 1922 and 1928 (Official History of the Great War: Gallipoli, 1,
433, n.l).
19Thuc. 1.98.2; Plut. Cimn.8.
20
II, 293-94.
21 330-37.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 7

that their lives were squandered for a worthless cause: "They

grieve, and at the same time praise them, saying how this one
was a skilled warrior, and that one fell nobly amid the
slaughter-for the sake of another man's wife."22 There is no
sense here of that mysterious Helen of epic, for whom it was not
unfitting that Trojans and well-greaved Achaeans should un-
dergo long suffering:23here she is simply a woman, and another
man's wife at that, assessed by the realistic standards of con-
temporary male-oriented society as not worth the lives of brave
men.
And the same is also true of the Herald's realism, though
there has been some dispute about this. The part of the Herald is
sometimes regarded as a sort of optimistic interlude before the
worst happens,24 but this is, I believe, a wrong emphasis. There
is certainly some optimism in the character of the Herald, but it
does not sustain the tone of the episode as a whole. A better
assessment is that of Lloyd-Jones:25 "The description of the
war's horrors is further amplified in the speeches of the Herald,
all the more effectively because of his pathetic determination to
look on the more cheerful aspects of the situation." His opening
burst of joy at a safe return, sincere enough in itself, leads into
the bland recital of the victory announcement enjoined on him
by his commanding officer, which carries, as well as its notes of
triumph and glory, sinister overtones of which the Herald him-
self seems unaware. Then his attempt to speak personally about
the War leads him, whatever his original intention,26 into a
description of its unhappy side, out of which he struggles with

22
445-49.
23
Iliad, 3.156-57.
24
Denniston-Page, p. xxxiii: "The tension is heightened by his futile cheer-
fulness; we wish he would go away, that we might know the worst at once."
Fraenkel (II, 293-94) describes the Herald as "the only character in the tragedy
who displays an unqualified optimism": his interpretation of the mood of 573-74
seems to me too cheerful. Cf. also Murray as cited above, n.2.
25 H.
Lloyd-Jones: Agamemnon by Aeschylus: a Translation with a Com-
mentary, 10.
26 He seems to
change into this sombre mood almost automatically, rather as
the Watchman finds himself automatically lamenting the declining fortunes of
the Royal House, 16-19.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 D. M. LEAHY.

an effort to a dutiful return to the public manner of his first

speech,27 calling on Argos to "put out more flags"; and finally,
the news of the wreck of the fleet, dragged from him despite his
unwillingness to mar a day of official rejoicing with unpleasant
truths, brings the scene to an even darker conclusion. Having
entered full of joy and thankfulness, the Herald seems to depart
disillusioned, as it were, by his own admissions: a mood which
makes wholly appropriate the sombre train of thought with
which the Chorus now begin the Second Stasimon.
The cumulative effect of the contemporary realism in the play
is thus to present the War in an antiheroic, disillusioned tone,
which robs even victory of its glamour. To a modern audience,
such an attitude to war might well seem unoriginal, even com-
monplace; but can we therefore assume that Aeschylus' audi-
ence would have thought the same?
I believe that we cannot. The hardships and sufferings of war
were, as it has been stressed above, well-known to them; but it
appears likely that they had become accustomed to regarding
such things as outweighed by other factors. The prominence of
Homer in the traditional education encouraged the idea of war
as glorious; and more potent still must have been the psycholog-
ical effect of the victory over Persia and the almost unbroken
series of successes which had extended Athenian power
throughout the Aegean. The spirit of ambitious enterprise
which Thucydides was later to portray so graphically in the
speech of the Corinthians at Sparta28 was never more active
than in the period from the Persian Wars to the production of the
Agamemnon; and it carried with it an acceptance of the suffer-
ings entailed by war. During this period the leadership of the
Athenian people passed from Themistocles to Cimon and from
Cimon to the democratic reformers; but despite these changes,

27 Cf. G.
Thomson, Oresteia2 1,24: "As he calls to mind the hardships of
war and the comrades who have not returned, he rallies, falters and with an
effort rallies again." The return to an "official" tone is accepted by Reinhardt,
op. cit., 8 1. R. Lattimore's explanation (Introduction to translation of Oresteia,
22) that the change in tone occurs because a sense of achievement fills the
Herald with "Agamemnon's fatal pride" is, I believe, a piece of oversubtle
psychologizing, hard to reconcile with the Herald's overall performance.
28 1.70.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 9

the avoidance of war never became an object of foreign policy.

And finally, the relation between the glamour of epic warfare
and current military policy had been deliberately exploited by
the political propaganda of recent years.
The first instance of this is the monument commemorating the
capture of Eion, which (in the interests of Cimon) explicitly
invited a comparison of that achievement with the part played in
the Trojan War by Menestheus, the leader of the Athenian
contingent.29 And an even more elaborate piece of propaganda
had been completed only a few years before the production of
the Agamemnon in the Stoa Poikile. The painting of the Sack of
Troy by Polygnotus must evidently have been a visual represen-
tation of the epic version and intended as oblique praise for
Cimon, recalling once again the capture of Eion (or perhaps
other campaigns in the North Aegean): just as the companion
piece, Micon's Battle against the Amazons was intended to
remind viewers of Cimon's recovery of the bones of Theseus
from Scyrus.30 In each case, the glamour of epic was being used
to elevate the dignity of recent campaigns.31
In the light of this evidence it therefore appears probable that
Aeschylus was not uttering commonplaces but actually going
against current ideas in presenting the Trojan War in terms of
unglamorous realism. In fact he was exactly inverting the idea
which had inspired the Eion dedication and the Stoa paintings.
Where they had used the associations of epic to elevate recent
campaigns, he was using echoes of contemporary warfare to
strip the Trojan War of its glamour. The realism of the

29 Plut. Cim.
7.4; Aeschines, 3.183-85.
30 Paus. 1.15.2-3.
On these wall paintings and their political significance cf.
L. H. Jeffery, "The Battle of Oenoe in the Stoa Poikile: a problem inGreek Art
and History," BSA 60 (1965) 41-57. An epic style treatment of the Sack of Troy
by Polygnotus is strongly suggested by a comparison between what Pausanias
says of this picture and his extended description of Polygnotus' treatment of the
same subject at Delphi, 10.25.2-27.4, which clearly shows that the painter has
been at pains to create a visual representation of detailed material from epic.
31 The other
subject chosen by pro-Cimon propaganda for inclusion in the
Stoa Poikile, the Battle of Marathon, was a near contemporary event, but it is
clear from Pausanias' description, that the treatment, with gods and heroes
taking part in the battle, had a strong epic colouring (Paus. 10.15.4).

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 D. M. LEAHY.

Agamemnon, for which there is no parallel in the extant plays,32

begins to look like shock tactics.
So striking, in fact, is the inversion of pro-Cimonian prop-
aganda that one must consider the question whether it may be
that the realistic treatment of the Trojan war was intended as a
piece of counterpropaganda in the democratic interest: all the
more so if the public funerals of war dead are rightly explained
as an innovation promoted by democratic politicians after the
one major reverse in the period ofCimon's successes, the defeat
at Drabescus.33
On balance, however, it appears improbable that this is the
explanation of the realistic treatment of the war. The pursuit of
political references in Aeschylus, except where they are so
obvious that no one in the original audience could have missed
them, is a hazardous business. Criticism ofCimon's campaigns,
as opposed to personal criticism, would in any case have been
inept, for his victories were shared with the Athenian people34
and their advantages retained despite his loss of public favour.
And the place of mythology in the party propaganda of the
period cannot be clearly defined on the basis of the scanty
evidence now available.35 It has the air of being an aristocratic

32 Contemporary realism occurs in the Persae because the subject requires it;
but it is not used to cheapen but rather to enhance theGreek victory. The other
Aeschylean play in which warfare figures prominently, the Seven Against
Thebes, may in some degree recall emotions aroused by experiences in the
Persian Wars, but the presentation of the siege is, by and large, traditional. And
though appreciations of the Seven later in the fifth century may not have centred
on what a modern view may see as most significant, the testimony of Aris-
tophanes' Frogs 1019ff. (which in fact echoesGorgias' view of the play) does at
least show that there is no obvious antiwar presentation.
33 Jacoby, "Patrios Nomos," 51-52: contra, Gomme, op. cit. II, 94-100.
34 This was in fact stressed
by those responsible for the actual wording of the
Eion dedication, which (as Aeschines points out, loc. cit.) avoids naming any
individual commander.
35 The most serious loss, from this point of view, is probably the body of

tragedy written by Aeschylus and others during the 460's. It is perhaps notewor-
thy that A. J. Podlecki doubts whether the Seven against Thebes, the only
extant tragedy on a mythological subject earlier than the Supplices, should be
taken as having contemporary political reference, and is very cautious about
possible political references in the plays which we know from fragments only.
(The political background of Aeschylean Tragedy, chs. 3, 7 and App. C.) It so

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 11

device, and obviously it was exploited by those who supported

Cimon: indeed, it may well have been they who introduced it
into party politics. But we cannot assume that it remained for
long characteristically antidemocratic. The foreshadowing of
the Argive alliance and other aspects of the reformed foreign
policy in the Eumenides36 shows that by the time
of the Oresteia mythology was being used as propaganda
for the democratic platform; and it is distinctly possible that the
Supplices was advocating such policies even before the fall of
Cimon.37 Moreover, even if the public funerals of war dead
were introduced by democratic politicians-and this is by no
means certain-they seem quickly to have adopted the use of
mythological exemplars as stock material for their funeral
orations.38 It is even possible (though I would rate it no higher
than this) that the new democratic leadership continued for its
own purpose the use of myth-based visual propaganda in a
further battle picture in the Stoa Poikile.39
And more crucial than any of these considerations is a final
one. The Chorus' description of the funerals of those who died
at Troy, and the bitter criticism which they cause the Argives to

happens that the earlier plays with which the names of contemporary politicians
can be connected with any degree of assurance are all on recent-history themes,
Phrynichus' Capture of Miletus and Phoenissae and Aeschylus Persae (cf. A.
Lesky, History of Greek Literature, 230-31).
36 Argive alliance: Eumen. 286-91, 669-73, 762-74: other aspects, 292-98.

Aeschylus' attitude to the constitutional changes enacted or proposed by the

reformers remains a matter of some controversy, but his approval of the new
foreign policy is, I believe, unmistakable. See further, K. J. Dover, "The
Political Aspect of the Eumenides," JHS 77 (1957) 230-37 and E. R. Dodds,
"Morals and Politics in the Oresteia," PCPS, NS 6 (1960) 20-21.
37
Podlecki, op. cit., ch. 4. The favourable presentation of Argos is evident,
whether or not conjectures about references to the exile of Themistocles are
accepted.
38 G. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece, 154ff. For a possible example

from a date prior to the Oresteia see Jacoby, "Patrios Nomos" 54-55 and n.83.
39 This is argued by Jeffery, op. cit. pp. 45-57. It involves postulating that

Pausanias (1.15.2) has misidentified the Athenians' opponents in the picture of

the Battle of Oenoe, and this, as Jeffery admits, "sounds forced" (51). The chief
argument adduced by Jeffery in favour of this is the doubt whether a contempor-
ary battle betweenGreeks could have been directly represented in a painting for
public display in Athens in the 450's.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 D. M. LEAHY.

make against their leaders, mark an extreme stage in the degra-

dation of the Trojan War; but at Athens, the most recent public
funeral witnessed by the first audience of the Agamemnon
seems likely to have been that of the men who fell, not because
of Cimon, but because of the imperialist democratic policies
supported by Aeschylus in the Eumenides "on Cyprus, in
Egypt, at Halieis, at Aegina, at Megara, in the same year."40
In short, the contrast between the glamour of epic tradition
and the squalor and misery of contemporary warfare cannot be
shown to coincide with any clear-cut distinction between the
attitudes of opposing parties. It is therefore unlikely that the
introduction of contemporary realism into the Agamemnon is to
be explained as propaganda. The reason for it must be sought
elsewhere.
If one considers the actual items singled out for realistic
treatment, it is noteworthy that they are not incidental to the
plot but directly related to Agamemnon's own moral responsi-
bility. For the sake of a wanton he has led his people into a war
which has caused misery and death to his troops and bereave-
ment to their families at home; and by his sacrilege in the
moment of victory he has denied a safe return to many of the
survivors of the fighting (for this is what the account of the
wreck of the fleet means).4'
It is generally accepted that the guilt which Agamemnon has
incurred in waging the Trojan War is in some way related to his
subsequent fate. However, the nature of this relationship has
been obscured rather than illuminated by some of the interpre-
tations offered. A key-point is clearly the passage describing
how the relatives of the fallen murmur against the Atreidae. For
40 I.G.
12, 929: commentary and dating, R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, Greek
Historical Inscriptions, 73-76.
41 Other
explanations have been offered for the storm narrative: preparation
for the satyr play, Proteus (Wilamowitz, Griech. Trag., 11,43, n. 1), conformity
to tradition (Murray, Aeschylus, p. 215), and a desire to explain the absence of
Menelaus, this being an important factor for the murder of Agamemnon (D. W.
Lucas, Greel Tragic Poets, 93). However, whilst there may be an element of
truth in these explanations, the storm clearly relates to Clytemnestra's warning
about the dangers facing the Greeks on their return voyage should they commit
sacrilege-whether or not the controversial 1.527 is to be read (cf. below, n.61).
See Lloyd-Jones, "The guilt of Agamemnon," CQ NS 12 (1962), 193.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 13

Fraenkel the angry voice of the people is "the first step towards
revolt"; and Owen similarly envisages a situation where the
alienation of the people from their rulers is a relevant factor in
the death of Agamemnon.42
But there is nothing either in the language or in the action of
the play to support this interpretation. The Watchman and the
Chorus in conversation with the Herald refuse to specify the
origins of their anxiety, but fear of Aegisthus is at least as
plausible as fear of the people; and it may well be that Aegisthus
is intended in the oblique warning about false friends which the
Chorus give to Agamemnon on his arrival.43 Certainly, at the
moment of the murder it is a coup d'etat to establish a tyranny
that the Chorus fear has taken place, not a popular revolt:
indeed the first suggestion offered to meet the crisis is that the
people of Argos should be summoned.44 The only specific
statement about the danger of popular revolt is to be found in the
explanation of Orestes' absence given by Clytemnestra to
Agamemnon;4s and since the speech in which this occurs is an

42
Fraenkel, II, 234: E. T. Owen, The Harmony of Aeschylus, 74. (His citing of
Verrall in support of his view (74, n. 1) encourages the suspicion of documentary
fallacy.) Lattimore's argument (op. cit. pp. 10-11 and n.6) that the people found,
or at least thought they had found, a champion in Aegisthus seems to me to lack
sound evidence in the text (it ignores 1349): his observation that Aeschylus is
shadowing the character of Aegisthus "with the dark memory of the hated
historical tyrant" is true in itself, but it is pressing Aeschylus too hard to make
this include a reference to the historical genesis of tyranny without more
substantial evidence from the text than that cited by Lattimore. (And it is
doubtful if the schematic account cited by Lattimore would match Athenian
memories of the rise of Peisistratus.)
43 Golden, In Praise
of Prometheus, 64-72 makes the fear refer to Clytem-
nestra. I find this difficult to accept, not least because the more fear of Clytem-
nestra is stressed in the first part of the play, the harder it becomes to accept as
credible the Chorus' inability to grasp Cassandra's warning. Aeschylus' failure
to specify exactly the source of the fear is part of the deliberate vagueness which
he preserves in the first part of the play so as to secure greater dramatic effect
later. (And Golden's reading of the play so predominantly in terms of
Clytemnestra's psychology seems to me to amount to a serious misapprehen-
sion of what Aeschylus is saying-notably in the scene following the murder,
73-74.)
44 1348-49, 1354-55.
45 877-86.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 D. M. LEAHY.

elaborate piece of hypocrisy this evidence is worthless.

Moreover the action of the play leaves no room for any popular
involvement of a political nature: the usurpers kill Agamemnon
for non-political motives and thereafter rule by force with total
disregard for the feelings of the people of Argos. The idea of a
popular revolt, or even the first step towards it, has no place in
the structure of the play, and attempts to introduce it bring with
them the danger of documentary fallacy.46
A truer interpretation of the significance of the popular anger
emerges when the description of it is read in relation to what
immediately follows:
5vv xOT
pa9Ela 6' adorTv T(parts
6rJyOXQavrov 6' adQa; Trivt XQo;.
d?Vut6'6dxov3ua rTihot
-QttLva6vvxrr]OQepT'
rT)v :JozVxrTOv)v yae ovx
aOuXO7otl OEOi' XEtL--
vai 6' 'Eetvt' X5 QOVtO
TVXrgQOV OVT avev 6i xa
TailVTVXz, TQtllpa P3iot
ltOelT' adhavGov, XTr/.47
The people are not pictured as planning revolt against their
rulers but as cursing them. And as a consequence the loyal
Chorus fear not political action but something shrouded in
night; and what gives shape to their anxiety is the thought that
the gods mark those who are responsible for the deaths of many,
and that the Furies destroy those who prosper without justice.
The two thoughts seem to be related, and characteristically the
Furies are the powers invoked by the curse.48 Thus behind the
realism of the public funerals there is seen to be another dimen-
sion, which has sinister implications for Agamemnon.
A brief consideration of the other passages where this realism
occurs shows that they too have connections with this other
dimension: Clytemnestra's portrayal of the sack of Troy leads
into the reflection that the Greeks in their moment of victory

46 Cf. Wilamowitz, Greich. Trag. II, 33, n.1.

47 456-66.
48 Eumen. 417.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 15

stand on the brink of a sacrilege that will bring disaster. The

Herald talks in his second speech of the dead comrades he has
left at Troy (those same dead whose kin now curse the Atreidae)
and in his third speech by reporting the wreck of the fleet implies
that the sacrilege and divine vengeance foreshadowed by
Clytemnestra have indeed occurred.
It thus begins to be clear that the passages in which realism is
prominent are not to be explained in terms of incidental adorn-
ment or of contemporary politics or of human motivation: the
explanation must be related to the deepest level of the play, its
theology.
As a first step towards achieving this explanation, it is neces-
sary to set the "realistic" passages about the War in relation to
other aspects of it presented elsewhere in the play: for there are
no fewer than three different aspects in all, and the third of
them, the most clearly theological, finally subsumes the others
and explains their apparent incoherences.
The first aspect, the realistic one, can now be briefly sum-
marized, since it has already been discussed at some length: it
presents the War as a source of hardships to Greek and Trojan
alike, fighting over a worthless woman, and as incurring bitter
sorrow and resentment in Agamemnon's own subjects. It has a
strong objective element, since much of it comes from the
Herald's eyewitness account, and Clytemnestra's picture of the
sack of Troy, though imaginary, accords so well with the
Herald's description that it can be taken as "true in spirit"; and
the Chorus provides a factual statement of popular reaction in
Argos itself.
The second aspect is very different. It presents the War in
terms which are much nearer to an epic presentation. According
to it, the War was undertaken by the Atreidae of their own
accord to obtain redress for the abduction of Helen, and brought
to a glorious conclusion with the help of the gods invoked by the
victors. It is expounded most fully in the "official" description
of the victory, given first in the Herald's proclamation, then by
Agamemnon himself on his arrival.49There is no contemporary

49 On the
similarity between the first speeches of the Herald and Agamemnon
cf. Fraenkel, II, 294.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16 D. M. LEAHY.

realism about it-indeed it is in Agamemnon's own account of

his victory that we find the only reference to the part played in
the capture of Troy by the Wooden Horse:50 nor on the other
hand is there any consciousness that the Atreidae have in any
special sense been the instruments of Zeus. The basic epic
concept has however been overlaid with sinister moral over-
tones by the manner in which this aspect is presented-a man-
ner characterized by legalistic language, a complacent assump-
tion that the gods have favoured a just cause, pride in victory
and insensitivity to other considerations.51 The reason is that
this is the view of the War taken by Agamemnon himself,
limited by his lack of insight and distorted by his arrogance.
There is one more passage which reveals Agamemnon's at-
titude to the War; and though it is not as fully expressed there as
in the passages already cited, it is a very significant one. This is
the soliloquy of Agamemnon at Aulis, reported by the Chorus in
the lyric part of the Parodos. The crucial moment in that self-
debate comes when Agamemnon poses the issue in terms of the
disgrace involved in being a deserter, Xt 6vav;. s2 Once he has
formulated the issue in these terms, the decision to kill Iphigenia
is a foregone conclusion; and it is Agamemnon's pride which
has caused him to judge the matter in this way.53 But at Aulis
Agamemnon is credited with having at least realized and felt the
terrible nature of the deed before deciding to perpetrate it. Once
he has so decided he becomes, as the Chorus describe, insensi-
tive to any appeals to pity; and thereafter there is no sign that

50 825.
51 As will be apparent, I follow the estimate of Agamemnon's opening speech
favoured by Page (Denniston-Page, xxxiii-iv) and Lloyd-Jones ("The Guilt of
Agamemnon," CQ, NS 12 [1962] 194-95), in contrast to that of Fraenkel (II,
371ff.) and Lesky (Greek Tragedy, 78). Lesky's assertion that "His words make
it clear that he feels no joy over his victory, he views his own action with
horror," rests on an interpretation of the feeling of 823-24 which I find hard to
believe. Certainly Agamemnon expresses no regret for the suffering and deaths
which he has caused for his own subjects.
52 512. On this word as the turning point in Agamemnon's deliberations see

Lesky, "Decision and Responsibility in the Tragedy of Aeschylus," JHS 86

(1966) 81.
53 I have stated
my views on the choice of Agamemnon at Aulis more fully in
"The Role of Cassandra in the Oresteia of Aeschylus," Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library 52, 1 (1969), 169-72.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 17

any subsequent decision has ever again caused him such moral
anguish.54 Evidently what happened at Aulis has set him on a
course which thereafter remains unchanged; and his view of the
War, more fully developed later in the play in the passages
already cited, is consistent with the attitude first revealed there.
This aspect of the War, therefore, has no objective validity,
its significance lying in what it reveals about Agamemnon's
mental state: though that state is itself one of the objective
"facts" of the play.
The third aspect of the War, the most obviously theological,
is once again clearly meant as an objective statement, since it is
presented in detail by the Chorus in the first part of the First
Stasimon and in the Second Stasimon and finally confirmed
when the theological pattern which it implies is brought into
focus by the revelations of Cassandra. Seen from this aspect,
the War is a sort of "crusade" for the honour of Zeus Xenios,
the insult to the god being more important than the loss of Helen
(poignantly though Aeschylus describes this). Zeus himself has
willed the expedition, which is a pre-ordained part of a long-
term plan to punish Trojan hybris; and in this plan both Helen
and the Atreidae are in some sense the instruments of Zeus,
though apparently not to the exclusion of all free-will.55
At first sight, this last aspect appears incompatible with either
of the first two: the high dignity thus accorded to the War
contrasts both with the squalor and misery of the realism and
with the false vainglory with which Agamemnon views what he
has done.
Ultimately, however, the Aeschylean theodicy does rec-
oncile these disparate aspects of the War. The general pattern
appears to be that where a community56-be it a city or a

54 Thus
Agamemnon's recital of a string of moralizing platitudes at 922-30 is a
very different reaction to temptation from that felt at Aulis, 206-11.
55Thus although Helen is in a sense, as the Second Stasimon shows, a
Zeus-sent cause of suffering, she is nevertheless described as air/qra rtoaa
(408).
56 A precise understanding of this is made more difficult by the corrupt state

of the text in the crucial stanza, 374-80. Page (Denniston-Page, 102) and Lloyd-
Jones (Agamemnon by Aeschylus, 37-38) tentatively interpret these lines as
referring to the punishment of fathers' sins being visited upon children, which

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18 D. M. LEAHY.

family-has once been guilty of hybris, there is no escape from

the consequences; and supernatural forces impel a member of
that community towards choosing to commit an act which is
both sinful and at the same time the direct cause of disaster.
How great the degree of compulsion is remains obscure:
perhaps the truest answer is that though an element of freewill
(and therefore of guilt) remains, it is a moral certainty that the
wrong act will be chosen. Thus the disaster brought about by the
sinful choice brings on the community the punishment willed by
Zeus for its original hybris.57
The third aspect of the War is in fact this theodicy seen from
the Trojan side. The War has been launched by Zeus as God of
Hospitality to punish the affront caused by Paris' abduction of
Helen, and yet this was not the beginning: for when Paris com-
mitted that sin he was under the influence of Peitho, unleashed
by the previous hybris of Troy.58 However, it is ultimately this
hybris which it is the purpose of Zeus to punish; and that
purpose is duly fulfilled, for Paris' sin leads directly to the
Trojan War and the destruction of Troy.
But at the same time, the theodicy has a side which is relevant
to the House of Atreus, though the Chorus cannot (or will not)
see it, and it is left to Cassandra to provide the key piece of
evidence, the sins of Atreus and Thyestes, which stand in the
same relation to Agamemnon's generation as Trojan hybris
does to Paris.59

would be an exact parallel to the way in which the House of Atreus was treated.
Fraenkel (II, 195-96) states the difficulties involved in extracting this sort of
meaning from the corrupt text. However, it is at least clear from the uncorrupted
lines 376-77 that Paris' behaviour must bear some relation to the excessive
prosperity of his family-an excess which seems likely to be itself sinful.
57 This is a position not, I think, substantially different from that adopted by

Lloyd-Jones, 'TheGuilt of Agamemnon" pp. 191-92;except that I would stress

that nowhere does Agamemnon show any sign of acting with any knowledge of
Zeus' plan, so that his motives may still be sinful (cf. n.51). The complexity of
this paradox of divine purpose being achieved only by human sin is not peculiar
to Aeschylus, but is found also in Christian theology: O certe necessarium Adae
peccatum, quod Christi morte deletum est. (Roman liturgy for Easter Vigil,
Exultet.)
58 399-402.

59 1186-93, 1217-22.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 19

In the light of this knowledge we can see that the Trojan War
is not only Zeus' means of punishing Trojan hybris: it is also the
starting point for his punishment of the other guilty community,
the House of Atreus. And the process here follows the same
pattern. Agamemnon, conditioned like Paris by past hybris,
makes his own sinful and disastrous choice: he chooses to kill
his daughter and to wage a war involving misery and death for
his people and sacrilege against the gods, thereby incurring his
own death and the agonies of the vendetta for the House of
Atreus.
We can thus move towards a reconciliation of these three
aspects of the War, despite their apparent contradictions. The
War is indeed Zeus-sent, for it is the necessary means of punish-
ing the wickedness of Troy and the House of Atreus.
Agamemnon's view of the War, though wrong, is essential as re-
vealing the mentality of the man who could make the fatal choice
that is required if the War is to be fought. And the realism
centres on those facets of the War which, together with the
sacrifice of phigenia which preceded them, represent the disas-
trous guilt incurred by Agamemnon in fighting the War, a guilt
which is in turn a prerequisite for the final punishment of the
House.
But this still does not provide exactly the answer to the
question why Aeschylus uses contemporary realism. For it is
not enough to say that the things so portrayed are part of the
guilt of Agamemnon: they could have been left within the
framework of mythology and still been equally valid. Their
origins are after all to be found in epic; and the other great sin of
Agamemnon, the killing of Iphigenia, is represented without
any attempt at a contemporary setting.
The answer lies in the fact that, despite the elaborate theology,
Aeschylus was essentially a dramatist-and moreover a
dramatist writing not for a public whom he might expect to read
his plays, nor for a restricted class of playgoers, but for a mass
audience which might well have only the one opportunity to
grasp what he was intending to convey. Under such circum-
stances he could not expect everyone to absorb the full details of
so elaborate a play, but nevertheless he needed to ensure that
however much of the play individuals in his audience did assimi-

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 D. M. LEAHY.

late they should all understand his meaning-unless of course

we are prepared to accept Aristophanes' caricature of him as
only concerned to dazzle an audience of "fools brought up by
Phrynichus"60 with unintelligible grandiloquence and spectacu-
lar but bogus stage effects.
Now if an audience is to make anything at all of the
Agamemnon a proper appreciation of the title role is essential.
Though Agamemnon is only on stage for a comparatively short
period everything turns upon what he is and what he has done.
An audience may have grasped only imperfectly the theological
background of the play-which depends heavily upon the long
choral odes-and yet realize that the fate of Agamemnon is in
some sense bound up with the process of divine justice provided
that, before Agamemnon comes to die, they feel that he has
merited death. And conversely, if the audience has been al-
lowed to retain an Odyssean notion of him as a noble king
wickedly murdered by an adulterous pair none of the play will
make the required sense.
It is therefore essential for Aeschylus to present the guilt of
Agamemnon in such a manner that no one in the audience can
mistake it. That guilt has two main parts, distinguishable though
related, the sacrifice of Iphigenia and the War itself; and in each
of these, Aeschylus has to involve the audience emotionally.
He keeps the sacrifice in its mythological setting: appro-
priately enough, for the sacrifice of a daughter by a father was not
a subject with contemporary implications. But he treats it at
considerable length and with a notable amount of verbal scene
painting, being obviously concerned to leave his audience with
an abiding impression of the piteousness of Iphigenia and the
brutality of her killer.
With the War itself, Aeschylus had a different problem.
Whilst it is improbable that there was in contemporary Athens
any body of opinion that would have applauded the sacrifice of
Iphigenia it is probable, if the assessment made earlier is cor-
rect, that he could expect a fairly large proportion of his audi-
ence to have been so conditioned by an education based on epic,
by recent successes in war and by political propaganda, as to
60 Frogs, 910.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 21

regard the Trojan War as glamorous. And this is precisely the

wrong attitude for a proper understanding of the Agamemnon.
Accordingly, Aeschylus works to demolish this attitude by
concentrating the attention of his audience on those aspects of
warfare which they had been encouraged to discount; and by
making these things-hunger, weariness, cold, hard lying, ver-
min, shipwreck, death, bereavement-the sum total of his de-
scription of what the Trojan War was really like, he summons up
the strongest possible emotional reaction against Agamemnon
for what he has caused his people to suffer. It is a remarkable
departure from what the audience may be presumed to have
expected: squalor and misery instead of glory.
But the idea of glory does still appear: only now it comes in
the language with which Agamemnon displays his attitude to the
war which he has fought; and so its very presence helps to make
the audience feel that the play is taking a shape uncomfortably
different from what they could have anticipated. The count
against Agamemnon-Iphigenia, Clytemnestra's description of
the sack of the city, the funerals of the dead Argive
warriors-has already been emotionally built up when the
Herald arrives to present Agamemnon's claim to glory: the
proclamation already rings false, its insensitivity already verges
on hybris;61 and when the Herald himself completes the tale of
misery he leaves the audience to await the arrival of the victor
with a feeling of uneasiness very different from what they might
have expected to feel when the play began.
Agamemnon's own conduct when he arrives only serves to
deepen that feeling. The crass complacency with which he
describes his victory jars on the ears of an audience which has
been made to feel what the victory has cost in terms of human
suffering. Those who have grasped the logic of the choric songs
will already suspect that Agamemnon is to prove another Paris:
but even without this Aeschylus has done enough to ensure that
no one can reasonably fail to sense that there is something
wrong about Agamemnon, loudly though he talks of justice and

61 I follow Page in retaining 1.527, with its boast that the holy places of Troy
have been sacked. (Cf. also Kitto, Form and Meaning in Drama, 15-16). Even
without this the description of Agamemnon as ev6aiucawv(530) is ominous.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 D. M. LEAHY.

the favour of the gods. Surely he knows about all that suffering?
How then can he be so insensitive to it?
So far, however, the misgivings of the audience have not crys-
tallized into certain knowledge that Agamemnon is doomed.
For until now it is Agamemnon's past, vividly impressed
on the memories of the audience, which contrasts so discon-
certingly with his actual behaviour on the stage. The two are
not presented in a visible direct confrontation; and there still
remains just a chance that Agamemnon will be able to do what
the Chorus have already tried to do-to bury the past and make
a fresh start.62
And so the uneasiness reaches its climax in the tapestry
scene. Here there is no longer a contrast between past and
present, between what the audience have heard and what they
can see: the confrontation between Agamemnon's deluded
mind and the temptation to hybris now becomes immediate, and
visible to the audience in the crimson path that stretches from
the chariot to the palace door.63 For one desperate moment,
when Agamemnon rebuffs Clytemnestra, it appears that he may
perhaps after all refute the misgivings which the audience have
been made to feel; but the hope passes as quickly as it came, and
Agamemnon finally demonstrates for all to see that he can
recognize hybris for what it is and yet, possessed by Ate, still
choose to commit it. The sense of uneasiness which Aeschylus
has so carefully built up is at last seen to be justified, and
disaster is now inevitable.
The realism with which Aeschylus invests his description of
the Trojan War is thus not an interesting irrelevance but an
integral part of the play. It is a device used to ensure a particular
emotional response from the audience, a response which is in
turn a true reflection on the emotional level of the play. By its
use, Aeschylus ensures that despite the varying levels of under-
standing of his audience all will grasp what he intends. Those
who do not achieve the fullest understanding of the elaborate
doctrine of the choric songs will nevertheless be guided by their
emotional reactions; whilst those who do achieve it will be able

62 799-806.
63
Reinhardt, op. cit. 90ff.

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TROJAN WAR. 23

to appreciate the skillful construction whereby what is seen and

felt becomes a dramatic presentation of what is being stated. A
poet who has taken such pains to build his play is certainly not
the Aristophanic caricature of Aeschylus.

UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER,ENGLAND D. M. LEAHY

This content downloaded from 139.184.30.136 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:17:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions