This content is from Wikipedia. We do not consider this content professional or citable. Please use your discretion when relying on it. GradeSaver also offers a professionally written study guide by one of our staff editors.

The Libation Bearers

Introduction

The Libation Bearers (Greek: Χοηφόροι, Choēphoroi) is the second play of the Oresteia. It deals with the reunion of Agamemnon's children, Electra and Orestes, and their revenge. Clytemnestra is killed by her son Orestes because he is avenging the death of Agamemnon, Orestes' father.

Storyline

Orestes arrives at the grave of his father, accompanied by his friend Pylades, the son of the king of Phocis, where he has grown up in exile; he places two locks of his hair on the tomb. Orestes and Pylades hide as Electra, Orestes' sister, arrives at the grave accompanied by a chorus of elderly slave women (the libation bearers of the title) to pour libations on Agamemnon's grave; they have been sent by Clytaemestra in an effort "to ward off harm" (l.42). Just as the ritual ends, Electra spots a lock of hair on the tomb which she recognizes as similar to her own; subsequently she sees two sets of footprints, one of which has proportions similar to hers. At this point Orestes and Pylades emerge from their hiding place and Orestes gradually convinces her of his identity.

Now, in the longest and most structurally complex lyric passage in extant Greek tragedy, the chorus, Orestes, and Electra, conjure the departed spirit of Agamemnon to aid them in revenging his murder. Orestes then asks "why she sent libations, what calculation led her to offer too late atonement for a hurt past cure"(l.515-516). The chorus responds that in the palace of Argos Clytaemestra was roused from slumber by a nightmare: she dreamt that she gave birth to a snake, and the snake now feeds from her breast and draws blood along with milk. Alarmed by this, a possible sign of the gods' wrath, she "sent these funeral libations"(l.538). Orestes believes that he is the snake in his mother's dream, so together with Electra they plan to avenge their father by killing their mother Clytaemestra and her new husband, Aegisthus.

Orestes and Pylades pretend to be ordinary travelers from Phocis, and ask for hospitality at the palace. They even tell the Queen that Orestes is dead. Delighted by the news, Clytaemestra sends a servant to summon Aegisthus. Orestes kills the usurper first, and then his mother. At only one point does Orestes even mention the possibility of not killing own mother, when he responds to her plea: "Hold my son and have respect" by saying to his close friend Pylades, the son of the king of Phocis: "Shall I respect my mother and not kill her?"(l.896-899). This seems to be not much more than a pro forma rhetorical question as he accepts Pylades advice that it is the correct course of action, and immediately proceeds with the murder.

As soon as he exits the palace, the Erinyes, or Furies as they are known in Roman mythology, begin to haunt and torture him in his flight. Orestes flees in agonized panic.

References in other Greek Dramas

Pietro Pucci of Cornell University argues that in referencing The Libation Bearers in his own Electra, Euripides made a social commentary on the relationship between truth and evidence. Euripides criticized the scene of recognition when Electra realizes that the lock of hair on Agamemnon's tomb belongs to Orestes. In his own play Electra, Euripides has Electra make a scathing remark about the ridiculous notion that one could recognize a brother solely by a lock of hair, a footprint and an article of clothing. ^[3] What Euripides (presumably purposefully) ignores in Aeschylus' play was the religious significance of the act of placing a lock of hair on a tomb, which was a much more powerful clue as to who left the lock than the actual nature of the hair. Only a friend of Agamemnon's would dare approach his grave and leave a lock of hair, and even more importantly, this ritual had a specific father/ male heir significance. Aeschylus' Electra, therefore, recognized her brother based on her faith in a religious act. Euripides' Electra, on the other hand, judges the situation solely on evidence, and comes to the wrong conclusion that Orestes cannot be present, when in fact the audience knows that he is there and the two characters have just spoken to each other. This commentary suggests that Euripides is referring to the then pertinent argument over evidence and truth, an issue which had no weight when Aeschylus was writing. ^[3]