bloodlust and intelecutalism in the Orestia

ahh, "hell hath no fury..." well you know the rest.

take note, we now have a chorus leader, one who has stepped out to speak for the chorus on thier own. So what aspects of individualism in greek culture does this represent? from what i can tell the chorus is really a crowed, though thier dialogue is in unison it is really a discussion among themselves, the thoughts of the people. So where and why did we get a single person stepping forward to question the players of this story? if he really is a single person, how does his dialogue differ from the chours
line 520 "I would oten groan from a darkened heart" the I here is most interesting of the chourus leader. "I" mourned for my king etc... he is speaking though, of the land itself as an entity, longing for its ruler.

anyhoo, also find it interesting about the Greeks in general the furies, the spirits of vengences, are usualy personified as women.

ok onto the real deal, the concept of justice and revenge. The Greek tragedies are all about the “Natural” order of things. Reg, patri, fratri, and matricide are all constants. However, the act of revenge appears to be perfectly normal, even something that sets back the balance of the world. i.e. you kill one of my people ergo the world is out of wack until I kill you. I love this concept of a very “primitive” justice and am even more fascinated by our modern departure from it. Clyaemnestra’s sin is hardly the fact that she slays the killer of her child, but that it was her husband and king. She and Aegisthus have brought ruin upon them and theirs because they have killed their king and family, an act which the gods will surely frown upon. Interestingly enough, it was Artemis who demanded the sacrificing of Agamemnon’s daughter in the first place. Of course it falls upon Orestes to kill his mother and Aegisthus in order to avenge his father. However this matricide breaks the natural law and he is persecuted by the furies as a result. The existence of tragedy hinges on this concept. In order to fulfill one of our duties/obligations we must betray another, begging the question “what is noble?/how should be live?”
this is all well and good when examining the classics, but does anyone else notice a little continuity problem when looking at these (and indeed many other even non-Greek) works. “Murder” is not a sin as long as it is “justified”. The act of vengeance is regarded in a positive light. If someone were to kill your family, you would be expected to kill the killer to avenge your family. I just want to note, that these were not some primitive, backwater, cannibalistic people. These were an intellectual people from whose culture we see the roots of history, science, philosophy, mathematics, not to mention theatre and they were expected to carry this hubris which entailed killing for honour.
well, i got no juice left tonight to continue this discussion

blessings be
Lord Addison