More handpicked essays just for you.
Athenas contribution to society
Development of justice in the oresteia
Development of justice in the oresteia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Resolution of Conflict in Aeschylus' Oresteia
Aeschylus, was a master dramatist - he liked to portray conflict between persons, human or divine, or between principles.1 His trilogy of plays, the Oresteia, develops many conflicts that must be resolved during the action of the Eumenides, the concluding play of the trilogy. The central theme of the Oresteia is justice (dike) and in dealing with questions of justice, Aeschylus at every stage involves the gods.2 The Oresteia's climactic conflict in the Eumenides revolves around justice and the gods - opposing conceptions of justice and conflicting classes of gods. This essay will describe and discuss these conflicts and, more importantly, the manner in which they are resolved so that the play, and indeed the entire trilogy, might reach a
…show more content…
The old form of justice is based upon strict enforcements and leaves no room for flexibility. It does not allow for proper consideration of the causes of crime and so leads to moral chaos. The institution of the law-courts resolves this moral chaos as the dispensation of justice will now be tempered with mercy and understanding, as in the trial of Orestes. Athena is the goddess of wisdom and she uses 'clear, persuasive reason' to bring about the new and better order of the law-courts.8 The introduction of reasoning and judgement by a jury of upright citizens resolves the moral chaos of unending violence which went along with the ancient form of justice, and allows for a more intelligent and civilised justice which can have a place in the new social order which is being heralded by the Olympians. Aeschylus appears to have been a committed supporter of the classical Athenian democracy and by his association of the institution of the law-courts with the gods he gives divine sanction to this organ of the
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
The Oresteia trilogy follows a series of murders among the family of Orestes. In the first play, Agamemnon, the blood of Orestes’ father, Agamemnon, and his father’s war prize, Casandra, spills at the hands of Orestes’ mother, Clytamnestra. Following suit, Orestes avenges his father’s cold-blooded murder in the second play, The Libation Bearer, by killing his mother and her lover, Aegisthus. The acts of revenge by Orestes come to a climax in the third and final play of the trilogy, The Eumenides. With a monumental trial between Orestes and the Furies, a question of justification arises. Did Orestes have a justified reason to commit matricide? Or did his actions reveal a dark, unjustified moment of kin murder? Orestes’ murder of his mother, Clytamnestra, is justified because of the gods’ interference throughout the Oresteia trilogy.
In Aeschylus' trilogy, the Greeks' justice system went through a transformation from old to new ways. In the beginning of the trilogy, the characters settle their matters, both personal and professional, with vengeance. Vengeance is when someone is harmed or killed, and either the victim, or someone close to them takes revenge on the criminal. This matter is proven in the trilogy numerous times. For example, Clytemnestra murders Agamemnon as revenge for his sacrifice of their daughter Iphigeneia. Along those same lines, in the second part of the trilogy, Choephoroe, Orestes, who is Agamemnon son, murders Clytemnestra and Aegisthus. He does this in order to gain revenge on them for killing his father. It was by this way that people would deal with conflict, and it was thought to be not only a justice system, but also a honorable and fair. In fact, one of the principal purposes of the first play of the trilogy is to force us to recognize that justice based on revenge creates special difficulties, which in turn cannot be solved. It does not solve the problems that it is meant to, but only causes more problems that are even larger. As the third and last part of the trilogy begins, the system begins to evolve and change from vengeance to genuine justice. Instead of getting revenge on Orestes and killing him, they decide to put him on trial and have a jury decide whether or not he sho...
We have now examined Thucydides' strongest arguments for Athenian rule. It is clear that Athens had a stronger claim to rule than the Melians had to remain sovereign. We also know that Athens' claims hold up when we examine them for validity. Thucydides beliefs in Athens' claims were therefore well founded.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual.
Deep into the first story of “The Oresteia,'; better known as “Agamemnon,'; Cassandra, who has been cursed by Apollo to be a seer who will never be believed, envisions the death of Agamemnon and herself. It is in this vision that she sees an avenger who will come about and bring justice to the murdered victims, “ We will die, but not without some honor from the gods. There will come another to avenge us, born to kill his mother, born his father’s champion. The gods have sworn a monumental oath: as his father lies upon the ground he draws him home with power like a prayer.'; ( Aeschylus. The Oresteia U.S.A.: Penguin, 1975.) This vision proves to be very important when speaking about the innocence of Orestes and his heroism as well. Before the incident even takes place, we know that the gods have destined Orestes to avenge his father’s death. During this period of time, when the gods were on your side, you were doing the right thing! Another way to prove Orestes innocence is through the god of sun, song, and prophecy, better known as Apollo.
What Price Glory? was the title of a Maxwell Anderson play about World War I. Although the Oresteia deals with the period following a much different war, the same question can be asked of it. In the trilogy Aeschylus presents the reader with a stunning example of ancient Greek society, in which warrior ideals were firmly held, and glory in battle was considered the supreme good. The question of moral justification in the trilogy brings in many complex issues, but all of them revolve around the construction of Greek society and the role of different individuals in this system. Two of the most extraordinary characters are the personages of Agamemnon and his wife Clytemnestra. This couple confronts the reader with a myriad assortment of issues, but one of the most thought-provoking is the issue of justification. We are presented with two unnatural murders: that of Iphigeneia by her father Agamemnon, and later that of Agamemnon by Clytemnestra. It is very difficult to argue from merely these facts as to who was more justified in the killings. Many would say Clytemnestra because it was Agamemnon who began the whole situation, but others would argue that society forced Agamemnon into this position. These responses are based only on circumspect and superficial evidence and do not drive to the heart of the issue. To fully understand these characters and to answer the question of their justification one must view their actions in the context of the society in which they lived, and also the role of free-will or self-determination in this society. I will argue that although both characters were victims of the warrior society in which they lived, it was Clytemnestra who was more justified ...
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."( Schopenhauer). Vegetarianism and animal rights movement have been crossing each other since 70’s. The meeting point between two is veganism which means strict vegetarianism. Vegetarianism was firstly founded as being formed on ethical issues and then it became mostly based on health reasons. Even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to its early days, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not a mere health choice.
Killing the person responsible for one of your family member's deaths is Athenian justice. This type of lethal justice is executed by Orestes and Electra. Before proceeding to the house of Aegisthus and Clytemnestra, they plot the murder of their father's murderers. They decide Orestes will murder his mother, and Electra will dispose of Aegisthus. Orestes is the most focused of the two; but Electra, although timid in the beginning, is the most masculine. Both of these personality traits are key to their plan coming to fruition. Once her brother devises the plan, Electra verbally encourages him to follow through with it. After thrusting his blade into Clytemnestra only once, Electra cries that "[i]f thou beest a man, [s]trike twice!" (Sophocles 5...
Though vegetarianism was never a taboo subject as are some other controversial topics, The question of whether or not human beings should live off meat still is highly discussed amongst all types of people. Spiritual leaders, activists, scientists, and doctors have spoken up on behalf of their group’s opinion. Amongst the arguments of what is right when it comes to the food chain, resonating on many a mind is where the concept of vegetarian came from. Was it started as a religious virtue or a moral decision? Perhaps it was a forced lifestyle or a diet trend gone wrong (or right depending). Health wise, which is better for us? Educating ourselves by answering these questions helps us answer the, perhaps, most important question of all. Which lifestyle will we, as individuals, choose?
Let us firstly analyze and delineate the significant instances in the interchange between the unjust speech and the unjust speech. Both the unjust and just speech begin this interchange with a heavy slandering of one another. Perhaps, one of the most notable moments of this slander is when the just speech, after claiming that it believes in and stands for justice and is hence “speaking the just things”, is asked by the unjust speech that “denies that justice even exists” to “answer the following question, if justice truly exists, then why didn’t Zeus perish when he bound his father?” (p. 152, 901-905). The just speech replies to this question by exclaiming that “...this is the evil that’s spreading around” and that he needs “a basin” if he is to continue hearing it (p. 152, 906-907). Firstly the just speech, as a mouthpiece for the existing Athenian legal-political convention, has claimed that this legal-political convention is where justice in its entirety is to be found. Secondly and simultaneously, however, the just speech finds itself unable to articulate what it means by justice and how the teachings of the Homeric Gods, that have informed the construction of Athenian political convention, are positive and/or negative examples of an
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
A vegetarian is someone who chooses not to consume meat, fish or poultry. There are many forms of vegetarianism. A lacto-ovo vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat but does consume dairy products and eggs(Becoming a Vegetarian 2014). A lacto-vegetarian consumes dairy but no eggs, and an ovo-vegetarian
This paper aims to study two significant playwrights, Sophocles and Euripides, and compare their respective attitudes by examining their plays in respect to plot and character structures. To achieve this goal, the paper is organized into two main sections. In the first section, we provide a brief biography of both Sophocles and Euripides. The second and last section includes summaries of Sophocles’ Electra and Euripides’ Electra which were based on same essentials and give an opportunity to observe the differences of the playwrights. This section also includes the comparisons that are made by our observations about the plays.