Aeschylus (525 – 455 BC) and Sophocles (497 BC – 405 BC) are two of the three Greek playwrights whose tragedies have survived. Though the two playwrights have gone about writing their tragedies differently, they remain tragedies, nonetheless. In Aristotle’s Poetics, Aristotle claims that tragedy has six components: “plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and lyric poetry”[1]. Aristotle categorizes plot as the most important of the six components, defining it as the “construction of events”[2]. Character, second to plot, is defined as the “virtue of which we ascribe certain qualities to the agents”[3]. In other words, one cannot have a tragedy without a plot. And, although a tragedy can be without character development, it may lend itself to a monotonous story.
Though both focused on plot, Sophocles and Aeschylus approach the challenge of the plot in different ways; Aeschylus approaches his plot politically while Sophocles approaches his plot emotively. The result: both playwrights develop a sophisticated and event-packed plot. Aeschylus and Sophocles further differ from one another in their approach to character; Aeschylus reduces his characters to their decisions, painting emotion as black and white, while Sophocles dares to create a conscience that adds dimension to his characters. Hence, while Sophocles and Aeschylus choose different ways to plot their tragedies, Sophocles is more successful in characterizing the victims of his play.
Aeschylus strategically structures his tragedies’ plot around politics. The Oresteia concludes with Eumenides, a tragedy that takes place in the setting of a court. This political structure enables the events of the play to be concrete and tangible. We see this when Athena enters the stage; Aeschylus describes her as “accompanied by a herald, a trumpeter, and eleven judges. The essential paraphernalia of a lawcourt have been set in place: a chair for Athena as presiding officer, benches for the judges, and a table with two voting-urns”[4]. The outcome of such a strict political setting is a series of cascading events. Athena “[instructs the] men to cast a vote”, Orestes is found not guilty, and an entire timeline of justice takes place[5]. This event-packed tragedy is dictated by culture, political disputes, court room arguments, and godly disagreements. Notably, the plot is almost blunt in nature – there is no ambiguity when it comes to the sequence of events. Aeschylus adds more intention by extending the plot to his audience. At the end of Eumenides, the Processional Escort cries out to the audience: “Raise a cry of triumph to crown our song” to which it is expected that they do[6]. The outcome here is a clear-cut plotline in which the conclusion of events is signified by the audience’s participation in the political culture of the tragedy. While political motivation is not necessary for a plotline, Aeschylus has used it to his advantage in creating a defined, well-paced tragedy. In other words, their reactions are not guided by choice, but rather mechanical forces of fate and circumstance.
Sophocles, on the other hand, structures his tragedies’ plots around emotion. This has a different impact on the structure of the plot, making it action-packed, but less decisive and blunt than Aeschylus’ tragedies. As most of the decisions in Sophocles’ plays are made emotively, the consequences of the decisions lack the permanency of political decisions. Antigone is a prime example of this approach to plot. Out of familial love and honor, Antigone decides to break Creon’s law and give her brother, Polyneices, a proper burial; she tells her sister: “It is not for him [Creon] to keep me from my own”[7]. Antigone then properly buries a brother Her decision, driven by emotion, represents a tension between law and human nature. Antigone’s choice, much like the judges in Eumenides who dictate the role of justice, leads to a series of tragic plot lines. Creon discovers the burial and decides to bury Antigone alive, much to the dismay of his son, Haemon. Before her murder, Creon begins to question his decision. Yet this questioning is too late: Antigone commits suicide, leading to the suicide of Haemon, and then the suicide of Eurydice (mother of Haemon, wife to Creon). The tragedy: Creon regrets his decision and wishes for the plot to be undone. The back and forth of decision making in Antigone is a completely different approach to plot than what Aeschylus has mastered. For Sophocles, the plot line is more blurred, but it is also dictated by a different force: the force of emotion, love, and humanity. Decisions are made impulsively, and the plot is thus reactive.
The ways in which Aeschylus and Sophocles approach plot are different, not better than one another. Their approaches, whether political or emotional, both successfully create a plot filled with tragic events and moments. The impact of their plots, however, differ. Aeschylus’ plot, resulting from an imitation of political decisions, is concrete and substantial, whereas Sophocles’ plot is inherently irresolute as a result of why the events take place. After establishing Aeschylus and Sophocles’ divergences in plot structure, it is important to note that their approach to character is what ultimately sets them apart.
Aeschylus characterizes the victims of his tragedies as either good or evil. By categorizing them as one or the other, he reduces them to their actions and inhibits personal growth. In Aristotle’s Poetics, Aristotle argues that “character is that which reveals moral choice”[8]. Through this understanding of character, Aeschylus has not emphasized “moral choice” as a key to what makes his characters tragic. In the Oresteia, characters such as Orestes, Electra, and Clytemnestra act out of a “blood for blood” mentality. Clytemnestra murders Agamemnon (and Cassandra) after her daughter Iphigeneia’s sacrifice. As a result, Orestes and Electra plot and murder their mother Clytemnestra. As the Chorus puts it in Libation-Bearers: “return your enemy evil for evil”[9]. These decisions are not portrayed as a matter of conscience, but rather a necessary evil that neutralizes good and bad. This is further portrayed when Orestes explains why he must kill Clytemnestra: “It is not I that will kill you: you will have killed yourself […] For my father’s blood determines this doom for you”[10]. This painful decision is not presented as morally challenging. Orestes demonstrates no difficulty in choosing to kill Clytemnestra; rather, like the plot, it is clear cut and blunt. Thus, while Aeschylus’ tragedy most certainly maintains a tragic plotline, the characters themselves do not develop beyond the decisions that enable these events.
Sophocles, on the other hand, subjects his characters to a dynamic moral consciousness: they struggle to decide between good and evil (perhaps because this distinction is not so binary), and are thus tortured by their own decisions. Antigone demonstrates this tension by choosing to bury her brother who is not entitled to a proper burial. Here, her moral compass directs her towards family and honor rather than her own livelihood. Her character, although ultimately the victim of suicide, is full of depth: she is torn between family, honor, self-sacrifice, and law, not much unlike every man. Philoctetes is a tragedy that fully embraces the tension of what it means to be human. Neoptolemus, completing a mission to trick Philoctetes out of his bow, is hesitant to be so cruel. Caught between the importance of his mission and the importance of humanity, Neoptolemus ultimately regrets his decision to manipulate Philoctetes, and tells Odysseus: “I go to undo the wrong I have done”[11]. He adds that he “did wrong” and “practiced craft and treachery”[12]. In Sophocles’ plays, there is a place for “repentance”[13]. Characters, strained by their own moral compasses, are given the ability to find a middle ground between right and wrong. Neoptolemus’ character is deepened by his ability to see the grey in the world (it is not black and white). As a result, he is a complete and multidimensional character. And, more so, he is human like the rest of the audience watching the tragedy.
Aeschylus and Sophocles, though both writers of similar tragic stories, have chosen to approach their plays differently. For Aeschylus, the plot is the most important. He chooses to develop it politically, making it blunt and tangible. The events, easily distinguished from one another, result from a “cause and effect” approach to storytelling. For Sophocles, plot is also important, yet he approaches it emotively, causing it to be less driven by events than by characters. The two playwrights further divert from one another when approaching the development of character. Aeschylus almost inhibits his characters, forcing black and white actions upon them for the plot. Meanwhile, Sophocles forces dilemma upon his characters, making their own internal dialogue part of the tragedy. What is the most fundamental characteristic of a tragedy, then? In a drama, does character take precedence over plot, or is it the opposite? According to Aristotle, a tragedy’s most important component is the plot: “The events and the plot are the goal of the tragedy, and the goal is the most important thing of all”[14]. In this sense, one could argue that Aeschylus’ straightforward structure is the prime example of what tragedy looks like. On the other hand, is it not more important to craft a performance that resonates with the pain and misery of the characters upon stage? My modern, 21st century self, would argue it is the most important and the tragic quality after all.
Bibliography
Aeschylus, and Alan H. Sommerstein. Oresteia: Agamemnon. Libation-Bearers. Eumenides. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Aristotle., Stephen Halliwell, Longinus., W. H. Fyfe, Donald Russell, Doreen Innes, W. Rhys Roberts, and Demetrius. Aristotle Poetics. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995
Grene, David, and Richmond Alexander Lattimore. The Complete Greek Tragedies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
[1] Aristotle. et al., Aristotle Poetics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995), 49.
[2] Aristotle. et al., Aristotle Poetics, 49
[3] Aristotle. et al., Aristotle Poetics, 49
[4] Aeschylus and Alan H. Sommerstein, Oresteia: Agamemnon. Libation-Bearers. Eumenides (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 425.
[5] Aeschylus and Alan H. Sommerstein, Oresteia: Agamemnon. Libation-Bearers. Eumenides (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 440.
[6] Aeschylus and Alan H. Sommerstein, Oresteia: Agamemnon. Libation-Bearers. Eumenides (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 485.
[7] David Grene and Richmond Alexander Lattimore, The Complete Greek Tragedies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960),161, L. 48.
[8] Aristotle. et al., Aristotle Poetics, 53.
[9] Aeschylus and Alan H. Sommerstein, Oresteia: Agamemnon. Libation-Bearers. Eumenides (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 227.
[10] Aeschylus and Alan H. Sommerstein, Oresteia: Agamemnon. Libation-Bearers. Eumenides (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 331.
[11] Grene and Lattimore, The Complete, 448, L. 1224.
[12] Grene and Lattimore, The Complete, Page 449, L. 1226, 1228.
[13] Grene and Lattimore, The Complete, Page 451, L. 1270.
[14] Aristotle. et al., Aristotle Poetics, 51.