Clytaemnestra: A Moral Oddity

In the first two book of The Oresteia (Agamemnon, and The Libation Bearers), a trilogy of greek tragedies written by the tragedian Aeschylus, Clytaemnestra is written as a complex character, invoking one of two extremes to the average reader: love or hate. However, once you analyze and attempt to understand the character, she becomes significantly more morally grey than one originally thought. Did she do the right thing in killing Agamemnon as revenge for her daughter? Maybe her motive was more than just her daughter’s death? Is an “eye for an eye” a fair justice system? Was Cassandra's murder fair?

Agamemnon begins with Clytaemnestra in power while Agamemnon was away at war. It is revealed to us that Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter to Artemis so that he could safely sail to Troy for battle. Of course, the act of killing your daughter would anger any mother, no matter what the cause. It could be argued that what Agamemnon did was wrong. However, his motive was to better the lives of his people. Clytaemnestra must have plotted the entire time Agamemnon was gone for her revenge. Once Agamemnon returns (along with another woman as a war prize), she quite literally lays out the red carpet for him, “Come to me now, my dearest,// down from the car of war, but never set the foot// that stamped out Troy on earth again, my great one.// Women, why delay? You have your orders,// Pave his way with tapestries” (1.898-901). She does this only to soon deceive him. Clytaemnestra brings both Agamemnon and Cassandra into the home and kills them. While it could be understood as just revenge if it were to have been just Agamemnon, the action of killing them both begins to portray an ulterior motive.

After the death scene of Cassandra and Agamemnon, Aegisthus (Agamemnon’s cousin) is said to emerge from the palace. After getting into an argument with the leader of the chorus, Clytaemnestra intervenes, saying “No more, my dearest,// no more grief We have too much to reap// right here, our mighty harvest of despair.// Our lives are based on pain. No bloodshed now.” (1.1688-1690). She later says “Let them howl - they’re impotent. You and I have power now.// We will set the house in order once for all.” (1.1707-1708). This shows the reader that they are in a relationship, and implies that they have been together while Agamemnon was gone to war. Not only did Clytaemnestra feel threatened that her husband was coming back to reclaim his power, but she was now with his cousin, determined to rule with him. In contrast to Agamemnon’s actions, Clytaemnestra wasn’t looking out for the better of the Argos population, but her own ruling. In her mind, she rationalized it by invoking the law of retaliation. “An eye for an eye.” Perhaps a broken justice system?

Justice, when written about in the trilogy of The Oresteia, seems to be subjective. Clytaemnestra deems it fair that she murdered her husband, since it is revenge for Agamemnon murdering Iphigenia. But is this not a never ending cycle? Agamemnon seemed to be a just ruler, with a passion for his people. Someone will soon believe that murdering Clytaemnestra is only fair, since she murdered their king. There is yet to be stated an obvious line of justice that everyone must abide by. Not only did she murder their king, but she also murdered a princess from Troy, Cassandra. She was simply there because Agamemnon brought her back as a prize of sorts.

Cassandra seemed to be a character that was killed without reason. A prisoner of war, she was taken back by Agamemnon to flaunt in Argos. Once there, she spoke very rarely. The majority of her dialogue is Apollo manifesting himself through her words. She eventually walked into the palace, after spewing a prophecy of her own death, along with Agamemnon. “She’s about to sense her own ordeal, I think./ Slave that she is, the god lives on inside her.” (1.1081-1082).

Clytaemnestra is a character that is complex, and polarizing. She killed Agamemnon and Cassandra, and she had an affair with Agamemnon’s cousin. Unfortunately for the readers, it is hard to agree or disagree with her actions. We must leave the judgement open for personal interpretation. The questions still stand. Was the murder just?