As AE Haigh notes, Aristotle treats Aeschylus with complete indifference in poetics. Throughout his writings, the standards for dramatic writing are provided by Sophocles and Euripides. He fully acknowledges Aeschylus' role in introducing a second actor and expanding the dialogue, but that is all. Indeed, Aristotle focused his attention primarily on plot, as well as his classification of recognition, complication, and revolution, and "for such investigations there was little material to be found in Aeschylus" (124 ). Nevertheless, it is somewhat possible to analyze The Oresteia in terms of Aristotle's poetics. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay There is no doubt that at one time what we now call tragedy consisted of a chorus singing comments in response to a story told by the poet. , but one may wonder if, as has been claimed, there was a time when there was only the choir. This was once accepted as fact, based on something Aristotle wrote, but today it is less accepted. What is more likely – and we can perhaps attribute this to Thespis – is that two different poetic traditions merged into a single form. What we do know is that the combination of an actor and a chorus does not give a very wide range of dramatic possibilities, especially since it is almost certain that the chorus has always worked at the 'unison. For the form to grow, the introduction of a second actor was essential and, according to Aristotle, it was Aeschylus who did this. He too, says Aristotle, reduced the importance of the chorus, and this is why he is called the “father of tragedy”. Of course, when a major innovation occurs, others tend to follow fairly quickly and Sophocles is generally credited with the next breakthrough, the introduction of a third actor, around 460. It is worth noting that we are talking about actors here and not characters. . Each actor could of course play more than one character, but only three could appear on stage together. The three tragedies that each poet presented in a competition were not necessarily on a related subject: only Aeschylus is known to have written trilogies on this subject. a single theme, like the Oresteia. However, Aristotle makes no comment on this, as the trilogy format was more or less abandoned after The Oresteia. The contrasting structures of the two pieces are worth noting here. In the Poetics (1452b), Aristotle gives the most concise description of the formal structure of tragedy. There are generally five scenes or episodes separated by choral odes (stasima), all preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue or exodos. This form is the precursor to the five-act structure familiar to Shakespearean drama. The Libation Bearers (and Agamemnon) follow this structure. In contrast, as the chorus plays a unique role as the Furies in The Eumenides, the structure is fundamentally altered. In keeping with the standards of Greek drama, The Eumenides is not divided into discrete acts or scenes. There is a scene change in the middle of the play, but this can be accomplished with minimal movement of the sets in no time. However, time passes in a non-naturalistic manner: at certain points, from reports of what happened offstage, it is clear that a large amount of time is supposed to have passed, even though only a few seconds have passed for the audience. In general, as Aristotle noted, most tragediesGreeks have an action limited to a period of twenty-four hours. Significant here is Aeschylus' decision to break up the "units" of Aristotle's classical dramatic form to allow his play to span ten years and various geographical areas. Aristotle discusses both The Libation Bearers and The Eumenides in relation to the plot in Poetics 13. Here he praises the plot's singular focus on a person's fortune, instead focusing the plot on the type definition that said person meets. The only prescription for the ending is that it be a single (unfortunate) plotline with some sort of major change. The high culture of tragedy is best achieved through a single change, not through the popular use of a double plot ending. On the one hand, as Aristotle points out, the double ending of the comedy would ensure that the bad man (Aegisthus) meets a good end (avoiding the death penalty at the hands of Orestes) and that the good man (Orestes) meets a bad end. (failing to exact the necessary vengeance against his enemy, instead making Aegisthus his friend). On the other hand, the double tragic ending would be the one that we really have in the plays of Aeschylus: Orestes kills Aegisthus out of revenge; therefore, the bad man meets a bad end (in The Libation Bearers) and the good man meets a good end (The Eumenides). Aristotle does not seem to express whether Aeschylus's treatment of this plot is more single than double in its execution in The Oresteia, and he therefore remains silent on the trilogy's rank as an achievement in tragedy. Aristotle also discusses "recognition" as a formal component of tragedy: we see this in The Libation Bearers: Electra finds the lock of hair on the grave, and here we see our first "recognition", or as Aristotle puts it , “recognition through the process of reasoning... .someone who looks like me [Electra] has come: no one looks like me except Orestes: therefore Orestes has come. The second act of recognition occurs when Clytemnestra recognizes Orestes: “My son, do you not fear your mother’s curse? This is another type of recognition, which depends on “memory when the sight of an object arouses a feeling”. Here, Clytemnestra remembers the prophecy from her dream and deduces that this man is her son, Orestes. None of these recognitions corresponds exactly to what Aristotle prescribed as the "best" type of recognition, which is "that which arises from the incidents themselves, where the surprising discovery is made by natural means", as one puts it. seen in Oedipus and Iphigenia. Pylades manages to enter the palace under false pretenses, and here the Choir plays a vital role in the events to come. (Kitto argues that Aeschylus here fundamentally alters the role of the chorus, since the chorus is traditionally never expected to take part in the action: "the superiority of this over a purely formal treatment of the incident is quite clear. That indeed results in the interesting figure of the Nurse"[83].) The Chorus suggests to the Nurse that things are not what they seem, and they convince her to tell Aegisthus to come without his guard from body. His assassins wait for him in the wings and the audience hears him scream as he is stabbed at the climax of the play. Before the murder, the play developed at a leisurely pace: much is said in monologue, comparatively. As soon as Orestes kills Aegisthus, the dialogue explodes with a speed and intensity that indicates what is yet to come in the third play. This chorus, I believe, is one of the most important and difficult to understand elements of Greek dramaturgy, and I would like to spend some time discussing its history and composition. AsSimon Goldhill explains, the chorus, like the actors, was made up of citizens, since there was no “theater” underclass as there was in Rome. Scholars differ as to whether there were twelve or fifteen members of the chorus in The Oresteia; in any case, it was a fairly large number. The choir was selected for a specific performance and trained by the poet. Like the actors, they were fully masked, but not in the familiar comedy/tragedy masks that we have come to think of as representations of ancient theater. These masks were rather finely painted figurative representations. The chorus usually performed in the orchestra, a dancing area located below the raised stage on which the actors performed. The separation of playing spaces helped create "a specific dialectical relationship between the collective chorus in the orchestra and individual actors on stage" (17). As I mentioned, the role of the Chorus is unique in these two plays: in The Libation Bearers, they specifically modify the action by convincing the nurse to keep Aegisthus vulnerable to attack; in The Eumenides, further influence the action by playing a major role; that is, the role of the Furies. (It is interesting to note, however, that in the text they are always called "Choir".) The staging of the Choir is also remarkable. In The Libation Bearers, the entrance of the Choir takes time, so that Orestes can withdraw and observe. Vase paintings suggest that the tomb was represented by the altar in the center of the orchestra. There is therefore a contrast between Agamemnon, in which the action focuses on the stage and the construction of the skene (= the palace), and the opening of The Libation Bearers, where the spatial attention shifts to the center of the orchestra. There is a shift of attention towards the palace from 652, accompanied by a change in the pace of developments (cf. different structural models in the first and second parts of Agamemnon). The Eumenides begin by focusing on the construction of skene (= temple of Apollo at Delphi), but the change of location to Athens is accompanied by a shift of attention towards the orchestra (central altar = sanctuary of Athens where Orestes takes refuge). Controlled variation in the use of performance space allows for variety within and between pieces, and is another way of shaping the trilogy as a whole. The Chorus also thematically changes its functions throughout the trilogy. The choir of Argos elders in the Agamemnon is, with the exception of the silent jury of the Eumenides, the most democratic body presented on stage; they are also weak and ineffective, bowing down to Clytemnestra when they should be warning Agamemnon of the terrible things his wife has done and planned in his absence.2 The second chorus on stage, the slave girls of the Libation Bearers, are apparently much more loud as the choir of old men; they encourage Orestes and Electra to commit their “just” crime of matricide/revenge; they pray to the procession of the gods to give Agamemnon's children the strength to carry out the deed. And, as representatives of Apollonian justice, they question the validity of chthonic justice; the third verse of their parados implies that Ge, for supporting Clytemnestra's prayers, showed herself to be an unnatural evil force. The final chorus, the Furies themselves, are gods on stage, arguably the most fearsome chorus in the trilogy. They are chthonic justice incarnate. They seem even stronger because of their weak opposition, supplicating Orestes and Apollo-advocate. Apollo presents four increasingly ridiculous arguments in favor of Orestes: without Athena's intervention,.