The progression of ideas is coherent (though minimal in content) and allows the reader to move in known paths even as exposure to legal theory and jurThe progression of ideas is coherent (though minimal in content) and allows the reader to move in known paths even as exposure to legal theory and jurisprudence is gradually increased. Close parallels with sociology and philosophy pretty much dictates this, but still, well executed. All in all, a good introductory work. ...more
Two core principles of difference are drawn out in the course of all the selective history that is presented:
1. The West was the realm of individual f Two core principles of difference are drawn out in the course of all the selective history that is presented:
1. The West was the realm of individual freedom and the East was the realm of despotism. Hence the East could never develop incentives. (Italics are my extrapolation) 2. The West was the realm where laws were made of, by and for humans, the East was the realm where laws were made of, by and for gods (or their representatives). Hence the east could never develop institutions. (Italics are my extrapolation)
This is why the two world views so incompatible had to clash and clash violently. Such differences cannot easily co-exist, especially since one is clearly superior. Of course the wars of West with West would have spoiled the narrative. Hence we have a sweeping history book that ignores the greatest theater of war, including the two greatest showdowns, the world wars. Wonder what small differences of opinion and worldview precipitated those minor conflicts....more
In The Choephori, the bloodshed begun in the first play is continued (see Agamemnon for details, and for a discussion on translations). The theme of revenge and blood-curse continues to haunt the House of Atreus. At first glance it might seem as if there is indeed no end to this recurring tragedy that has been playing itself out in these intrigue-filled halls, but despite all the mirroring Aeschylus effects between the first and second plays (both have legitimate avenging missions, both weave a web of deceit, both murders the unsuspecting, both murderers are accompanied by unidimensional accomplices, both murders leave everlasting stains, both think that the buck will stop with them) that is supposed to show the inevitability of this tragic course/curse with no scope for a resolution, there are significant differences:
1. Clytaemestra acted alone, under her own sense of right and wrong; Orestes acts under the express direction and protection of Apollo himself. 2. Clytaemestra makes a token gesture of atonement by promising to give up her wealth but instead establishes a tyranny; Orestes is racked by guilt and renounces his position and wealth to atone for his crime. (I wonder who ruled the kingdom in his absence...) 3. Clytaemestra defends her actions and takes no steps to alleviate them by rituals, etc. until a nasty dream shakes her up; Orestes accepts his guilt immediately and takes protection under Apollo and does all the ritual cleansing and prostrations required. 4. Clytaemestra is probably egged on by Aegisthus's greed and allows him to benefit by her actions. Orestes turns to Pylades just once who only repeats Apollo's words and has no personal stake in the business. (though could it be that he becomes the regent in Orestes absence?) 5. Clytaemestra never hesitates in her deed of revenge and as an add-on murders an innocent (?) Cassandra too; Orestes shows his reluctance till he very last moment and had to be driven to his deed. He murders only the expressly guilty. (One has to wonder if Apollo was in fact avenging Cassandra and not Agamemnon!) 6. Most importantly Clytaemestra thinks she can be the final arbiter while Orestes is willing to allow himself to be judged by greater powers, be it the Gods, or the Law.
All this allows for hope that the ending of this second installment, of Orestes' story, and the punishment for his crime need not be externally imposed but might in fact be sanctioned by this modern man himself.
How exactly this will play out Aeschylus leaves for his climactic play, but the Greeks of his time would have been in no doubt as to where it was all leading and would have been eagerly awaiting the mythical re-imagination/show-down it would entail. Society is progressing, and like in Hegel it was all going to culminate in the Perfection of the Present!...more
Each of the plays that make up The Oresteia tetralogy are supposed to be stand alone pieces as well as perfect complements to each oth The First Strike
Each of the plays that make up The Oresteia tetralogy are supposed to be stand alone pieces as well as perfect complements to each other. All the themes that The Oresteia is to explore later are planted and ready for internal development at the end of Agamemnon. Aeschylus works magic with the triadic structure of the plays and of greek rituals (the fourth was probably a conventional satyr play and is lost to us) by going for a feeling of tit-for-tat of conventional revenge stories in the first two and a ‘third and final’ resolution in the third (though I feel game-theory wise a tit-for-two-tats additional play would have made for a good thought experiment!).
So in Agamemnon we are presented with the first strike -- and the tit-for-tat is ready, prophesied and waiting inevitably for the reader/viewer in the next part. It is the bleakest and most ominous ending to a play that I have witnessed because unlike a Hamlet, here there is no cosmic meaning to give us solace either. Agamemnon ends ominously and without significance-in-itself, leaving us with the feeling that the tragedy has just begun and there is a long road yet to be traversed before we can glimpse any possibility of a resolution.
A Note on the Translations
I have over the past several months read the whole play (only Agamemnon) in multiple translations. A few thoughts on each:
The Richmond Lattimore Translation: is sonorous and grand — quite impressive. You feel like you are really reading an ancient master, unlike in the Fagles version. However, it uses complex structures and hence the reading is not quite smooth. With Fagles you can just read on and on and never stop due to a complex phrasing or unclear meaning, but with lattimore you have to pause and rewind often to catch the exact drift.
The Robert Fagles Translation: is immediate and easy on the ear. It is also quite easy to grasp as the words do not form confusing structures as it does in the Lattimore translation. However I felt a certain something missing and couldn’t put my finger on it. I prefer the Lattimore version.
E.D.A Morshead Translation: Rhythmic but compromises on ease of reading to achieve the metric scheme. Could hardly grasp a thing on first reading of most verses. Has the advantage that it demarcates the Strophe, Antistrophe & Epode of each choral ode and that helps the reader visualize better. None of the other translations do this and I felt it was very useful.
The Alan Shapiro Translation: Written in beautiful blank verse, this is probably the best placed to merit first rank as a poetic work. Shapiro injects new power into the verse by his poetic take and provides a fresh perspective on almost all important scenes and imagery. But needs to be a supplementary read since it departs often from the other translations in sometimes subtle and sometimes significant ways. It tries to be an improvement on the Lattimore version but in my opinion it can at best be read as an additional indulgence by the reader already well acquainted with Lattimore.
The Headlam Translation: is bilingual and gives the Greek text on the facing page. This is useful in clarifying doubts arising from conflicting translations or interpretations. The translation itself is slightly long winded and pompous and does not strike the fine balance that Lattimore strikes between majesty and simplicity. Does provide the most elaborate stage directions and that is a plus as an aid to accurate visualization (which in my opinion can make or break your reading of almost-exotic plays).
The Denniston Commentary, the edition under which this review appears: is one which I have not read (and do not have access to) and in the interests of neutrality I have selected it — since it has no translation and is in fact the Greek text itself with english commentary, which seems to be widely accepted as some of the best scholastic commentary on the play.
I will add notes on other translations if and when I track them down....more
This book should be read along with Levin’s Great Debate. That will allow a right wing perspective to balance out a left wing persp The Shifting Lights
This book should be read along with Levin’s Great Debate. That will allow a right wing perspective to balance out a left wing perspective. It is very interesting to note how two authors with different viewpoints approach the same two protagonists and mould them to their requirements. With Paine and Burke this is easier because they lived through such momentous events that their ideas and actions can be seen differently depending on where the author chooses to stand.
Levin chooses to stand and judge both from a post-revolutionary viewpoint and exult in the fact that Burke knew the French Revolution would be disastrous while naive Paine precipitated the disaster by not realizing that human institutes and traditions can’t be just pulled down so easily without consequences.
In fact, Levin chooses to examine Burke’s attitudes towards the American Revolution to show his progressive nature and then his attitude to French Revolution to show his wisdom; and Paine’s attitude during the pre-Revolutionary zeal to show how he was just a revolt-monger who has grand plans and no sense of the reality.
Hitchens on the other hand chooses to view the debate from a pre-revolutionary position. This allows him to praise Paine for his contribution the American Independence and Constitution, showing his skills as a spokesman and influencer par compare. When Hitchens comes to Burke, he focuses on his opposition to the French Revolution and ridicules his passionate defense of monarchy. This allows Hitchens to show Paine as a progressive future-oriented leader who changed the course of history and Burke as a reactionary who just wants to hang on to the outdated age of chivalry.
Of course, neither Paine nor Burke were consistently right throughout their political engagement. Both were probably right in supporting the American Revolution and both were perhaps wrong in their over-the-top attitudes to the French Revolution. But Hitchens and Levin combine to show us how just by shifting the viewpoints we can see them in such different lights — the naive and the wise keep shifting before our eyes like in a hall of mirrors. It is a spectacle....more
Azar Gat could learn a thing or two from Miller. But then Miller could also learn a thing or two -- about spending less time on the obvious and moving Azar Gat could learn a thing or two from Miller. But then Miller could also learn a thing or two -- about spending less time on the obvious and moving on to interesting and controversial subjects earlier in a book, especially such a short one.
Too cursory for much of the book. Mildly interesting towards the end, but that is primarily because Mill goes into polemic mode and reveals his cards and thus exposes his reasons for the way the book was constructed. He does not think over-enthusiastic criticism of the nation-state system is warranted and he believes it is our best chance at stability. Need to read his more detailed works before any comment can be made on how effective his defense is. But miles ahead of Gat, I will grant him that....more
Singer looks at Marx, the Philosopher, and relegates Marx, the Economist to the background. This allows Singer to put aside all the 'refuted' aspects Singer looks at Marx, the Philosopher, and relegates Marx, the Economist to the background. This allows Singer to put aside all the 'refuted' aspects of Marx and focus on the key and relevant ideas. Singer discusses alienation and historical materialism in some detail and tracks their evolution in Marx's thought, but the most interesting segment is when he tries to pin down marx's own conceptions of what a communist utopia should be like. Turns out Marx was extremely pragmatic about it and let slip such ideas only in moments of weakness. As I always like to say to anyone discussing Stalinism wrt Marxism -- just because the prescribed treatment turned out to be off the mark, the diagnosis is not to be dismissed (and that is if the Soviet Russia was even remotely Marxist! Marx must have anticipated all this and is known to have cried out in later life: "All i know is that I am not a Marxist!").
Marx is strongest when he is identifying the deficiencies of capitalism, not when he is trying to propose solutions. Those are our responsibility too. After all, we shouldn't leave everything to one man....more
Loading...
