A monograph devoted to the Oresteia is by default a complicated task since for the work to have merit the aspiring author needs to, first, possess deep knowledge of Aeschylus in general and the plays in question in particular and, second, be able to build and sustain a coherent and novel argument, relevant and applicable to all three plays, notwithstanding their pronounced differences in style, content and underlying motifs and purposes. S.’s first book succeeds in both of the above with an ease that makes the task appear deceptively easy – this is a monograph that comes as a breeze of fresh air in the field of Aeschylean studies, demonstrating clearly that there are yet many intricacies in the Oresteia that wait patiently to be brought to light with the help of scholarly ingenuity.

S. proposes to read Agamemnon, Choephoroi and Eumenides through the unifying lens of the role that the concepts of death and the afterlife play in the trilogy, from a religious, mythological, political and social perspective. I have to admit that, when first confronted with this approach, I was at least surprised as to how it could possibly be applied to a trilogy such as the Oresteia, where the focus seems to be, on the surface at least, on the continuation of life after the trauma of war and the horrors that befell the house of Atreus, culminating in the almost ritualistic establishment of Athenian democracy through the divine endorsement of the Areios Pagos by Athena, the Erinyes turned Eumenides, and ultimately Zeus. It is hard to see at first glance where the space for a detailed discussion of death can be found within such premises. And yet, upon reading through the monograph it was amply evident that not only there is more than enough space, but also that one misses an important part of the text if one does not adopt S.’s perspective. Going through the Oresteia with the admittedly morbid lens of death brings forth aspects of the text that, although easy to miss, form the basis of much of the plot’s development and its significance for its contemporary audiences. S. argues in the introduction that ‘[in] the Oresteia epistemic uncertainty complicates nearly every mention of the afterlife’ (p. 2), and in the following chapters proceeds to show the validity of this statement and the implications it has for the reading of the ethical and political significance of the trilogy as a whole.

Chapter 1 offers an in-depth analysis of the messenger’s speech at the beginning of the Agamemnon. Notorious for its ambiguity, the speech is examined from the perspective that S. outlines in the introduction, and the result offers a nuanced reading of the herald’s words that allows for a deeper comprehension of the intricacies regarding the visualisation and use of the afterlife as a stable for evaluating one’s existence. S. shows convincingly how the concept of kleos gained through death on the battlefield carries little significance for the everyday soldier (p. 48), the herald being one, while at the same time the end of life as an end of suffering sets the tone for many similar views that will be expressed later in the trilogy. As S. argues, Aeschylus revises the traditional view on death as expressed in Homer, and in doing so he reflects closely on the concept of mortality and suffering within contemporary Athenian society, shaken as it was after the destruction caused by the Persian incursions.

Chapter 2 builds on this argument by exploring the views expressed by the elders of the chorus. Although representing the old order, having missed the chance to be part of the Homeric galore of heroes who participated in the Trojan war, the elders stand in the middle between the old understanding of glory as the only possible meaning in one’s life, and the sense of closure provided by visualising one’s death as an end to the prolonged suffering of an unfulfilling existence. As a result, S. argues, the views on the afterlife expressed by the elders are as multifaceted as they are incompatible: continuity seems to be insinuated throughout, paired with eternal punishment in some cases, while at the same time a τέρμα of one’s existence upon dying is always in the forefront (p. 66). All in all, S. says, ‘[t]he Elders present a dramatically compelling, all-too-human uncertainty concerning their afterlife’, thus showcasing their almost liminal existence between the Homeric world of glory and that of the everyday man, which the Athenians themselves had to face in their contemporary reality.

Chapters 3 and 4 follow along the same lines by looking closely at the diverse views of the afterlife expressed first by Cassandra, a divinely inspired character who nonetheless maintains the ambiguity of human fate after death, and second by the actions and reactions around Agamemnon’s tomb, which demonstrate the same issue of ignorance regarding any sort of consistent metaphysical beliefs. It is this very ignorance, S. points out, that informs the problematic ethical perspectives that are in constant competition within the trilogy: if a certainty regarding continuation of existence or even reward after death does not exist, how can the ethical norms society adopts be of any use in the face of excessive actions of violence or injustice? If Agamemnon cannot return from the dead to assist Orestes and Electra, how can Clytemnestra’s actions be condemned or even not advised as a valid way of living one’s life? The problems multiply when more parameters are factored in, Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigeneia, the levelling of Troy, Orestes’ matricide, the honouring or dishonouring of the dead and so on, all issues creating an ethical dissonance from which it is difficult, if not impossible, to escape, as S. demonstrates in Chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 7 brings all of these considerations together under the umbrella of Hades’ visualisation as a meticulous judge who keeps a record of everyone’s actions. Aeschylus, S. illustrates, shows convincingly that such a view cannot, and indeed does not, work for the purposes of a civilised, post-heroic society. A new approach is needed, and the only option is the emergence and establishment of the Athenian democratic polis as the single valid ethical compass for the Athenian citizen. With that we have come full-circle, from the old, chaotic and ambiguous moral order of the Homeric past to the new democratic legal and social establishment, which, under the auspices of Athena and Zeus, can lead to a fulfilling existence in the service of the polis.

S.’s monograph not only re-evaluates the significance of afterlife beliefs within the Oresteia, but further offers a refreshing reading of the plays, which allows for a new understanding of the importance of Aeschylus’ work for his immediate sociopolitical context and also for the developments that follow within the general frame of the fifth century. No small feat indeed, and a book that must be in the arsenal of every Greek tragedy scholar.