Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Personal Freedom and its Limitations in the Oresteia

1965; Cambridge University Press; Volume: 85; Linguagem: Inglês

10.2307/628807

2041-4099

Ν. G. L. Hammond,

Classical Philosophy and Thought

There has been a tendency in recent studies of Aeschylus to exalt Zeus or Fate into a position of supremacy from which they dictate and determine the actions and the conditions of men. The argument of this paper is that Aeschylus believed men to be free in taking some actions and at the same time recognised the limitations which circumscribe the conditions of men. This argument is developed through a study of the issues which Aeschylus set forth in the Oresteia , and it leads on to an analysis of the meaning of Moira and of the extent of human responsibility. I take as a starting point Professor H. Lloyd-Jones' interpretation of the guilt of Agamemnon. It expresses the exaltation of Zeus and the powerlessness of man in a precise and striking manner. In his view Agamemnon had no choice when he was faced with the demand for the sacrifice of his daughter at Aulis; and even if he had had a choice he could not have exercised it, because his power of judgement was taken away by Zeus. As Lloyd-Jones puts it, ‘Zeus is indeed determined that the fleet must sail; Agamemnon has indeed no choice. But how has Zeus chosen to enforce his will?…by sending Ate to take away his judgement so that he cannot do otherwise.’ Lloyd-Jones sees the same thing happen when Agamemnon is asked by Clytemnestra to walk on the purple carpet. ‘Zeus has taken away his wits. But why has Zeus done so? For the same reason as at Aulis; because of the curse.’ Agamemnon is seen as a puppet, of which the strings are pulled by Zeus. But Agamemnon is only one figure in what Lloyd-Jones describes as ‘the grand design of Zeus’.