I shall no longer teach either ENG 102-HW or 102-HR. My NECC e-mail has been disabled, but those of you who may wish to communicate with me should try the following: FourLevelHealing@gmail.com.
I have enjoyed teaching both sections of English composition 2. I realize that a number of you -- my 101 veterans -- chose these sections specifically so that you might again have me as your instructor. I assure you that I would most certainly have completed the semester had I been given that opportunity.
Best of luck to all of you. Please feel free to contact me via the e-mail above.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Supplemental Notes to First Segments (grammar, etc.)
Please familiarize yourself with the definitions and examples presented below. This material is supplemental to the notes given in class on 24-25 February.
(1) An infinitive = to + verb (e.g., to run, to walk, to teach, to learn, to study, etc.).
(2) A split infinitive refers to an error in which something is placed between “to” and the verb (e.g., “to swiftly conclude,” “to not object,” etc.
(3) A present participle = verb + ing (running, walking, teaching, learning, studying, etc.). This is used in the progressive verb form (I am teaching, he is walking).
NB: The progressive verb form always involves some form of the verb “to be” – e.g., I am writing, you are reading, he is sitting, I was writing, you were reading, etc.
(4) A gerund = a present participle used as a noun. This is considered weak, and should not be used as the subject of a sentence.
(5) The past participle of a verb is used in all of the perfect tenses (present perfect, past perfect, future perfect, conditional perfect) and always involves some form of the verb “to have” – e.g., I have written, he has written, I had written, you will have written, he would have written, etc.
(6) The active voice is usually preferable. In this form, the subject acts upon the direct object – e.g., John drove the car. [The car is the direct object.]
(7) The passive voice is usually considered weaker. In this form, the progressive verb is used, and the implied object actually becomes the subject of the sentence – e.g., The car was driven by John. [The car is the subject.]
NB: The passive voice should be used when the “doer” of the action (i.e., implied subject) is either unknown or unnecessary – e.g., The ballots have been counted. It is also used if the action itself is more important that the person(s) doing it – e.g., The suspect was taken into custody.
(1) An infinitive = to + verb (e.g., to run, to walk, to teach, to learn, to study, etc.).
(2) A split infinitive refers to an error in which something is placed between “to” and the verb (e.g., “to swiftly conclude,” “to not object,” etc.
(3) A present participle = verb + ing (running, walking, teaching, learning, studying, etc.). This is used in the progressive verb form (I am teaching, he is walking).
NB: The progressive verb form always involves some form of the verb “to be” – e.g., I am writing, you are reading, he is sitting, I was writing, you were reading, etc.
(4) A gerund = a present participle used as a noun. This is considered weak, and should not be used as the subject of a sentence.
(5) The past participle of a verb is used in all of the perfect tenses (present perfect, past perfect, future perfect, conditional perfect) and always involves some form of the verb “to have” – e.g., I have written, he has written, I had written, you will have written, he would have written, etc.
(6) The active voice is usually preferable. In this form, the subject acts upon the direct object – e.g., John drove the car. [The car is the direct object.]
(7) The passive voice is usually considered weaker. In this form, the progressive verb is used, and the implied object actually becomes the subject of the sentence – e.g., The car was driven by John. [The car is the subject.]
NB: The passive voice should be used when the “doer” of the action (i.e., implied subject) is either unknown or unnecessary – e.g., The ballots have been counted. It is also used if the action itself is more important that the person(s) doing it – e.g., The suspect was taken into custody.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Remaining Notes on Poetry
I have decided to give them all, in one blog posting. Here goes:
Dickinson
We shall begin with biographical notes. Dickinson may well have been agoraphobic. Almost all of her poems were published after she died. Stylistically, note the following in her works: (a) irregular capitalization – mostly nouns, but some verbs and adjectives; (b) irregular punctuation – particularly the many dashes; (c) subject matter which often relates to death, though it sometimes alludes to her father; (d) use of the first line of the poem as the title of the poem. A few comments on the specific readings follow, below:
(1) "The Soul selects her own Society" – Why is the soul female? Does it refer to Dickinson? her mother? perhaps even sexual imagery??
(2) "I heard a Fly buzz – when I died" – The speaker is already dead! But note the last two lines, which are clearly magnificent; she "could not see to see"!
(3) "Because I could not stop for Death" – Note how at ease the speaker appears with Death. There are two wonderful concepts here: (a) Lines 12-13 raise the question of whether time moves, or whether the mortal mind moves through time. (b) The last stanza notes how time gets shorter (i. e., seems ever shorter) as we get older, so that when we die, perhaps we are simply on the "time continuum," and centuries may indeed feel shorter than the last day of our lives.
*****
Frost
Though not as obsessed with death as Dickinson, Frost nevertheless gives us ample opportunity to reflect upon depression. Stylistically: (a) He enjoys the use of iambic pentameter, whether in sonnet or blank verse. (b) He often repeats a line within his text. Always look for a different meaning when you see such repetition.
"Mending Wall" -- Line 1 is repeated on line 35, as is the phrase that "Good fences make good neighbors" (27 and 45). Note the symbolism of the wall – the barriers between us; perhaps the boundaries we require. Note the irony, also: The wall which separates them is also precisely what brings them together once a year!
"The Road Not Taken" – Making one choice precludes the other. There is no way to tell anything about the decision to which the speaker may (or may not) refer. Note also that line 10 contradicts line 8; there really wasn't much difference, so perhaps it didn't matter. The title is itself ironic, since the text is about the road he presumably did take. Is the entire last stanza also intended ironically?? Was it just a meaningless walk in the woods, or does the road symbolize a major decision in the speaker's life?
"Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" – Is the speaker a returning traveler? a depressed insomniac (much like Frost!)? an artist? Santa Claus?? All interpretations are reasonable. Again, note the repetitions.
"Acquainted with the Night" – 14 lines, iambic pentameter: This is a 20th century sonnet, not truly Shakespearean because the last line is a repetition of the first! The poem suggests insomnia, loneliness, isolation, coldness, darkness, death, fear, alienation . . . Is the "night" at the end the literal night or the "night" in the speaker's mind (or soul)??
*****
POLITICAL POEMS:
Baraka's "A Poem for Black Hearts" is interesting; the speaker (or the poet) sounds a little like Malcolm X, but he makes a strange historical mistake. Lines 1-2: Malcolm's eyes "broke the face of some dumb white man" by challenging his authority. However, in line 9, there is an error: "for this he was killed" -- but by whom? (Black men, and many have speculated that they might have been sent by Elijah Muhammad!). Thereafter, the poem is both a eulogy ("black god of our time) and an exhortation ("until we avenge ourselves for his death"), coupled with a curse if we fail ([may] "white men call us faggots till the end of the earth").
Baca's poem display's irony, beginning right with the title: "So Mexicans Are Taking Jobs From Americans" (since they are not!) He depicts the class struggle; the "haves" vs. "have-nots," or perhaps in today's idiom, the one percent vs. the rest of us. The poor are underwater, "hold[ing] their breath for years trying to [get out of] poverty." The "clean-suited farmers" (line 26) are the big corporations -- again, today's "one percent"!
Alexie's "Evolution" alludes to Buffalo Bill Cody, who exploited the Indians (the former in his "Wild West shows." Alcohol is, of course, a tool of the whites to suppress Indians. Buffalo Bill takes everything, even their souls ("hearts"), and then closes the door of hope -- of either repossession or redemption. Note also the thumbs, symbolizing the last vestige of their humanity.
The same poet's "On the Amtrak . . ." is a scathing indictment of the Eurocentric view. The Indian more or less has to "assimilate" (or else live on the reservation). The Indian speaker knows about more than one hundred "Walden Ponds," and adds that if the white people hadn't come in the first place, they wouldn't have needed to worry about "saving it" (i. e., "saving" Walden Pond) in the first place. Thus, the speaker could have told the white woman, "I don't give a shit." Instead, he reports, "But I didn't say a word."
*****
Eliot – "Prufrock"
This is another very difficult poem, and lends itself to a research project! Note that we never really get to the destination, and we never know what that "overwhelming question" actually is. The beginning is from Dante's Inferno; Prufrock, himself, is in a Hell of sorts (though still alive).
There are many possible interpretations. The poem may be viewed in sexual terms; also, as an expression of social alienation. It certainly addresses aging (sexually and otherwise!). The allusions to suicide cannot be overlooked, either; nor can mention of Hamlet. Artistic exhaustion figures prominently as well; he has "seen the moment of [his] greatness flicker" and is truly afraid!!
Regardless of which explanation one may try, it is imperative that the three climactic lines (84-86) can work their way into that interpretation.
Dickinson
We shall begin with biographical notes. Dickinson may well have been agoraphobic. Almost all of her poems were published after she died. Stylistically, note the following in her works: (a) irregular capitalization – mostly nouns, but some verbs and adjectives; (b) irregular punctuation – particularly the many dashes; (c) subject matter which often relates to death, though it sometimes alludes to her father; (d) use of the first line of the poem as the title of the poem. A few comments on the specific readings follow, below:
(1) "The Soul selects her own Society" – Why is the soul female? Does it refer to Dickinson? her mother? perhaps even sexual imagery??
(2) "I heard a Fly buzz – when I died" – The speaker is already dead! But note the last two lines, which are clearly magnificent; she "could not see to see"!
(3) "Because I could not stop for Death" – Note how at ease the speaker appears with Death. There are two wonderful concepts here: (a) Lines 12-13 raise the question of whether time moves, or whether the mortal mind moves through time. (b) The last stanza notes how time gets shorter (i. e., seems ever shorter) as we get older, so that when we die, perhaps we are simply on the "time continuum," and centuries may indeed feel shorter than the last day of our lives.
*****
Frost
Though not as obsessed with death as Dickinson, Frost nevertheless gives us ample opportunity to reflect upon depression. Stylistically: (a) He enjoys the use of iambic pentameter, whether in sonnet or blank verse. (b) He often repeats a line within his text. Always look for a different meaning when you see such repetition.
"Mending Wall" -- Line 1 is repeated on line 35, as is the phrase that "Good fences make good neighbors" (27 and 45). Note the symbolism of the wall – the barriers between us; perhaps the boundaries we require. Note the irony, also: The wall which separates them is also precisely what brings them together once a year!
"The Road Not Taken" – Making one choice precludes the other. There is no way to tell anything about the decision to which the speaker may (or may not) refer. Note also that line 10 contradicts line 8; there really wasn't much difference, so perhaps it didn't matter. The title is itself ironic, since the text is about the road he presumably did take. Is the entire last stanza also intended ironically?? Was it just a meaningless walk in the woods, or does the road symbolize a major decision in the speaker's life?
"Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" – Is the speaker a returning traveler? a depressed insomniac (much like Frost!)? an artist? Santa Claus?? All interpretations are reasonable. Again, note the repetitions.
"Acquainted with the Night" – 14 lines, iambic pentameter: This is a 20th century sonnet, not truly Shakespearean because the last line is a repetition of the first! The poem suggests insomnia, loneliness, isolation, coldness, darkness, death, fear, alienation . . . Is the "night" at the end the literal night or the "night" in the speaker's mind (or soul)??
*****
POLITICAL POEMS:
Baraka's "A Poem for Black Hearts" is interesting; the speaker (or the poet) sounds a little like Malcolm X, but he makes a strange historical mistake. Lines 1-2: Malcolm's eyes "broke the face of some dumb white man" by challenging his authority. However, in line 9, there is an error: "for this he was killed" -- but by whom? (Black men, and many have speculated that they might have been sent by Elijah Muhammad!). Thereafter, the poem is both a eulogy ("black god of our time) and an exhortation ("until we avenge ourselves for his death"), coupled with a curse if we fail ([may] "white men call us faggots till the end of the earth").
Baca's poem display's irony, beginning right with the title: "So Mexicans Are Taking Jobs From Americans" (since they are not!) He depicts the class struggle; the "haves" vs. "have-nots," or perhaps in today's idiom, the one percent vs. the rest of us. The poor are underwater, "hold[ing] their breath for years trying to [get out of] poverty." The "clean-suited farmers" (line 26) are the big corporations -- again, today's "one percent"!
Alexie's "Evolution" alludes to Buffalo Bill Cody, who exploited the Indians (the former in his "Wild West shows." Alcohol is, of course, a tool of the whites to suppress Indians. Buffalo Bill takes everything, even their souls ("hearts"), and then closes the door of hope -- of either repossession or redemption. Note also the thumbs, symbolizing the last vestige of their humanity.
The same poet's "On the Amtrak . . ." is a scathing indictment of the Eurocentric view. The Indian more or less has to "assimilate" (or else live on the reservation). The Indian speaker knows about more than one hundred "Walden Ponds," and adds that if the white people hadn't come in the first place, they wouldn't have needed to worry about "saving it" (i. e., "saving" Walden Pond) in the first place. Thus, the speaker could have told the white woman, "I don't give a shit." Instead, he reports, "But I didn't say a word."
*****
Eliot – "Prufrock"
This is another very difficult poem, and lends itself to a research project! Note that we never really get to the destination, and we never know what that "overwhelming question" actually is. The beginning is from Dante's Inferno; Prufrock, himself, is in a Hell of sorts (though still alive).
There are many possible interpretations. The poem may be viewed in sexual terms; also, as an expression of social alienation. It certainly addresses aging (sexually and otherwise!). The allusions to suicide cannot be overlooked, either; nor can mention of Hamlet. Artistic exhaustion figures prominently as well; he has "seen the moment of [his] greatness flicker" and is truly afraid!!
Regardless of which explanation one may try, it is imperative that the three climactic lines (84-86) can work their way into that interpretation.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Preliminary Notes on Poetry
The first three poems introduced us to one key concept – that the "voice" we hear as we read a poem should not be called that of the poet, but rather that of the "speaker." Moreover, the actual speaker is sometimes a little tricky to identify, as there may be more than one speaker.
In "We Real Cool," by Brooks, the "speaker" is probably all seven of the pool players.
In "The Terrorist, He Watches," by Szymborska, it is more difficult to say for sure who the speaker may be. He could be the terrorist, even though line five explains that "[t]he terrorist has already crossed to the other side of the street." Some people do refer to themselves in the third person! He could be someone who has been working with the terrorist. He might even be some omniscient observer. Whoever the speaker is, he is also a rather cold-blooded individual, who does not seem at all upset about the killings.
In "next to of course god america i," by E. E. Cummings, there are two speakers. Note that our military windbag delivers the first 13 lines of the poem (in quotation marks!), while it is clear from the last line that there is someone else – another speaker – who is reporting what the windbag said. [Note also that this is a "fractured" sonnet, not unusual for the 20th century!]
*****
I do not wish to belabor the various poetic feet and lines, since all I expect students to identify is the pattern of iambic pentameter. This is the meter of both blank verse and the sonnet.
Note the following: (1) the pattern will be prevailingly of one sort or another, though it is rarely exclusively so; and (2) the poem should never be read as though an exercise in meter and rhythm!!
Students should understand that the sonnet is one of the most important poetic forms. It is 14 lines in length, and for the most part in iambic pentameter. This means that most of the lines will have ten syllables.
The two main styles (and there have been some adaptations in more recent times) are the English (or Shakespearean) sonnet and the Italian (or Petrarchan) sonnet. It is not necessary to memorize the rhyme schemes, since the two are easily distinguished from one another. The Shakespearean sonnet always ends in a rhymed couplet! If the last two lines line, the sonnet is English; if they don't, it's Italian.
Shakespeare's "Sonnet 73" offers a perfect presentation of the English sonnet. Note the rhyme scheme, which ends in a rhymed couplet ("strong" and "long"). Note how he draws three wonderful comparisons -- to the calendar year by perhaps mid-December, to the post-sunset "twilight" (i.e., very late in the day), and to the dying embers on the burned-out shell of a log in the fireplace. These show that the speaker is old and probably approaching death. Then the couplet reveals how much the younger person loves him, even knowing that he will not be around too much longer!
One final distinction: Blank verse and free verse. Blank verse is unrhymed iambic pentameter, and is found throughout much of Shakespeare. Free verse has no clear metrical pattern, and is usually unrhymed. Students must know the difference!
In "We Real Cool," by Brooks, the "speaker" is probably all seven of the pool players.
In "The Terrorist, He Watches," by Szymborska, it is more difficult to say for sure who the speaker may be. He could be the terrorist, even though line five explains that "[t]he terrorist has already crossed to the other side of the street." Some people do refer to themselves in the third person! He could be someone who has been working with the terrorist. He might even be some omniscient observer. Whoever the speaker is, he is also a rather cold-blooded individual, who does not seem at all upset about the killings.
In "next to of course god america i," by E. E. Cummings, there are two speakers. Note that our military windbag delivers the first 13 lines of the poem (in quotation marks!), while it is clear from the last line that there is someone else – another speaker – who is reporting what the windbag said. [Note also that this is a "fractured" sonnet, not unusual for the 20th century!]
*****
I do not wish to belabor the various poetic feet and lines, since all I expect students to identify is the pattern of iambic pentameter. This is the meter of both blank verse and the sonnet.
Note the following: (1) the pattern will be prevailingly of one sort or another, though it is rarely exclusively so; and (2) the poem should never be read as though an exercise in meter and rhythm!!
Students should understand that the sonnet is one of the most important poetic forms. It is 14 lines in length, and for the most part in iambic pentameter. This means that most of the lines will have ten syllables.
The two main styles (and there have been some adaptations in more recent times) are the English (or Shakespearean) sonnet and the Italian (or Petrarchan) sonnet. It is not necessary to memorize the rhyme schemes, since the two are easily distinguished from one another. The Shakespearean sonnet always ends in a rhymed couplet! If the last two lines line, the sonnet is English; if they don't, it's Italian.
Shakespeare's "Sonnet 73" offers a perfect presentation of the English sonnet. Note the rhyme scheme, which ends in a rhymed couplet ("strong" and "long"). Note how he draws three wonderful comparisons -- to the calendar year by perhaps mid-December, to the post-sunset "twilight" (i.e., very late in the day), and to the dying embers on the burned-out shell of a log in the fireplace. These show that the speaker is old and probably approaching death. Then the couplet reveals how much the younger person loves him, even knowing that he will not be around too much longer!
One final distinction: Blank verse and free verse. Blank verse is unrhymed iambic pentameter, and is found throughout much of Shakespeare. Free verse has no clear metrical pattern, and is usually unrhymed. Students must know the difference!
Friday, January 29, 2016
Preparatory Notes for the Quiz
The quiz will be entirely on The Libation Bearers, by Aeschylus. Below are things you should know:
(1) When the Chorus are left alone on the stage, we have a stasimon.
(2) When a character (usually a major character) joins them on state, we start an episode.
(3) An aphorism is a terse saying, similar to a proverb, and embodying some fundamental truth or wisdom. We have several examples of these:
– “A great stock may come from a little seed.”
– “Where is goodwill greater than from guest to host?”
– “In the mouth of a messenger a crooked message is made straight.”
– “The orphaned colt of a loved one is harnessed to the chariot of distress.”
– “Count all men your enemies rather than the gods.”
(4) Irony arises when a character says or does something that has a totally different meaning or outcome than what he/she expects. We see examples of verbal irony, and in a sense also dramatic irony:
– Clytemnaestra says, “Your story spells our utter undoing.” She pretends to be a grief-stricken mother, completely “undone” by the loss of her son. However, because she believes this story, she will let Orestes into the palace, where he will kill her and Aegisthus.
– Clytemnaestra’s dream of the serpent that drew her milk and also her blood is more symbolic imagery, yet the fact that she had such a dream just as Orestes arrived to slay her – and also her own words (“I bore and nourished this serpent!”) makes the passage somewhat ironic, also.
(5) Know the important characters -- Elektra, Orestes, Clytemnaestra, Aegisthus -- and who they are in relation to one another.
(6) Remember the name of this dramatist (Aeschylus) and the other two great Greek tragedians (Sophocles and Euripides).
(1) When the Chorus are left alone on the stage, we have a stasimon.
(2) When a character (usually a major character) joins them on state, we start an episode.
(3) An aphorism is a terse saying, similar to a proverb, and embodying some fundamental truth or wisdom. We have several examples of these:
– “A great stock may come from a little seed.”
– “Where is goodwill greater than from guest to host?”
– “In the mouth of a messenger a crooked message is made straight.”
– “The orphaned colt of a loved one is harnessed to the chariot of distress.”
– “Count all men your enemies rather than the gods.”
(4) Irony arises when a character says or does something that has a totally different meaning or outcome than what he/she expects. We see examples of verbal irony, and in a sense also dramatic irony:
– Clytemnaestra says, “Your story spells our utter undoing.” She pretends to be a grief-stricken mother, completely “undone” by the loss of her son. However, because she believes this story, she will let Orestes into the palace, where he will kill her and Aegisthus.
– Clytemnaestra’s dream of the serpent that drew her milk and also her blood is more symbolic imagery, yet the fact that she had such a dream just as Orestes arrived to slay her – and also her own words (“I bore and nourished this serpent!”) makes the passage somewhat ironic, also.
(5) Know the important characters -- Elektra, Orestes, Clytemnaestra, Aegisthus -- and who they are in relation to one another.
(6) Remember the name of this dramatist (Aeschylus) and the other two great Greek tragedians (Sophocles and Euripides).
Notes on the One Act Plays
(1) Sure Thing, by David Ives
This very light-hearted comedy presents us with some intriguing questions: What if we could "start over" in relationships and take back our mistakes? Superficially, this prospect sounds wonderful, but would "sure things" lead to "real" and "wholesome" relationships?
There is, of course, plenty of irony here, too, beginning with the title. Where is the "sure thing" in any relationship? Note also, for example: "Labels are not important" (Yes, they ARE!); or, "It's all in the timing." (How true!!). Note also the allusion to Bananas (in which Fielding must make himself "good enough" for Nancy -- much the way our charming Bill & Betty must do for one another!).
Even a very short play can have something to say -- and something to teach us!
(2) Notes on Los Vendidos, by Luis Valdes
Ms. Jimenez is completely anglicized -- even the way she (mis)pronounces her name. The Republican office of Governor Reagan clearly wants the Mexican just for show (a political expedient!). However, the Farm Worker doesn't speak English; Ms. Jimenez insists on an English-speaker. Johnny Pachuco fights with a knife and has been arrested (and makes "a great scapegoat"!). Alas, "We can't have any more thieves in the State Administration," notes the Secretary! The Revolucionario (a lover!) was made in Mexico; she wants an American-made product (and note the unintended irony vis-a-vis Reagan!!). Then there is the Mexican American, who spouts Uncle-Tom-like comments. He seems viable until he -- and the others -- turn on Ms. Jimenez. The ultimate irony/surprise comes with our surprise ending: It is Sancho who is the robot!
Did this short drama "give you something to think about"? Even if it didn't inspire you "to social action," perhaps you can comment on the way politicians are "playing" the Hispanic vote. Have you ever encountered ethnic stereotyping? You should also recognize the satire as well as the implicit prejudice.
This very light-hearted comedy presents us with some intriguing questions: What if we could "start over" in relationships and take back our mistakes? Superficially, this prospect sounds wonderful, but would "sure things" lead to "real" and "wholesome" relationships?
There is, of course, plenty of irony here, too, beginning with the title. Where is the "sure thing" in any relationship? Note also, for example: "Labels are not important" (Yes, they ARE!); or, "It's all in the timing." (How true!!). Note also the allusion to Bananas (in which Fielding must make himself "good enough" for Nancy -- much the way our charming Bill & Betty must do for one another!).
Even a very short play can have something to say -- and something to teach us!
(2) Notes on Los Vendidos, by Luis Valdes
Ms. Jimenez is completely anglicized -- even the way she (mis)pronounces her name. The Republican office of Governor Reagan clearly wants the Mexican just for show (a political expedient!). However, the Farm Worker doesn't speak English; Ms. Jimenez insists on an English-speaker. Johnny Pachuco fights with a knife and has been arrested (and makes "a great scapegoat"!). Alas, "We can't have any more thieves in the State Administration," notes the Secretary! The Revolucionario (a lover!) was made in Mexico; she wants an American-made product (and note the unintended irony vis-a-vis Reagan!!). Then there is the Mexican American, who spouts Uncle-Tom-like comments. He seems viable until he -- and the others -- turn on Ms. Jimenez. The ultimate irony/surprise comes with our surprise ending: It is Sancho who is the robot!
Did this short drama "give you something to think about"? Even if it didn't inspire you "to social action," perhaps you can comment on the way politicians are "playing" the Hispanic vote. Have you ever encountered ethnic stereotyping? You should also recognize the satire as well as the implicit prejudice.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Background Notes on LIBATION BEARERS
Notes on The Libation Bearers, by Aeschylus
This is the second play of the trilogy known as The Oresteia, by Aeschylus. The first is Agamemnon; the last is The Eumenides.
Aeschylus (ca. 525-455 B.C., Sophocles (ca. 497-406 B.C.), and Euripides (ca. 480-406 B.C.) were the three giants of Greek drama, and their lives overlapped to some extent. Unfortunately, most of their plays have been lost.
Aeschylus is credited with the idea of a second major character, by which we mean that two important characters appeared on the stage at the same time. Sophocles introduced the idea of three major characters who interacted during the drama, and he also expanded the chorus to a force of 15.
The Oresteia concerns the House of Atreus, and the curse upon it. It is a tale full of vengeance, and leads us to ponder the question of where the cycle of retribution must end. The myth begins long before the start of the play, and it provides important background information. What I write below is gleaned from the more commonly seen versions of the tales, but students should remember that the ancient Greeks sometimes devised multiple versions of their myths.
King Pelops of Olympia sought the hand of Hippodamia, daughter of King Oenomaus, who had learned from a prophecy that he would be killed by his daughter’s husband. Thus, he challenged all suitors to a chariot race, with the proviso that if they lost the race, they would also lose their heads. In some versions of the story, he had already killed 18 of them before the challenge by Pelops. However, the latter (the great-grandfather of ORESTES) had help from Myrtilus, who agreed to sabotage the chariot of Oenomaus. In return for this service, Myrtilus would receive the virginity of Hippodamia. He replaced the bronze pins that attached the chariot wheels with pins made of beeswax (!), the chariot eventually collapsed, and Oenomaus was dragged to his death by the horses. However, when Myrtilus attempted to “collect” his payment – in some versions, he tried to rape Hippodamia – Pelops killed him on the spot. As Myrtilus was dying, he cursed Pelops and his descendants – and, as we shall see, the curse was quite a powerful one!
Pelops later exiled his two sons, Thyestes and Atreus, because they had murdered their half-brother, Chrysippus (his favorite son, born not by Hippodamia, but by the sea-nymph Axioche). The brothers fled to Mycenae (a different city than Argos, although that is what it is called in this translation!), where they would both take the throne (at various times) after the death of the rightful king.
According to one version of the story, Atreus had a golden lamb, which he gave to his wife, Aerope, to hide. However, Thyestes was also sleeping with Aerope, and she gave the lamb to him. After Atreus agreed that whoever had the lamb would be king, Thyestes revealed that it was in his possession and assumed the throne. However, Atreus was later able to regain power and banish his brother. [Thyestes had agreed to give back the kingdom only when the sun moved backward – which is exactly what happened, thanks to the gods.]
Meanwhile, it didn’t take Atreus long to figure out that Aerope and Thyestes were lovers. To punish the adultery, Atreus killed the two sons of Thyestes, cooked them, and served them to his brother – later revealing their hands and heads to confirm the source of the meal. Needless to say, Thyestes was sickened, and he vowed revenge.
Thyestes consulted with an oracle and learned that if he had a son with his own daughter, Pelopia, their child would murder Atreus. Since the Greeks believed so devoutly in their oracles, he promptly raped his daughter, and their son, AEGISTHUS (a character in this play), did indeed murder his uncle.
Of course, new twists in the story first arose. Pelopia, mortified by what had happened, abandoned the infant, who was found by a shepherd, who in turn gave him to King Atreus. Atreus adopted and raised the child as the stepbrother of his own children, AGAMEMNON and Menelaus. However, once Aegisthus was a grown man, Thyestes shared with him the family secrets, including that of his birth. Aegisthus then killed Atreus and restored his real father to the throne. Meanwhile, Agamemnon and Menelaus were exiled to Sparta, where they fled to the court of King Tyndareus.
Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Tyndareus raised an army and defeated (and in most versions killed) Thyestes. Agamemnon married CLYTEMNAESTRA, daughter of Tyndareus, while Menelaus married Helen, her half-sister.
That same Helen later ran off with Paris, Prince of Troy, precipitating the Trojan War. In order to enable to Greek fleet to sail, Agamemnon was told (by the oracle) that he had to sacrifice his own daughter, Iphigenia. [In some versions of the myth – notably in the play by Euripides – she somehow survived.] The Greeks then departed and were gone for ten years.
During the absence of Agamemnon, Clytemnaestra, still mourning the sacrifice of her daughter, became the lover of Aegisthus (who mysteriously reappeared). Then, upon Agamemnon’s return, the two contrived to murder him (and also Cassandra, a princess of Troy, whom he had taken as a captive). These events occur in the first play, Agamemnon.
Some years later, the second drama begins. As we shall see, Orestes, Agamemnon’s son, kills both Aegisthus and his own mother. Mercifully, Aeschylus did not treat other versions of the myth, including how Orestes also dealt with the children of Clytemnaestra and Aegisthus: he murdered his half-brother and (in some accounts) raped his half-sister, Erigone, who gave birth to their son, Penthilus.
The Greeks certainly understood the concept of a "dysfunctional family," didn't they?
This is the second play of the trilogy known as The Oresteia, by Aeschylus. The first is Agamemnon; the last is The Eumenides.
Aeschylus (ca. 525-455 B.C., Sophocles (ca. 497-406 B.C.), and Euripides (ca. 480-406 B.C.) were the three giants of Greek drama, and their lives overlapped to some extent. Unfortunately, most of their plays have been lost.
Aeschylus is credited with the idea of a second major character, by which we mean that two important characters appeared on the stage at the same time. Sophocles introduced the idea of three major characters who interacted during the drama, and he also expanded the chorus to a force of 15.
The Oresteia concerns the House of Atreus, and the curse upon it. It is a tale full of vengeance, and leads us to ponder the question of where the cycle of retribution must end. The myth begins long before the start of the play, and it provides important background information. What I write below is gleaned from the more commonly seen versions of the tales, but students should remember that the ancient Greeks sometimes devised multiple versions of their myths.
King Pelops of Olympia sought the hand of Hippodamia, daughter of King Oenomaus, who had learned from a prophecy that he would be killed by his daughter’s husband. Thus, he challenged all suitors to a chariot race, with the proviso that if they lost the race, they would also lose their heads. In some versions of the story, he had already killed 18 of them before the challenge by Pelops. However, the latter (the great-grandfather of ORESTES) had help from Myrtilus, who agreed to sabotage the chariot of Oenomaus. In return for this service, Myrtilus would receive the virginity of Hippodamia. He replaced the bronze pins that attached the chariot wheels with pins made of beeswax (!), the chariot eventually collapsed, and Oenomaus was dragged to his death by the horses. However, when Myrtilus attempted to “collect” his payment – in some versions, he tried to rape Hippodamia – Pelops killed him on the spot. As Myrtilus was dying, he cursed Pelops and his descendants – and, as we shall see, the curse was quite a powerful one!
Pelops later exiled his two sons, Thyestes and Atreus, because they had murdered their half-brother, Chrysippus (his favorite son, born not by Hippodamia, but by the sea-nymph Axioche). The brothers fled to Mycenae (a different city than Argos, although that is what it is called in this translation!), where they would both take the throne (at various times) after the death of the rightful king.
According to one version of the story, Atreus had a golden lamb, which he gave to his wife, Aerope, to hide. However, Thyestes was also sleeping with Aerope, and she gave the lamb to him. After Atreus agreed that whoever had the lamb would be king, Thyestes revealed that it was in his possession and assumed the throne. However, Atreus was later able to regain power and banish his brother. [Thyestes had agreed to give back the kingdom only when the sun moved backward – which is exactly what happened, thanks to the gods.]
Meanwhile, it didn’t take Atreus long to figure out that Aerope and Thyestes were lovers. To punish the adultery, Atreus killed the two sons of Thyestes, cooked them, and served them to his brother – later revealing their hands and heads to confirm the source of the meal. Needless to say, Thyestes was sickened, and he vowed revenge.
Thyestes consulted with an oracle and learned that if he had a son with his own daughter, Pelopia, their child would murder Atreus. Since the Greeks believed so devoutly in their oracles, he promptly raped his daughter, and their son, AEGISTHUS (a character in this play), did indeed murder his uncle.
Of course, new twists in the story first arose. Pelopia, mortified by what had happened, abandoned the infant, who was found by a shepherd, who in turn gave him to King Atreus. Atreus adopted and raised the child as the stepbrother of his own children, AGAMEMNON and Menelaus. However, once Aegisthus was a grown man, Thyestes shared with him the family secrets, including that of his birth. Aegisthus then killed Atreus and restored his real father to the throne. Meanwhile, Agamemnon and Menelaus were exiled to Sparta, where they fled to the court of King Tyndareus.
Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Tyndareus raised an army and defeated (and in most versions killed) Thyestes. Agamemnon married CLYTEMNAESTRA, daughter of Tyndareus, while Menelaus married Helen, her half-sister.
That same Helen later ran off with Paris, Prince of Troy, precipitating the Trojan War. In order to enable to Greek fleet to sail, Agamemnon was told (by the oracle) that he had to sacrifice his own daughter, Iphigenia. [In some versions of the myth – notably in the play by Euripides – she somehow survived.] The Greeks then departed and were gone for ten years.
During the absence of Agamemnon, Clytemnaestra, still mourning the sacrifice of her daughter, became the lover of Aegisthus (who mysteriously reappeared). Then, upon Agamemnon’s return, the two contrived to murder him (and also Cassandra, a princess of Troy, whom he had taken as a captive). These events occur in the first play, Agamemnon.
Some years later, the second drama begins. As we shall see, Orestes, Agamemnon’s son, kills both Aegisthus and his own mother. Mercifully, Aeschylus did not treat other versions of the myth, including how Orestes also dealt with the children of Clytemnaestra and Aegisthus: he murdered his half-brother and (in some accounts) raped his half-sister, Erigone, who gave birth to their son, Penthilus.
The Greeks certainly understood the concept of a "dysfunctional family," didn't they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)