Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
$XWKRUV'DQD/%XUJHVV
6RXUFH+HUPHV-DKUJ+SS
3XEOLVKHGE\)UDQ]6WHLQHU9HUODJ
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/4477582 .
$FFHVVHG
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 support@jstor.org.
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.
http://www.jstor.org
Of special importfor a readingof >>I.A.<< is Nietzsche's attentionto the lie told the
self, for this kind of lie facilitates the transformationof a lie into a conviction. In
my treatment of ?I.A.? we will find several of these elements intermediate
between lie and conviction: the explicit lie told to another,the lie told to the self,
the belief in the truthof a fact claim (such as, >4Iphigenia comes to Aulis to marry
Achilles.<), the belief in a value claim (such as, ?The Trojan War is a righteous
enterprise.<o). I will reserve the term >>conviction<< to describe a belief in a claim of
value; I will limit the term ?belief< to a credence grantedonly to a claim of fact.
I begin my analysis at the end of the play, with Clytemnestraleft onstage after
the tale of Iphigenia's salvation. Clytemnestra'sintellectualdisposition, her resis-
tance to claims of fact or value, marksthis play's centralattentionto credulity and
incredulity.I then turnto Agamemnon and Achilles who enact processes of self-
deception, >>wantingnot to see something one does see, wanting not to see
something as one sees it8.<<Agamemnon's changing claims about the meaning of
the war will reveal his preferencefor a not-seeing, while Achilles' growing belief
in his marriageto Iphigeniashows his similar self-deception. Finally I will turnto
Iphigenia, whose decision to embrace a conviction of the validity of the war is an
instance of the parent's lie having become the child's conviction, whose not-
seeing enacts the transitionfrom lie to conviction in the lie told to the self9.
Clytemnestra
8 NIETZSCHE(above,n. 1).
9 As some small justificationfor employingone of the harshestcritics of Euripidesin a
sympatheticanalysisof thisplayI offerthecommentsof a mostsensitiveandinfluentialreaderof
the play, B. SNELL,Aischylos und das Handeln im Drama (Leipzig 1928)abridgedandtranslated
by W. MOSKALEWas FromTragedyto Philosophy:Iphigenia in Aulis, in OxfordReadingsin
GreekTragedyed. E. SEGAL (Oxford1983) 400 >Thecriticismwhich has been leveled against
EuripidesfromAristophanesto Nietzscheis essentiallyjustified:Euripideanartis discordantand
problematic..The best of whathas been said aboutEuripideswas utteredwith malice.Forthose
who understoodhim best did so precisely because they themselveswere also conflicted and
tom.<<
10Readersmay well be questioningmy interpretivedependenceuponClytemnestra'sfinal
scene, since the communis opinio holds that Euripideslikely did not compose these lines. J.
DIGGLE, EuripidesFabulae,vol. 3 (Oxford1994), now the authoritative sourcefor questionson
the text of I.A., describesthe lines from 1578 to the end of the play as >>non
Euripidei.<<The
transmittedtext of the play likely derives,in part,from the handof Euripides,thoughhe died
beforecompletingthe play, in part,fromthe modificationsof his son who firstproducedthe play
in 405, in part,fromactors'andproducers'interpolationscreatedfor reproductions of the play in
thefourththroughthesecondcenturiesBCEand,in part,fromthecorruptionsintroducedthrough
have been stolen by the gods (1615), she puts in the form of a question, asking
which god it could have been. She asks how she might address the departed
Iphigenia (1616) and how she might deny that the speech she has just heard is
merely for her solace (1616-18). Her aporia, her lack of certitude,is reasonable,
given the byzantine convolutions of this play's plot". She thought she was
bringingher daughterto Aulis for a brilliantmatch with Achilles, only to find that
Agamemnon intends to kill the girl. She has watched Iphigenialament her fate in
piteous tones and then embrace it with nationalisticfervor. She has hearda tale of
sacrifice in which the victim disappears at the last possible second, though it is
merely the meager authorityof the messenger which advances the interpretation
that this disappearance is a divine reward or salvation (1608). Calchas, in his
reported direct discourse (1591-1601), described the substitutionof the hind as
evidence that the Greeks would now be able to make passage to Troy, but he
offered no interpretationof what happenedto Iphigenia. The audience may well
sympathize with Clytemnestra'sperplexity, for it too has been taken on a roller-
coaster ride throughthe play, having witnessed Agamemnon's failed attemptat a
palinodic epistle to Clytemnestra,Menelaus's unexpected change of heart, and
Agamemnon's even more unexpectedconcurrencewith Menelaus's originalposi-
tion.
As Clytemnestraand her audience thus pause in perplexity at the end of this
play, Agamemnon once again enters the stage. Unlike his puzzled wife, Agamem-
non displays conviction. He believes that his daughteris well off in the company
of the gods, marking his truth claim with an emphatic OvTwOS (1622). He com-
mands his wife to take baby Orestes back to Argos and bids her a quick farewell as
he rushesoff to Troy. Clytemnestraspeaks no more lines following Agamemnon's
brief appearance.She does not indicate that she has acquired her own conviction
to match Agamemnon's. We who know the subsequent history of the house of
Atreus may be fairly certain that this Clytemnestradoes not share her husband's
belief that all is well. Clytemnestra's questions and her subsequent silence close
the play with the pictureof one who refuses to believe either a claim of fact or its
related claim of value. Her silence and the audience's familiarity with the usual
tale also suggest that she may have an intention to punish Agamemnon.
Earlier in the play Clytemnestrareportedon her own intellectual disposition
from a time prior to the action of the drama.Upon confrontingAgamemnon with
his lie about the purpose of Iphigenia's travel to Aulis, Clytemnestrareviews her
past history with her husband,going back to Agamemnon's courtshipof her. She
reproachesAgamemnon with having slain her previous husband,Tantalus(1 150),
and of having killed the child of that union (1 151-2) 12.She tells how Agamemnon
supplicated Tyndareus in order to secure his intercession for the terminationof
hostilities between himself and the Dioscuri (1153-6). One might expect a wife
acquired in such a violent manner to bear her husband some ill-will, and this is
surely the point of Clytemnestra's narrative. In the participle KataXXaXOteoa
(1 157) she describes the internalprocess by which she came aroundto accept the
situation;she was ))reconciled.?She had been a naturalenemy to the enemy of her
brothers,to the killer of her husband and of her child. Her father's intervention
was the crucial element, for Clytemnestrasuggests that the Dioscuri would have
been victorious over Agamemnon but for Tyndareus' acceptance of the latter's
supplication. She presents her marriageto Agamemnon as a consequence of the
political accommodationbetween Tyndareusand Agamemnon, a familial alliance
to soothe the rancorof a bloody feud. In the interestof a higher good the recently
widowed Clytemnestraput aside her anger and became a good wife to Agamem-
non (1 159-61).
Clytemnestra's narrativereveals that she has accommodateda good determi-
ned by her father. She is telling Agamemnon (and the audience) a tale about her
own priorcompliance. She was willing to act in a certain way, to be a good wife,
but she did not adopt a false belief about her marriage.She has always known that
her husband is the murdererof her child and first husband. She is proud of her
12 C. E. SORUM, Myth,
Choice, and Meaning in Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis, AJP 1 13 (1992)
538 reads Clytemnestra's evocation of her first marriage as an allusion to her actions depicted in
Aeschylus' Agamemnon. J. GRIFFIN, Characterization in Euripides: Hippolytus and Iphigenia at
Aulis, in Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literatureed. C. PELLING (Oxford 1990) 146
sees this original detail of Clytemnestra's acceptance of Agamemon's earlier child murder as
marking out her more violent response to the killing of Iphigenia.
successful self-control and of her performanceof her wifely duties without any
lingering hostility to her first husband'skiller, but she narratesthese details to hurt
Agamemnon (1 148), and the point of her tale is to suggest that she has already
performeda service for Agamemnonwhich is hardlyworthyof a repaymentin the
form of the slaughter of a second of her children. Euripides here presents to his
audience a detail of Clytemnestra's history which is hardly standard.That Aga-
memnon has killed a child by a previous marriage, indeed, that there was a
previous marriage at all, comes as a surprise'3. Does the audience accept
Clytemnestra'sclaim that her reconciliationto Agamemnon is a virtue?Since she
now understandsa threatto her second child, mustn't Clytemnestrareproachher
own disregardfor the behaviorof her husbandtowardsher first child? That is, this
tale of Clytemnestra's >>courtship<< by Agamemnon suggests that a conformityof
the mind to a necessary circumstancemay be neitherheroic nor prudent.In facing
the death of Iphigenia,Clytemnestrais discovering the price for her priorcompli-
ance and demonstratingthat she did not accompany that earlier change in her
intentionto act in a certain way with a correlativechange in what she believed to
be true. She never adopted a belief that her marriage had been grounded in
anythingotherthanpolitical accommodation.Clytemnestrais the play's paradigm
for incredulity,even in the face of a compliance in behaviour.
Agamemnon
Agamemnon's final speech (1621-26) is the first time in the play he has appeared
to possess a firm conviction. The prologue, whetherwe place the dialogic portion
before or after the rhesis, shows the highest degree of Agamemnon's intellectual
lability. Waxing philosophic on the causes of his misery he proposes two dangers
(24-27),
TOT?g?V T&z oe6vK 6pOt)O&Vr'
av?tpr/SY ,Biov, ToTr6' dvOpdMnOv
yv6Iact noUat
Kat 8ixapcsatot bEKvacOav.
Sometimes the matters concerning the gods, not kept upright, overturn a life, sometimes the
opinions of humans, which are many and difficult to satisfy, tear it to pieces.
The formerof these two dangers is rathervague, but could include any misfortune
which gets sent our way. The latterdanger, that which arises from human rather
than divine agency, is ideologic. Part of the problem is the pluralityof gnomai,
13 FOLEY (above, n. 5: 163) calls this tale of a marriage to Tantalus Euripides's invention. The
marriage to Tantalus, a son of Thyestes, appears in Apollodorus (Epitome 2. 16) but not in any
sources prior to the date of original production, 405 BCE.
The divine is not stupid, but is able to understand the oaths made badly and under compulsi-
on.
Such discernmenton the partof the deity suggests a startlingfluidity in the order
of things. Aristophanes,were he a textual critic, might rejoice to assign these lines
to the hand of Euripideshimself, for the comedian never failed to take pleasure in
mocking Euripides for i yXr 6gWiiioX', i 6e OpiTvxv'oto, >My tongue
swore but my heart remained unsworn.< >>Hipp<<. 612, cf. Aristophanes, ?>Th.<<
275, >Fr.< 101, 1471. Agamemnon's affirmationof the flexibility of obligation to
oath expresses an epistemology in conflict with the rigidity of conviction and its
Some Aphrodite has maddened the army of the Greeks to sail at once against the land of the
barbarians and to stop the seizures of Greek brides.
They will kill my childrenin Argos, and you and me, if I shall undo the oracles of the
goddess.
Menelaus and Agamemnon have already discussed the possibility of the army
attackingArgos (532-5); this was partof Agamemnon's earlier groundfor decla-
ring the death of Iphigenia a necessity. He now communicates this to Clytemnes-
tra, though here, in the context of line 1266, this threat to Argos appears to be
motivated by an ideological interestin protectingGreek womanhood.The expres-
sion ftcyoa?' ?i Xi0'awOsa;, >>ifI shall undo the oracles of the goddess,< (1268)
recalls Agamemnon's earlier rejection of the obligations of oaths (394a-395).
Though Agamemnon is describingthe feared action of the army, the oracles are of
Artemis, and the army's angeracts in supportof her presumedanger.Agamemnon
shows that he believes that Artemis demands the sacrifice of Iphigenia for the
expedition to Troy, but his description of the army as impassioned suggests that
the expedition to Troy may not be groundedin any moral good beyond obedience
to the divine.
The climactic ideological claim now closes Agamemnon's speech as he decla-
res that Greece herself compels his action (1269-75),
ov MEvXe6Cq>e caKa6QX6o6)XO3XOLat,
tEKVOV,
oEIU t6 KEiVou)oVuXO6Evov AXvX1u0a,
fl 6eI, Kav
aAA E?~X6a, EXo) Kcav ij 0r.o,
Menelaus has not enslaved me, child, nor have I come to do his bidding, but Greece, to whom
it is necessary that I sacrifice you, whether I wish it or not. We are less than this necessity. For
it is necessary that she be free, child, as far as that lies within your power and mine, and that
Greeks not be violently robbed of their wives by barbarians.
These lines are inconsistent with the idea that A4po6i-rrt t;, >>someAphrodite,<<
has maddened the army. Here Agamemnon appears to accept the conviction that
this war is a moral necessity15. The freedom of Greece is a good higher than the
preferences of Agamemnon or Iphigenia, but the obligation to serve Greece is a
personal servitude, ,U? ara&c68o(Xrorat, >>hasenslaved me,< ( 1269). Is Agamem-
non lying to himself or to Clytemnestra and Iphigenia? I suggest that this speech
portrays the process of the formation of a conviction for Agamemnon. He is
converting the lie that he has no agency in determining what will happen to
Iphigenia into a belief that Iphigenia must die by bolstering his intention to kill her
with a justifying claim for the value of that action. Perhaps he has not quite
finished the job of the formation of a conviction, or perhaps it awaits another mind
for its completion. Perhaps his newly-minted conviction helps him avoid seeing
the anny's amorality which he had earlier described. I refer the reader to the
epigraph which heads this essay.
Achilles
Your girl will never be slaughtered by her father, she called mine. For I will not provide my
person to your husband for weaving his frauds.
Agamemnon's, this self-deception, which is similar to what Iphigenia seems to undergo...< See
F. M. BLAIKLOCK, The Male Characters of Euripides (Wellington 1952) 116 on Agamemnon's
self-deception and ambition.
He is motivated by indignationthat his name has been so used, but he also cannot
deny a central aspect of the lie, namely that she has been betrothedto him, if only
in name, Fi Oaxtat6Ea',>>shecalled mine<<(936). That is, in his anger that his
name has been used for a lie, he protects Iphigenia by accepting the obligations
which were groundedonly in the lie itself.'6 Achilles has formulatedhis intended
action, the defense of Iphigenia, on the basis of a claim which he knows to be
false, thathe is betrothedto Iphigenia.If Achilles is to follow the process outlined
for Agamemnon above, we may expect his beliefs to develop into conformity with
his intention. He will come to believe that he is actually to marryIphigenia.
Achilles closes his long rhesis (918-74) by describing a movement from lie to
conviction which involves the refutationof a lie. He says that he has appearedto
be a god to Clytemnestra,though he was not. He promises that he will become a
god, nevertheless,0?0q E6y6 w rOTvasot / g?ytcTo;, Oi'iKd6v 6aX' 6o'Rx yevioo-
[tat. >>I
have seemed the greatestgod to you, though not, in fact, being a god. But,
nevertheless, I shall become a god.<<(973-4). Here Achilles recognizes the diffe-
rence between being, ou'c &'v,and seeming, iTva', and vows to bring the being
into conformity with the seeming. Since the false appearancewas of Achilles as a
god, his promise to bring reality into conformity with appearancecarries a touch
of hybris, even for the son of Thetis. Achilles's confidence in his own greatness is
as repugnantas his earlier willingness to lend his name to Agamemnon's deceit
(962-7). In each case he is respondingto a lie. Had Agamemnon treatedhim with
the properdeference, he would have joined into the lie. Now that he has not, he
promises to make a falsehood into a truth.Achilles has a conviction, of sorts, but it
is hardto see what it is beyond himself; we might call this an idiopathicideology.
As the noble, if somewhat dimwitted, Achilles reaches for a gnome to confirrn
his intention to protect Iphigenia, he offers a wish about his own death (1006-7),
WIE_161 XEYOv 8& Kcal )arJAV EyKFp?ORIOV,
ivotp- ghl uvotgt &, iv acxow K6Opilv.
effect if he saves the girl. Achilles has already accepted the obligation to defend
Iphigenia because she has been called his, ?Wi 4actctOEio', ))she called mine<<
(936). That is, he has shaped his own intended actions into conformity with
Agamemnon's fictional betrothal.Achilles knows that the betrothalwas a lie, but
he acts as though it has a binding force upon him. In this action Achilles slips
between truth and lie, acting as though the lie were true, but knowing that it is
false. Such an ambiguous relation to an absolute veracity may be described as
laTlqv eyKSprtogov ))mocking in vaino<(1006).
Achilles demonstratesthe next step towardconviction in his final appearance
on stage. As he reportsto Clytemnestrathe army's uproarfor Iphigenia's slaugh-
ter, he tells of his own failed attemptsto control the crowd; even his Myrmidons
have tumed against him (1353). Achilles relays the following dialogue with the
army (1354-7),
AX. 01oi1 TOV
6vLyORv (X7EKcXo1uv ijaaova. KX. 6MEKpivco ? X1;
AX. TTfV?TV g?XXOuOaV ei)VTV RNir KTaV v... KA. &iKclat yap.
AX. iv i4nllIaeV raTrtp iot. KA. cai Apy6ofv y' *x*gjaro.
AX. dXX?VticOJT1V KecpaygoU.
Ach. They called me the servant of the marriage. Clyt. And what did you say?
Ach. Not to kill my intended bride... Clyt. That is right.
Ach. Whom her father betrothed to me. Clyt. And brought from Argos.
Ach. But I was conquered by their roar.
will be able to resist the Argive army, but he remains willing to give it a try. Such
enthusiasm,even in the face of likely failure, shows thatAchilles does believe that
his futile action is the right thing to do. His belief in his own future marriageto
Iphigenia, his belief in a chance of successfully resisting the Greek army and his
conviction thathe really ought to be acting as he is combine to presentan Achilles
who is strugglingto develop a system of beliefs which can accommodateboth the
lie told about him and the intention to protect Iphigenia which he developed in
response to the lie. Like Agamemnon before him, Achilles is in the process of
forming beliefs which will enable him to avoid seeing the truthshe understands
and which will thus justify his intention to proceed as he has planned.
Achilles' labile belief system is happily resolved following Iphigenia's speech
of acceptance, for he greets her willingness to die by projecting a happy future
which her speech has just renderedimpossible (1404-5),
'Aycagvovo; nltl, gaicaptov R t; OeCov
e?keXE "OitV, Ti iX?tot OaV yaiO)V.
Achilles now believes, after a fashion, in the lie of the marriageto Iphigenia.The
conditional clause is suitably vague for a most unlikely future possibility, and
Achilles sounds most enthusiasticabout the marriageto Iphigenianow that it does
not appearto be a reality. The process of Achilles' belief formationis as complete
as it will become now that the lie of Agamemnon has been internalized by
Achilles' lie to himself.
We have already seen Agamemnon appearto come to the conviction that the
war waged for a bad woman, the war which he called a case of madness, is
actually a noble defense of Greek womanhood. Now we have seen Achilles come
to a belief in the fact of his own possible marriage to Iphigenia, though he
understandsthatmarriageto have been Agamemnon's lie, and thoughhe has been
deeply offended that his name was employed without his knowledge. In neither
case did the charactermake a swift transitionfrom lie to credulity and in neither
case can we say that the understanding, be it Agamemnon's value claim or
Achilles' fact claim, has become tenaciously rooted.These characters'intellectual
lability, their tendencies to generate claims which validate their intentions by the
transformationof a lie, has provided a paradigmfor the metamorphosisof lie into
conviction for the play, but it remains for Iphigeniato presentthe most pitiful and
unselfconscious version of the process of the formationof a conviction.
Iphigenia
Agamemnon's last words, 1271-5, explained that Iphigenia's death will keep
Greece free and will protect Greek women from the threatof barbarianrape. Not
only will Iphigenia conform her intention to what must be (1375), but she will
adopt the value claims which have been used to justify her death (1378-84),
ci; ?f EXXAAai gwyioaT nacaa viv nol3X4te,
K6av?jpoi npOpjio TEvaQOvKaW (DpJyo.)VKQaTaKCaEai
Td; T? i?cXXOi5a; yuvaiica;, iv Tt 6pixG ldplapot,
gqKEOapiac,tv rev tTa;t o?4iia; r4 Ekc6?o;,
T6v EXAvq;TciaavTa; 6xOEpov,fv dvipnaae?v Hcipi;.
taita ndvtca KaTOavOvbca 0aojiot, KaiOIOl) KXO;,
EXX56) & iX?O)O?pwxa,jawCaptovyEvicartTa.
All of greatHellasnow looks towardme, in me lies the passageof the shipsandthe sackof
the Phrygians,andon me it dependsno moreto allow seizuresof futurewives fromfortunate
Greece,if thebarbariansdo anysuchthing,andon me dependsthepunishmentfortheruinof
Helen, whom Paris snatched.Dying I shall make all these things right,and it will be my
happyfamethatI freedGreece.
None of this is new. Iphigenia's justifications for her own death derive from
earlier statements, some she heard on stage, some she did not. Let us begin with
Iphigenia's ideological conception of Hellas, here in 1378 the subjectof a verb of
seeing, nearly anthropomorphizedin Iphigenia's speech'7. The pan-Hellenic na-
ture of the expedition, emphasized from early in the play, is based on the oath of
Tyndareus (52, 62-65, 77)18. In the parodos, recounting the leadership of the
Atreidae, the chorus begins the personificationof Hellas as a being who will exact
penalty from the barbarianrapists (272). ReproachingAgamemnon for his aban-
donmentof the cause, Menelausdevelops the personificationof Hellas by expres-
sing pity for her (370), by making her the subject of an intention (371), and by
imagining her shame at the abandonmentof the expedition (372). Rising to his
climactic argumentfor Agamemnon's responsibility to Greece, he suggests that
his brotherought to share her sufferings (410). To this Agamemnon offers the
reply, 'EXX'a;6E aiv oot icaax Oc'ov voa&t tva. >>Greece,along with you, is
sickened by some god.<<(411), accepting the personification, but characterizing
Hellas in quite a differentway. The theme of Greece's insanityoccurs again on the
lips of Achilles (808-9) and of Agamemnon ( 1264). The characterHellas has thus
been evoked by Menelaus and the Chorus to construct a conviction of patriotic
devotion, but by Achilles and Agamemnon to undermine the validity of that
patriotism for the present expedition. When Iphigenia envisions Hellas as an
entity looking hopefully toward her for salvation she adopts a conviction which
has already been problematizedas a lie earlier in the play.
17 The noun Hellas appears in the l.A. with greater frequency than in any other Euripidean
play: Al. 1, Med. 4, Hcld. 5, Hipp. I, Andr. I1, Hec. 2, Cyc. 1, Supp. 8, Her. I1, Tr. 16, Ion 4, I.T.
19, El. 4, Hel. 16, Phoe. 4, Or. 15, /.A. 26, Bacc. 6.
18 SIEGEL(above, n. 7: 303) addresses the Panhellenic nature of the expedition and refutes
The second major element of Iphigenia's new set of convictions is her claim
that the war will rightly prevent future wife-stealing (1380-82),
TaeTgeXkouoa; yxvaiKiaq, iv Tt 6p6at PdplapoI,
gpK?0' &pn,6aetveav tt&;t 6Xoiac;? EXX66o;,
T6v E'Evi teioavra; 6xO0pov,iv avrpnaacoev
Fldpt;.
[andon me it depends]no moreto allow seizuresof futurewives fromfortunateGreece,if
the barbariansdo any suchthing,[andon me depends]the punishmentfor the ruinof Helen,
whomParissnatched.
The assumption that the present expedition against the Trojans will punish them
for the recent rape of Helen and prevent subsequent assaults on Greek woman-
hood depends upon the claim that Paris did, in fact, snatch Helen, as Iphigenia
asserts at the end of the passage quoted above. In Agamemnon's first narrativeof
the rape of Helen he uses the expression ?tavapndaa; >>havingsnatched away,<
(75) with which Iphigenia's language here is consistent. But Agamemnon's
narrative included the seductive charms of Paris which acted upon Helen's
chastity, avOqp6; jiev tidrtowv aroXo1/ XP6 6T ?gaTpt; apAap, x?6#wat,
>>bloomingin the fashion of his garments and bright with gold and barbaric
luxury,< (73-4), while Iphigenia paints Helen as only a victim, 6v. EXvn;...
O6xOpov,>>theruin of Helen,< (1382). Though the distinction between rape and
seduction may be anachronisticfor ancient Greece, subsequentcharacterizations
of Helen by Agamemnon and Clytemnestracertainly emphasize her worthless-
ness as the basis for a war in defense of feminine virtue. Agamemnon reproaches
Menelaus with having controlled his bad wife poorly (382-4). Clytemnestra is
unambiguousabout her sister's fault, calling this bad wife a poor exchange for a
beloved daughter (1169-70) and explicitly identifying her as a guilty party, i 6'
ct~aaptoiiI', >>the one having greatlyerred,<< ( 1204). These comments on Helen's
culpability suggest that the Greek army can punish barbarians,but may not
thereby be addressingthe problem of errantwives.
Of Iphigenia'sjustifications for her own death none is more purely ideological
than her invocation of freedom as a value for which this war ought to be fought,
EXX6a'& ik?vOwa, I freed Greece,<<(1384). The only priorappearance
>>that
of the theme of Greek freedom occurs in Agamemon's final speech (1273). So
crucial is this idea for Iphigenia that it appearsin the final word of her speech of
acceptance, kappakpow 6' EXriva; apx&tv Eito;, aiXk ov Pappa'pou;,/ ijtep,
'EXXivwvvIO ?v y'ap 6oiXov, o0i6' ?5U'Opot. ?It is proper for Greeks to rule
barbarians,mother, but not for barbariansto rule Greeks; the barbarianis servile,
the Greeks are free.< (I 400-1). lphigenia has been often praisedfor the freedom of
her action19.This Iphigenia is not gagged and bound upon the altar;she chooses
her sacrifice for the good of her country20.The notion of freedom didn't make
much sense when Agamemnon first advancedit in 1273, but as an unquestionable
positive value, like motherhoodor Greek apple pie, it operatedas justification for
a war or the death of a daughter.In the mouth of Iphigenia, bound as she is by
military, political, familial and now ideological necessity, it is a harsh irony21.
Agamemnon had earlierdenied thatMenelaus had enslaved him, but affirmedthat
Hellas had done so (1269-71); thus have Hellas and slavery been previously
associated, despite Iphigenia's claim that barbariansare slaves and Greeks free.
Iphigenia's change of intentionoccurs suddenly with her mid-line interruption
of Achilles (1368). Her rhesis expressing the change of intentionalso includes her
expression of a set of convictions. In Iphigenia's case the process of the formation
of convictions has been abrupt,though we have witnessed a similar process at
much slower speed for Agamemnon and Achilles. The men created their under-
standings out of lies to bolster an intention. In that context must we understand
Iphigenia's adoption of her convictions.
Conviction
performs a similar action she does so with a vigor not found in her masculine
counterparts.Her claims about the absolute value of Greece and its freedom,
arising from Agamemnon's similar but more tentative claims, show that she has
moved the process of the formationof a conviction towards its fullest realization.
When Clytemnestraexpresses her final doubts about the veracity of the tale of
Iphigenia's death (1615-18) we see a counter-exampleto Iphigenia. For the first
time in the play we see a characterwho fully resists the impulse to refuse to see
what she sees. Clytemnestra's doubts receive a final validation in the ironic and
naive enthusiasm of Agamemnon's fleeting final appearanceon stage (1621-26).
The audience views this Agamemnon in full knowledge that he must die at the
hands of Clytemnestra for the events which have transpiredduring this drama.
The play's concentrationupon the formationof convictions from lies suggests that
Agamemnon will die, in part,for precisely that failure. He has resisted seeing the
deathof Iphigeniaas it is, thoughhe has shown thathe fully understandswhat it is.
Clytemnestra's coming punishment of her husband will serve to remind him of
what he earlier seemed to understand. It may remove him from the tawdry
conviction which we see in these final lines and place him again in the condition of
agonized understandingwith which he began this play.
We may scom or pity an Iphigenia who has so adopted her father's lie as to
make it her own conviction. The appearanceof the process of the formation of
beliefs and convictions in the charactersof Agamemnon and Achilles, its conspi-
cuous absence in the case of Clytemnestra,and the synergy of Iphigenia's change
of understandingand intention suggest that we are invited to observe the process
itself and to consider its dangers, whatever we may think of the characters in
whom that process occurs.