#also second disclaimer this is based on my personal interpretation of iphigenia which is definitely not the only way the play can be read

[fredoesque]

ok so yesterday i saw this post about the wedding imagery in hickey's trial scene and left a tag about iphigenia at aulis. and in the time since that comparison has spiraled entirely out of control

i was initially just referring to the way the play draws parallels between the rituals of a wedding and those of sacrifice/death and the way the two start to overlap throughout

but then i started thinking about how iphigenia's sacrifice serves both as an illustration of the violence of war turned inwards and simultaneously as the catalyst for said violence turned outwards. killing iphigenia highlights the actual human cost of war by exacting it on a familiar insider, not just a nameless enemy. but her death is also the only reason the war can take place at all--the chorus even calls her the destroyer of troy near the end

and that reminded me of hickey and his unique relationship with the violence of the british navy; of the british characters he is undeniably the one that suffers most at its hands, yet he is also a driving force in perpetuating violence--in general, but also specifically towards the inuit

and i know i'm not the first person to point out that hickey is both a victim and a perpetrator of the violence of the empire, but i find it fascinating to approach that dichotomy through the lens of (ritual) sacrifice. it adds a new dimension to not just the trial, but basically all his scenes that are concerned with said violence. his own death (during a botched ritual no less) is actually a great example; it doubles as the final nail in tuunbaq's coffin. he dies not just for or because of the empire's interests; it's the very act of him dying that causes said interests to be furthered

anyway all that to say hickey thinks he's christ and he's wrong but that doesn't mean he's not a lamb on the altar