Sacrifice: concepts, history, and cultural significance

¶ … orchestrate the plot such that the characters are forced to make crucial decisions regarding their most centrally held values and beliefs; whichever action a specific character chooses serves to inform the audience as to what type of individual he or she is. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the motif of sacrifice, in particular, occurs in tales throughout history; but also, considering each story's historical context allows for insight into these singular characterizations, as well as, a better grasp of the underlying values permeating past settings. Three tales that starkly contrast one another with respect to the moral codes of their times are Life's a Dream, Iphigeneia at Aulis, and Beloved. Still, each of these stories deals with the issue of sacrifice, and especially, the sacrifice of one's offspring. Understanding the values and motivations of Vasily, Agamemnon, and Sethe helps to illustrate the social values of their times with regarding one of the most precious aspects of a parent's life: their children.

Fundamentally, what makes these three stories unlike the most famous tale of parental sacrifice -- the story of Abraham and Isaac -- is that none of them attempt to place the action of their characters within some overwrought frame of abstract morality. Abraham is demanded to kill his son, Isaac, in order to prove his absolute faith to God. In many ways this is a ridiculous position for any real human to be in: Abraham must simultaneously believe that a compassionate and forgiving God would demand such a deed and that by killing his son he will be saving him. This is a moral paradox. However, in Life's a Dream, Iphigeneia at Aulis, and Beloved, there is no such paradox; this is because the individuals within these stories are elementally human. In other words, human beings are not morally infallible and neither are Sethe, Agamemnon, or Vasily. The human qualities come through in these characters through actions that reveal the difficulties in making decisions in the real world.

Iphigeneia at Aulis holds true to this theme in that, unlike the Iliad, it depicts entirely ordinary humanity collaboratively bringing about its own destruction. Agamemnon is no divine hero; he is a mortal man who finds himself in an impossible situation. Kalchas assures him, Odysseus and Menelaos that the sacrifice of his daughter, Iphigeneia, will permit their safe passage to Troy. The obvious forces in opposition to one another are Agamemnon's responsibilities to his people and the alliance, and his responsibilities as a father. The legitimacy of the prophecy is not truly in question, only Agamemnon's individual obligations. Although he calls for his daughter, he immediately admits, "What I have done is wrong and I want to undo it." (Euripides, 143-4). This sort of vacillation typifies Agamemnon, and makes any abstract generalizations regarding his morality difficult, if not impossible. It becomes even more difficult to classify Agamemnon once it becomes clear that he believes failing to sacrifice his daughter is likely to result in his and every member of his family's deaths.

Additionally, in going forward with the sacrifice, Agamemnon is agreeing to the entire Trojan War, the deaths of thousands, and the death of Achilles -- which has been prophesized. It is difficult to imagine this being favorable from anyone's perspective, but this is also the conclusion that Iphigeneia reaches. When she says, "Helen, will bring on enough fighting, enough death, for the sake of her body. As for you, stranger, do not die for me, and do not kill," Iphigeneia is attributing all the horrors of the war to Helen, when in fact, it all hinges upon her and Agamemnon's decision (Euripides, 1921-25). The fact that she is subsequently saved by the gods continues the theme of moral inconsistency, and solidifies the notion that the characters portrayed are flawed and human. Only a society filled with such people would call for the death of a beautiful young woman for the sole purpose of bringing about more killing.

The moral background in Life's a Dream is vastly different than that in Iphigeneia at Aulis, but the human elements of the story remain quite analogous. From Vasily's position as king, he acts to rob his son of his right to the throne, from his position as a father, he treats him is a way that Sigismund believes "denied me my humanity." (Calderon de la Barca, 118). In this way, Vasily violates his legal obligation to his son, as well as his patriarchal responsibilities to him. This second responsibility is immoral from a seventeenth century point-of-view in Europe, since a Christian father must raise his children with compassion and understanding; the first is illegal.

Unlike Agamemnon, Vasily behaves in such a way in the hopes of avoiding the fulfillment of prophesy -- Agamemnon felt that he had to fulfill it. As a result, Vasily sacrifices his son's well-being to preserve his position. Additionally, the death of Sigismund's mother in childbirth is her symbolic sacrifice to fulfill the prophecy for her son. Vasily's choice of his own well-being over that of his son, however, is precisely what threatens to bring about his downfall. Certainly, it is a personal sacrifice as well: he expects that he will never know his son, and that his lineage will end.

The prophesy illustrates the central role of astrology within the lives of many in the seventeenth century. Unlike the oracle in Greek tragedy, Vasily's visions are accurate; his mistake is that he misjudges the cause. Sigismund points out this error when he says, "If anyone were told, 'One day you will be killed by an inhuman beast,' would it be a good solution to wake one up while it was sleeping?" (Calderon de la Barca, 150). Just because one may be able to see into the future does not mean that they can influence it. This is the human error that Vasily makes and it is what makes his sacrifices evident with respect to his son.