As AE Haigh notes, Aristotle treats Aeschylus with complete indifference in the Poetics. Throughout his writings, the standards of dramatic writing are provided by Sophocles and Euripides. He fully acknowledges Aeschylus' role in introducing a second actor and expanding the dialogue, but that's about it. This is because Aristotle focused his attention primarily on plot, as well as on his classification of recognition, complication, and revolution, and "for such investigations there was little material to be found in Aeschylus" (124). However, it is somehow 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay There is no doubt that at one point what we now call tragedy consisted of a choir singing commentary in response to a story told by the poet, but it is questionable whether, as has been claimed, there was a time in which only the choir existed. It was once accepted as fact, based on something Aristotle wrote, but now it is less accepted. What is more likely - and perhaps we can attribute this to Thespis - is that two different poetic traditions merged into a single form. What we know is that the combination of an actor and a choir does not offer a very wide range of dramatic possibilities, especially since it is almost certain that the choir always worked in unison. For the form to grow, the introduction of a second actor was essential and, according to Aristotle, it was Aeschylus who did this. Furthermore, according to Aristotle, he reduced the importance of the chorus, and for this he is called the "father of tragedy". Of course, once a major innovation occurs, others tend to follow quite quickly and Sophocles is usually credited with the next advancement, the introduction of a third actor, somewhere around 460. It should be noted that we are talking here of actors, not of characters. . Each actor could, of course, play more than one character, but only three could be on stage together. The three tragedies that each poet submitted to the competition were not necessarily on a related topic: only Aeschylus is known to have written trilogies on it. a single theme, like the Oresteia. However Aristotle does not comment on this point, as the trilogy format was more or less discarded after The Oresteia. It is worth noting the contrasting structures of the two works here. In the Poetics (1452b), Aristotle provides the most concise description of the formal structure of tragedy. There are usually five scenes or episodes separated by choral odes (stasima), all preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue or exodus. This form is the precursor to the five-act structure familiar in Shakespearean drama. The Libation Bearers (and Agamemnon) follow this structure. In contrast, because the chorus plays a unique role like the Furies in the Eumenides, the structure is substantially altered. Consistent with the norms of Greek drama, The Eumenides are not divided into distinct acts or scenes. There is a scene change in the middle of the show, but this can be accomplished with minimal scene movement in very little time. However, time flows in a non-naturalistic way: at certain points, from the accounts of what happened offstage, it is clear that a lot of time is meant to have passed even if for the audience only a few seconds have passed. In general, as noted by Aristotle, most Greek tragedies have an action limited to a twenty-four hour period. Aeschylus's decision to break up the "unities" of Aristotle's classical dramatic form to allow his work to span ten years of time and various geographical locations is significant here.Aristotle addresses both the Libation Bearers and the Eumenides in relation to plot in Poetics 13. Here he praises the plot's singular focus on a person's fortune, rather focusing on the type of fortune that ends up with said person. The only prescription for the ending is that it should be a single (unfortunate) plot featuring some sort of major change. The high culture of tragedy is best achieved through a single change, and 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 see the bad man (Aegisthus) come to a good end (avoiding the death penalty at the hands of Orestes), and the good man (Orestes) come to a bad end. (failing to exact the necessary revenge against his enemy, instead making Aegisthus his friend). On the other hand, the double ending of the tragedy would be the one we actually have in Aeschylus' works: Orestes kills Aegisthus in revenge; therefore the bad man comes to a bad end (in The Libation Bearers), and the good man comes to a good end (The Eumenides). Aristotle does not appear to express whether Aeschylus's treatment of this plot scheme is more single than double in its execution in the Oresteia, and thus is silent on the trilogy's rank as a result of 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 tomb, and here we witness our first "recognition", or as Aristotle says, "recognition through the process of reasoning… someone has come who resembles me [Electra]: no one resembles 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 some object awakens a feeling". Here Clytemnestra remembers the prophecy of her dream and deduces from this that this man is her son, Orestes. None of these recognitions are exactly what Aristotle prescribed as the “best” kind of recognition, which is “that which arises from the events themselves, where the surprising discovery is made by natural means,” as seen in Oedipus and Iphigenia. Pylades manages to enter the palace under false pretenses, and here the choir plays a vital role in future events. (Kitto states that Aeschylus here radically alters the role of the chorus, because they are traditionally never expected to take part in the action: "the superiority of this over a purely formal treatment of the incident is clear enough. Indeed it results in the interesting figure of the Nurse” [83].) The Chorus suggests to the Nurse that things are not as they seem, and convince her to tell Egisto to come without his bodyguard. His assassins are waiting for him outside the stage and the audience he hears him scream as he is stabbed in the climax of the play, the play has developed at a slow pace: much is said in monologue, comparatively they indicate what is yet to happen in the third play. This chorus, I believe, is one of the most important and difficult to understand elements of Greek drama, and I would like to spend a moment discussing its history and composition. As Simon Goldhill explains, the choir, like the actors, was made up of citizens, since there was no subclass of "theatricals", as existed 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 significant number. The choir was selected for a specific performance and trained by the poet. Like the actors, they were fully masked, butnot in the familiar masks of comedy/tragedy that we have come to think of as performances of ancient theatre. Rather, these masks were intricately painted figural representations. The choir generally performed in the orchestra, a dance area beneath the raised stage on which the actors performed. The separation of the acting spaces contributed to creating “a specific dialectical relationship between the collective choir in the orchestra and individual actors on stage” (17). As I mentioned, the Chorus' role is unique in these two plays: in The Libation Bearers, they specifically alter the action by convincing the Nurse to keep Egisto vulnerable to attack; in the Eumenides, they further influence the action by actually playing a leading role; that is, the role of the Furies. (It is interesting to note, however, that they are still referred to as “Chorus” in the text.) The staging of the Chorus is also notable. In The Libation Bearers the entrance of the choir requires time, so that Orestes can retreat and observe. Vase paintings suggest that the tomb was represented by the altar in the center of the orchestra. So there is a contrast between Agamemnon, where the action is focused on the scene and the construction of the scene (= the palace), and the opening of the Libation Bearers, where the spatial focus moves to the center of the orchestra. There is a shift in focus towards the palace from 652 onwards, accompanied by a change in the pace of developments (see different structural models in the first and second parts of Agamemnon). The Eumenides begin by focusing on the construction of scenes (= temple of Apollo in Delphi), but with the change of location in Athens the attention shifts to the orchestra (central altar = sanctuary of Athens where Orestes takes refuge). Controlled variation in the use of performance space achieves variety within and between performances, and is another device for shaping the trilogy as a whole. The choir also changes functions thematically through the trilogy. The choir of the elders of Argos in Agamemnon is, with the exception of the silent jury in the Eumenides, the most democratic organism presented on the stage; they are also weak and ineffective, bowing 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, that of the Libation Bearers' slave girls, is apparently much louder than the old men's choir; they encourage Orestes and Electra to commit their "righteous" crime of matricide/revenge; they pray to the retinue of the gods to give Agamemnon's sons the strength to accomplish the feat. And, as representatives of the Apollonian form of justice, they question the validity of chthonic justice; the third line of their paradoxes implies that Ge, by having supported Clytemnestra's prayers, has shown herself to be an unnatural and evil force. The final chorus, the Furies themselves, are gods on stage, easily the most formidable chorus of the trilogy. I am the embodiment of chthonic justice. Appearing even stronger because of their weak opposition, the suppliant Orestes and Apollo-lawyer. Apollo makes four increasingly ridiculous arguments in favor of Orestes: Without Athena's intervention, there seems to be no logical reason for Orestes to get off the hook. The refrains of the trilogy, therefore, serve as an undertow to the overall theme of justice progressing towards rationality. Another note on the tragic form: as Aristotle writes in the Poetics, violence between those who are close is a fundamental part in tragedy; as it turns out in this trilogy, all the violence occurs between family members: Clytemnestra kills Agamemnon, Orestes kills Clytemnestra, and so on. “Let us then consider the question of what classes of events appear terrible or pitiful..