Running head: CHOICES OF AGAMEMNON Please note: I cut out some of the outline because I felt it was superfluous and not helpful to advancing the thesis Reversal of Fortune and the Futility of Human Choice Agamemnon in Iphigenia at Aulis and Agamemnon Your Name Goes Here Institutional Affiliation Goes Here Abstract The structural factors of both Iphigenia at Aulis and Agamemnon reflect detailed arguments for the developing self-importance of man. In establishing new boundaries which better defined man’s relationship with the Gods, the character of Agamemnon as depicted in similar if not identical manners in Iphigenia at Aulis by Euripides and Agamemnon by Aeschylus demonstrates that man had begun to perceive himself as interacting in the...The end:
.....uch as Agamemnon can tempt fate through his own inner failings. The Gods do appear to have immense power over the lives of men and the works capture that. However, Agamemnon adds to his miseries and even precipitates them. Whilst there are few differences between the character as portrayed by both dramatists, there is a general sense that he is a man who has not grown over time. In fact, the use of stasimon and curious antistrophes (as highlighted by Gow ) – as well as powerful metaphors – make it plain that Agamemnon is both a clueless pawn of the gods and a man with a self-conceit and ineffectualness that makes him susceptible to disastrous ill judgement. His choices may not quite be futile, but he certainly makes the worst of a bad hand.