Apollo's Favorites Morgan, Kathryn A Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1994; 35, 2; ProQuest pg. 121 Apollo's Favorites Kathryn A. Morgan "Fortunate favourite of the Queen­ or else not so fortunate." C. S. Lewis TREATMENTS OF THE CASSANDRA SCENE in Aeschylus' Aga­ memnon have achieved some degree of consensus re­ garding its function. The inexorable movement of the play towards Agamemnon's death halts momentarily as the Trojan prophetess reveals the past, present, and future that are the context of that death. In so doing, she enables us to make sense 'of what we have so far encountered and of what we shall encounter in the remainder of the trilogy.1 Her predictions serve as "a messenger speech in advance" and "reveal the theological implications of what has gone before": the scene brings the supernatural factor into focus. 2 There is less agreement on the moral stature of Cassandra. Her grim and clear knowledge of her own fate and Agamem­ non's evokes the pity of the audience, as well as that of the chorus (Ag. 1321). Knox sees her embodying the tragedy of the prophet, the burden of whose knowledge is "too great a load for human senses."} On this reading, Cassandra's prophetic capabilities and the tragic ironies they entail define her sig­ nificance. The story of how she came to be a prophet is for Knox the symbol of a universal truth (that prophets are rejected). The abortive liaison with Apollo becomes merely an aition for her state of non-persuasiveness and carries no moral 1 B. Knox, "Aeschylus and the Third Actor," in his Word and Action. Essays on the Ancient Theater (Baltimore 1979) 44f, 50; S. Schein, "The Cassandra Scene in Aeschylus' Agamemnon," GandR 2 (1982) 13; B. FEICH­ TINGER, "Zur Kassandra-Szene in Aischylos' 'Orestie' und ihren poetischen Funktionen," WurzJbb N.S. 17 (1991: hereafter 'Feichtinger') 54. 2 D. M. LEAHY, "The Role of Cassandra in the OreHeia of Aeschylus," BullJRylLibr 52 (1969-70: hereafter 'Leahy') 145, 147. 3 Knox (supra n.1) 46f; cf Schein (supra n.1) 12f. 121 122 APOLLO'S FAVORITES or intellectual implications. Cassandra symbolizes the prophetic mode and functions as an ironic device, or as a receptacle for feelings of sympathy displaced from Agamemnon. A shift in focus permits a different interpretation. Concentra­ tion on the implications of the stichomythia at Ag. 1202-13 allowed Leahy (157) to ask and answer the question, was Cassandra "an innocent victim of outrage, or ... a sinner justly punished?" Arguing from what he perceives as a generally positive attitude in Aeschylus towards the love of a god for a mortal woman, and from the language of the stichomythia, which implies for him that Cassandra's action was a sin, Leahy concludes that Cassandra is an offender who made an incorrect choice in her dealings with Apollo. This method of approach leads also to the radical interpretation of Kovacs, for whom Cas­ sandra's guilt is even more extreme: after embarking on a sexual relationship with Apollo, Cassandra played him false and/or deprived him of the children that would naturally have resulted from the union. 4 Such a determination of Cassandra's level of guilt affects how we view Apollo in the play and trilogy. An innocent Cassandra implies a brutal Apollo (who must then 'progress' in the course of the trilogy), while a guilty one allows a consistently superior god throughout. 5 In the world of the Oresteia, however, it is notoriously difficult to assign characters to the categories of guilt and innocence. It would be surprising if either Cassandra or Apollo were wholly one or the other. In this world, moreover, divine vengeance typically verges on the disproportionate: thousands of Greeks and Trojans die for the sake of one adulterous woman.6 One might conclude that it is futile to measure the justice of divine punishment in human terms. The gods work by their own standards. My arguments here should not, therefore, be interpreted as offering either a 4 D. Kovacs, "The Way of a God with a Maid in Aeschylus' Agamemnon," CP 82 (1987) 326-34. 5 For a review of the scholarship on this matter and a dismissal of the 'pro­ gressive' Apollo, see Leahy 152-66; for a related formulation of the problem see Feichtinger 53, 61. The question of a 'progressive' Apollo raises the specter of the Aeschylean portrayal of Zeus and the possibility of an 'advanced' theology: see S. GOLDHILL, Language, Sexuality, Narrative: The Oresteia (Cambridge 1984: hereafter 'Goldhill') 25 with n.47; M. Pope, "Merciful Heavens? A Question in Aeschylus' Agamemnon," IHS 94 (1974) 100-13, esp. 111ff; H. Lloyd-Jones, "Zeus in Aeschylus," IHS 76 (1956) 55-67, esp. 60-65. 6 The sacrifice of Iphigenia could also be cited, if one were sure of the precise nature of Agamemnon's offense. KATHRYN A. MORGAN 123 justification of Apollo or a condemnation of Cassandra. Given Apollo's power, crossing him has certain consequences (morally justified or not). From Apollo's point of view, Cassandra brought her fate on herself. I argue, then, neither that Apollo 'progresses' in the trilogy nor that he is a vengeful brute. He is powerful, consistent, and, for most of the trilogy, an influential force in the area of prophecy and interpretation of divine will. Whether his authority is sufficient to solve the prob­ lems raised by the action is a different question and beyond the scope of this paper. In what follows, I shall explore how viewing Cassandra and Orestes as corresponding characters enriches our understand­ ing the Cassandra scene, of Orestes in Choephori, and of Apollo throughout the trilogy.l Cassandra and Orestes are not, of course, the only mirror characters in the Oresteia. Previous scholarship has done much to illuminate the thematic and visual correspondences beween Agamemnon and Cassandra, Orestes and Clytemnestra. Indeed, the construction of mirror-scenes is a major tool whereby Aeschylus emphasizes the cyclic repe­ tition of the curse of the house of Atreus. 8 Parallels between Orestes and Cassandra have been less fully investigated, but they may help to define yet another thread in the pattern of the trilogy. Both characters are marked out for Apollo's favor, but the blessing of divine attention carries with it special respon­ sibilites. Shirking them entails shouldering a fate that, as usual in the Oresteia, is both externally imposed and internally generated (Leahy 174-77). I The Cassandra scene begins with a failure of persuasion on Clytemnestra's part that foreshadows her failure to persuade Orestes in Choephori. Clytemnestra cannot persuade the silent 7 This is not to say that we should retroject lessons from Choephori into Agamemnon, but that understanding the Cassandra scene materially aids interpretation of Orestes. 8 For precise" mirror-scenes" in the Oresteia, see O. TAPLIN, Greek Tragedy in Action (Berkeley 1978: hereafter 'Taplin, Tragedy') 122-27, and The Stage­ craft of Aeschylus (Oxford 1977: 'Taplin, Stagecraft') 321£ (Agamemnon and Cassandra), 356-59 (Orestes and Clytemnestra). See also A. F. GARVIE, Aeschylus, Choephori (Oxford 1986: 'Garvie') xxxvf with n.83, Ii. 124 APOLLO'S FAVORITES Cassandra to enter the palace, just as she will be unable to persuade her son not to take her along the same path to a death similar to Cassandra's.9 "Obey, if you are going to obey. Perhaps you may disobey," says the chorus (1049: m:iSot'(iv,d 1tdSot', a1tElSoi'Tl<; 8' too><;). But also "Be persuaded, if you can be persuaded. Perhaps you cannot be." The issue is one of obedience, disobedience, and persuasion. It is also a question of understanding and interpretability; neither Clytemnestra nor the audience knows at this point whether Cassandra can understand what is being said. Clytemnestra's command and comment assume an added significance when we learn the nature of Cassandra's Apolline liaison. After breaking her agreement with the god, she became unable to persuade (1208-12). It is important to note, first, that Cassandra's inability to persuade is matched by a capacity to resist persuasion, and second, that her ability to remain unpersuaded despite the importuning of a more powerful personality (whether Apollo or Clytemnestra) is similar in both instances. Her ability to resist persuasion and her inability to persuade mirror each other and are grounded in her past actions. The chorus thinks that Cassandra's failure to be persuaded is due to her need for a clear interpreter (£PIl'TlV£ro<;, 1062). They are following the lead of Clytemnestra, who, incisive as always, had framed the issue thus: either Cassandra does not un­ derstand her, that is, does not know Greek, or Clytemnestra is speaking within Cassandra's understanding and is persuading her (fOro OE 'tCfl ltpOcrEtlCU~ro 'tUOE). When they are sure that they have understood Cassandra's references to Thyestes' banquet and decoded her, they refer to things that are ouoh E~l1lCacrl!£va (1244). 12 On whether Cassandra's refusal of Apollo is a new element in the story, see Feichtinger 52 n.10, who speculates that Aeschylus invents it in order to excuse the god for Cassandra's death (which tradition may have dictated). 126 APOLLO'S FAVORITES dence.13 Kovacs is disturbed because the physicality of the language at 1206 makes it seem unlikely that Apollo ceased his courtship in mid-wrestle and gave Cassandra a chance to refuse him.14 This is not the kind of thing we expect from so en­ terprising a god. On Kovacs' reading, Cassandra will either have aborted her pregnancy or disposed of the baby. In spite of his subtle argumentation, however, there is reason to think that the old reading of the encounter between Apollo and Cassandra is substantially correct, whatever the status of Hermann's trans­ position. The solution to the problem lies in the presentation of Apollo throughout the trilogy. Apollo encourages Orestes to kill his mother but in the end the decision to do so must be Orestes' own. Similarly, Apollo will not force Cassandra to have sex with him, even though force is a common element in this kind of human-divine interaction. Even more significant is the account of how Apollo acquired Delphi at the beginning of Eumenides. He did not take the shrine by force, nor did Phoebe, his predecessor. He was given it freely as a birthday gift (Eum. 5-8). The emphasis of this narrative indicates that the story of forcible acquisition was at least current; Aeschylus, by contrast, wants to stress the element of consent. 15 It is con­ sistent with such behavior that Aeschylus would have Apollo woo rather than rape Cassandra. Such a version implies her consent, and she confesses that she gave it (I;uvalv£cracra, 1208).16 There is merit, too, in having £\jI£ucruIlTlv refer to a verbal lie rather than to an act of treachery, for in this way Cassandra's punishment is a more accurate reflection of her crime. "I consented and I lied,» she says. Having gained the art of prophecy through false pretenses, her prophetic pretensions 13 Kovacs (supra n.4) advances his supplements tentatively, exempli gratia; however tentative, they nevertheless add a new, purely hypothetical element. 14 I have no strong opinion on whether we should take the wrestling metaphor at 1206 literally or metaphorically. M. Poliakof has shown ("The Third Fall in the Oresteia," AJ P 101 [1980J 251-59) that wrestling imagery pervades the trilogy. The physicality of the language may not, therefore, be so disturbing. 15 See T. Gantz, Early Greek Myth (Baltimore 1993) 88, for other versions of the founding of Apollo's oracle. Cf. A. H. Sommerstein, Aeschylus, Eumenides (Cambridge 1989) 80f. 16 David Schenker suggests to me (per litt.) that there may be some word play in the juxtaposition of 'thv(Ov (1207) and 't£XV(luJtv (1209), the two commodities being traded. KATHRYN A. MORGAN 127 must now always be deprived of content and effect. She does not persuade because she was not persuaded. The lie that inaugurates her prophetic career casts its shadow over her entire future. When the chorus declares her oracles worthy of trust (1213), it speaks with a larger perspective that embodies the knowledge of the audience (which, to some degree, it represents). This creates a somewhat paradoxical situation on stage as Cassandra achieves the persuasion that is usually denied to her. We should note, however, that even though the chorus takes her accurate revelation of the past as an earnest of her powers, it refuses, despite its forebodings (1242-55), to be convinced of the imminence of Agamemnon's death. Trust­ worthy her orades may be but they are still deprived of effect; Cassandra's statement that she persuaded nobody of anything (£1t£lOOV ouCEv' OUCEv, 1212) implies that she could not persuade anybody to do anything. In Agamemnon we see this curse fulfilled as the chorus dithers during Agamemnon's death. Literal interpretation of a prophecy is only half the battle. Aeschylus has the prophetess enter the mythological scene with a gesture that creates a radical disjunction between speech and action, and she relives this disjunction in everything she does subsequently. The understanding both of words spoken to her and of words that proceed from her is complex and insecure. She is enmeshed in a net of falsity and interpretation from which there is no escape. Successful, that is to say effective, interpretation of mantic speech by the addressee must take into account the status of the prophet. The speaker is part of the signY Cassandra's problematic sexual and hermeneutic status is underlined by the simile at 1178, where she switches from lyric meters to spoken trimeters: she will no longer express herself in veiled terms but clearly. The precise image is notable: 6 Xp~o~o~ OUKE~' EK KaAu~~a.wv EO.Ul 3£30PKW~ v£oya~ou 17 In stressing interpretation and persuasion throughout this aricle, I am, of course, following the lead of Goldhill 17 and passim. Goldhill treats the Cassandra scene at 81-88 and emphasizes well the importance of persuasion and the failure of reception. Goldhill, using a deconstructionist approach, traces the importance of these themes for the whole trilogy (and all the characters in it) and analyses "the difficulties of placing defined limits to the text's meaning" (4). Clearly, my own goals are more modest. I am interested in the successes and failures of interpretation and persuasion as they reflect the particular choices of characters (Orestes and Cassandra) who are connected with the patron god of interpretation (Apollo). 128 APOLLO'S FAVORITES VUJ,lTl<; 8lKT\v. The oracle will no longer look forth from veils, like a newly-married bride. The reference is to the anakalypsis, the moment when the ancient Greek bride unveils herself to her husband. 18 Cassandra's lyric speech is analogous to the veiled bride, while her trimeters correspond to the bride unveiled. It is significant that she concentrates on the moment that marks the passage of a young woman into marriage and sexuality, because it is precisely this transition that she refused to make with Apollo. Indeed, the simile is almost an indispen­ sible prerequisite for the disclosure of her relationship with him. Formerly she was ashamed to speak of it (1203). Only when she has made a metaphorical bridal gesture in speech can she reveal her abortive Apolline bridal, but her abandonment of virginal reticence has come too late. The simile, then, points us towards Cassandra's status as chosen consort of the god, who would not yield her virginity, but also to her status as Agamemnon's concubine, one who was compelled to yield to the mortal king what she would not be persuaded to give to the god. Clytemnestra will call Cassandra Agamemnon's 1ttaAo'U, the "mid­ navel hearth" (1056). This curious phrase has perplexed com­ mentators. Fraenkel states that the epithet referred originally to the Omphalos at Delphi, and that it is used here "in an arbi­ trarily generalized sense." He castigates Verrall's suggestion that Clytemnestra uses the vocabulary of Apollo's cult to mock the 20 Seaford 128; Rehm (supra n.19) 44. 21 Seaford 128 with n.215. There are other possible layers of allusion in the reference to the father's altar. The thoughts of the audience may be directed to the death of Iphigenia at a father's altar, or to Neoptolemus' murder of Priam at his own altar. See F. ZEITLIN, "The Motif of the Corrupted Sacrifice in Aeschylus' Oresteia," TAPA 96 (1965: hereafter 'Zeitlin') 471. 22 Zeitlin (467-70) notes that both Clytemnestra and Cassandra read the murder of Agamemnon as a sacrifice. Cassandra views her own death also as a sacrificial offering. 130 APOLLO'S FAVORITES prophetess. 23 Without going as far as Verrall, we may still suggest that the use of the epithet is less than arbitrary. Whatever intent we attribute to Clytemnestra, the reference to Delphi and thus to the god establishes Apollo's operative presence right from the beginning of the episode. Cassandra is drawn towards the god and the place of sacrifice against her will.24 This contrasts strongly with Orestes, who ends Choe­ phori by making voluntarily and literally the move towards Delphi that Cassandra makes metaphorically and perforce. 25 The parallel is underlined by the repetition of J..l£OOJ..lOKE1.; jlupatva y' d't' itXt8v' itcpu (Ch. 994). Both refer to Clytemnestra's reckless daring ('tOAIl~, Ag. 1231; 'tOAjlTlC;, Ch. 996). As Orestes continues, the parallels become even more striking. At line 997 he asks: 'tt VtV 7tpocrd1t(o. KaV 'tux(J) jlaA' £ucr'tojlwv; This formulation echoes Cassandra's question, quoted above, but the referent of VtV is problematic. In the following lines it becomes clear that he is talking of the binding robe in which Agamemnon was trapped before he was struck down, and which he now displays. Yet earlier context seems to demand that the referent be Clytemnesta. 31 Conington and Verrall propose that a frenzied Orestes identifies Clytemnestra with the net. Garvie rejects this interpretation on the grounds that Orestes is still entirely sane at this point in the scene. The matter is further complicated by a possible parallel with Ag. 1114-17, where in her lyric frenzy Cassandra asks 'tt 'ta8£ CPCXtV£'tCXt; ~ ()tK'tUOV 'tt y' "At8ou; paaw 't£Ao~;) and 1114 ('tlt68f q>aivf'tat;) are to be read as expressions of horror, as a struggle to match speech and vision convincingly. This struggle is, as we have seen, charac­ teristic of Cassandra, and it would not be uncharacteristic of riddling and oracular speech to see Clytemnestra as a net. If we accept the identification of Clytemnestra with the net in Agamemnon, where does this leave us with regard to Choe­ phori? Garvie's argument against the same identification at Ch. 997-1000 is formally similar to that of Fraenkel in the Cassandra scene. Fraenkel argued against the identification on the grounds that Cassandra was still too frenzied to make rational interpreta­ tion possible. Garvie argues that Orestes is still too sane to make frenzied interpretation possible. Both want an orderly pro­ gression from frenzy to rationality (in whatever direction). Surely this is too reductive a vision of the density of Aes­ chylean imagery (el Goldhill 202). Cassandra's frenzy masks an insight more powerful than that of anyone around her. Orestes makes no explicit reference to the onset of madness until Ch. 1021, but it is not unreasonable to see indications of mental disturbance earlier. Indeed, such disturbance may not only point to the madness to come, but also attest a deepening of insight. If Cassandra's function in Agamemnon is partly to act as a negative paradigm for Orestes, it is not surprising to find him echoing her mantic identifications as he attempts to deal with the implications of his actions. One great difference, as Orestes remarks, is that he does not know where his actions and mental state are leading him (OU yap 018' 07tn 'tfAft, Ch. 1021), whereas Cassandra knows quite well. By using Cassandra as a paradigm, however, the audience can make its own prophecy. Just as Cassandra's disobedience led through frenzy to death, so Orestes' obedience will lead through frenzy to salvation. No 7talOOV presides over Cassandra's speech (Ag. 1248), but Apollo, the god of healing, will defend Orestes at his trial. 32 It is no accident, then, nor is it a sign of irremediable corruption or interpolation, that both Cassandra and Orestes use similar language to make a similar point about Clytemnestra. It is rather a sign of a thoroughgoing parallelism. Nor is this the only example. As Orestes begins to descend into madness, he 32 For the word play on 1tUtWV see Denniston and Page 183f. KATHRYN A. MORGAN 135 justifies himself by an appeal to Apollo. The god told him to act; the penalites for disobedience are unrepeatable. Why? Because "no one will reach the troubles with his bow" (Ch. 1033, tr. Garvie 339): that is, they are difficult to express. Cassandra too had compared herself to a bowman, but a successful one, at Ag. 1194 when she described the band of Furies that haunts the house of Atreus. We may think here of Apollo as the prophetic bowman whose shots never miss; that both of his creatures use the metaphor in a mantic context reflects their Apolline associations. 33 It is, however, a little troubling that Orestes chooses to use the metaphor in this particular context. He says that he cannot name the penalties of disobedience, but has already done so earlier in the play (Ch. 269-96). A natural reluctance to dwell on the possibility of punishment by Apollo has been cited as the reason for this omission, as well as the playwright's desire not to repeat an earlier passage, and both of these reasons are plausible (Garvie 339). There is an additional possibility. Orestes' inability to find the right words may correspond to the onset of madness. Cassandra's inspired words hit the mark. When Orestes, under the influence of Apollo, is calm and clear about his upcoming task he too can be an accurate bowman. But in the aftermath of Clytemnestra's murder Apollo cannot free Orestes from the pursuit of his mother's Furies. He must flee to Delphi to regain clarity and protection. Only after purification will he be able to master his own speech again (£ urn. 276-79). In any case, how could Orestes, as he is driven into madness and exile, articulate the madness and exile with which Apollo threatened him? The coincidence of the threat and the current situation would seem insane. It is this collision of punishments that rartly constitutes Orestes' insanity, this seeming equivalence 0 the father's and the mother's Furies. Apollo has posed himself as the solution to the incoherence. We should not forget, however, how deeply 33 D. Sansone, Aeschylean Metaphors Jor Intellectual Activity (=Hermes EinzelschriJt 35 [Wiesbaden 1975]) 7f, shows that Aeschylus frequently describes a speaker or his tongue as an archer and speech as an arrow. This certainly weakens the force of the coincidence. Yet I still find Orestes' and Cassandra's use of the metaphor resonant, as both speak of oracular pronouncements derived from Apollo (the bowman par excellence) and of the possibility of effectively expressing them in speech. For Apollo as bowman, see C. Faraone, Talismans and Trojan Horses (Oxford 1992) 59-64. 136 APOLLO'S FAVORITES implicated he is in its construction. 34 Later it will appear that Delphi is not the end of Orestes' travels, but at this point in the trilogy Apollo is the only available answer. As noted, Orestes, like Cassandra, is headed for a location described as 1.u:croll6~0e;, A g. 1306; Il il q>o~ou, Ch. 1052) before visions of dripping blood: in Cas­ sandra's case the blood-dripping breeze from the interior of the house (ailla'toeJ'ta:YI1, Ag. 1309), whereas for Orestes it is the Furies (Ka~ olllla't(J)v eJ'taCouatv atlla, Ch. 1058). Both see things that the chorus does not see and does not, therefore, believe. Both are thought to be mentally disturbed (Ag. 1140, 1308; Ch. 1056). Just as Cassandra is whirled about and disturbed by her prophecies (7tOVOe; a't pO~£l 'tapaaa(J)v, Ag. 1215f), so the chorus asks Orestes what semblances whirl him about (a'tpo~ouatv, Ch. 1052), what disturbance ('tapaYIl6<;, Ch. 1056) has fallen upon his mind. 38 Both affirm the reality of their visions and call upon Apollo for aid. In their agony, Cassandra and Orestes call for witnesses who will give meaning to their pain. The prophetess tells the chorus to be witnesses three times (Ag. 1185, 1196, 1317). Orestes demands it once of the Argives (in a corrupt passage: Ch. 1041), states once that the deadly robe is a witness for him of his mother's guilt (Ch. 10tO), and, shortly after his entrance, expresses his intention that Helios, the sun, the father who sees all things, shall be a witness for him at his time of trial. We recall that Cassandra's last prayer was also to the sun, that she might in some way be remembered when vengeance was finally taken (Ag. 1323ff).39 This prayer is never, of course, explictly answered, yet the coincidence of the two prayers to the sun may insure that the audience, at least, acts as the witness that was required. Indeed, it is only the audience, one of the few constants between the first play and the second, that is in a position to be an effective witness for both Cassandra and Orestes. Only the audience can extract meaning from the parallel roles of Orestes and Cassandra, using the parallels of vocabulary and situation discussed above. Only the audience can apply the lessons learned from Cassandra to the fate of Orestes. One further echo of Cassandra by Orestes has long been noted. When Cassandra prophesies that an avenger will come, she predicts the return of a q>uyae; 0' aA;Tt'tll<; 't11ao£ yfl<; a7t6~£vo<; (Ag. 1282), an exile, a wanderer, one far from his own country. This characterization refers to Orestes in exile before his revenge. It is, as Fraenkel notes (596), "a frightful duplication" 38 The echo of Cassandra's Ol'tCx.C; wC; ayup'tplU, Ag. 1273), she endured being called a wretched beggar and a starveling (A g. 1274; see Fraenkel ad 1272ff). This situation is a distant echo of Orestes'. In his case too, the distinction beween philoi and echthroi breaks down. Both of them must wander and endure an unenviable reputation (KUAO'U JlEvTl, A g. 1273; 'tCt.