As I have stated in my previous post, we love to see corrupt politicians face their just reward, destruction for their sins. As the song above says, we want to see the corrupt and wicked fall from their high tower and hit their face. This is the part where I relate this statement to Agamemnon, as the title character returns home from a terrible and bloody war and is killed in a coup de etat. Was Agamemnon a wicked leader who deserved his fate, or his death truly a tragedy? Let the court examine the evidence.
Let's first look at the Iliad, the first time readers see his character. In the Iliad, King Agamemnon has put the men under his command through 9 years of hell and glory to seize Troy. The original reason was to retrieve a woman guilty of infedelity, but it also provided an excellent to seize Troy and its reasons. In this ninth year, Agamemnon is infinitely selfish and depraved, an example of which is when he denies a priest of his daughter-turned-concubine, inadvertently bringing a plague upon the men he commands. After giving up said slavegirl, he takes the concubine of Achilleus, the greatest warrior in his power, for his own use. As a result, Achilleus temporarily leaves the fight and strikes a deal with Zeus through his mother to curse his formers brothers-in-arms to be defeated until Agamemnon accepts him back, a grand tragedy that Agamemnon could have avoided.
At the same time, Agamemnon is, at one point, willing give up the war and take the soldiers home, much to their pleasure. Indeed, it is one of their own that prevent them from doing this, not the seemingly benevolent Agamemnon. Though he is not the strongest warrior, he also proves himself a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield, claiming many Trojan lives and thus sparing many others. In this case, he uses his pride to his advantage and becomes stronger because of it, because he simply will not allow himself to be defeated and he will be victorious in the war. His self-centeredness fuels his desire for victory, which I argue is a good thing.
The other piece of evidence we have is the book we are currnently focused on, Agamemnon. In it, we learn that, before he and the troops left Mycenae, a great storm blows that could destroy all of his men. To end the storm, he sacrifices his own daughter without showing any great remorse. Would this not be the characteristic of a heartless villain? His depravity once again shows its pretty face when he returns home to his patient and longsuffering wife with yet another slavegirl from Troy, evidently to replace Achilleus' slave he had to return. His wife has been waiting for 10 long years to see him, and he marches in with another woman as his personal sex toy? If you ask me, that is an arrogant slap in the face and another damning piece of evidence against the king.
In his defense, as far as the sacrifice of his daughter, I do not honestly believe he wanted to. If had shown more remorse for his deed then that might have been enough to keep his wife from going off the edge and giving him the edge, but the evidence shows that Agamemnon is ruthless, prideful, and stubborn, but not heartless. He was only trying to serve what he thought was the greater good. In a rare character twist, when his wife invites him to enter his palace on a magnificent purple carpet, fit for a king might I add, he initially refuses because it would show hubris, or pridefulness. This is evidence that perhaps, near the end of his life, he at least began to learn the values of humility, because he obviously thought that entering his kingdom as boastful would be wrong. Strange, isn't it?
So, did Agamemnon get what he deserved? Was he a wicked and ignoble king worthy of a terrible downfall? Consider the end of Agamemnon where, after his murder and the revelation of the killers, the citizens mourn his loss and declare that he would be avenged. Why would they be so passionate about their king if he sucked? He must have been a worthy king to recieve such a posthumous accolade from his subjects. Perhaps, despite his arrogance and self-centeredness, he truly was a king interested in the greater good of his people and did not deserve his tragic fate.
What do you think? Considering the evidence, is he guilty or not? Please feel free to comment. BTW, I also posted on Alana's post, Willing Sacrifice vs. Glory and Honor For Self.
No comments:
Post a Comment