You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In the art and drama of ancient Greece, the story of Orestes ranked at least equal in significance to that of Oedipus. In our own times, however, it is the story of Orestes which has served as a main plot for such writers as O'Neill,1 Eliot,2 and Sartre.3 On the other hand the emphasis in the psychoanalytic literature has been the other way round: It is Oedipus' story, as we know, which has occupied the center of the stage. The result, though little noted, is worth attention: though extant texts have often been interpreted in terms of the Oedipus paradigm, the new works have been written with explicit use of the Orestes paradigm.
This is a symptom not in itself so important, but it is of the greatest importance for what it signals. One wonders whether, in failing to read the Orestes story aright or to appreciate its significance, psychoanalysts may have failed to read some main intellectual movements of our times aright. And likewise, if there is a possible psychoanalytic reading of Orestes which shows it to be of central importance, this may exhibit in a fresh way the bearing of psychoanalysis on our mid-century movements of thought. It is my thesis that the correct reading is just such a reading.
There are a few psychoanalytic or quasi-psychoanalytic discussions of Orestes.44-9 For the most part they present his story