Justice In The Eumenides

In ancient Greece, retributive justice served as both a strict societal code and an expectation of the cosmos. In The Eumenides by Aeschylus, the Furies serve as the defenders of this justice, which is explored in depth during the Furies’ monologue as they pursue Orestes for his matricide. In order to fully understand this passage, the reader must first grasp the Furies’ sense of justice. The Furies require Orestes’ retribution for his matricide. Unlike the contemporary view of justice, their perception dictates strict punishment for the act without consideration of both sides of the argument. Throughout the Furies’ monologue, the beings disclose both their interpretation of justice and the drive they feel to protect that view.

The Furies’ interpretation of justice allows them to act as both a champion for the wronged and an executioner for condemned souls. Once notified of someone “insane to murder kin,” the Furies will rage against him until he meets his fateful end (Aeschylus 338). Little hope remains for an offender’s exoneration after the Furies have made their judgment, and Athena notes this

when she mentions that the Furies “are set / on the name of justice” rather than the actual situation (442-43). The Furies’ wrath can allow for a stable society to an extent, because individuals are more likely to behave in a moral fashion if one fears their retributive power. Although an individual can rely on repayment for the justices leveled against him, he must also fear the consequences of his ignoble actions. The Furies pride themselves on this fact, boasting about being “the just and upright” by ruining the lives of evil men (312).
However, the Furies’ execution of justice proves to be a chaotic process. As soon as the Furies identify an offender of the ancient law code, they rage against the individual until his life is drained. Aeschylus repeatedly refers to this process as a “frenzy striking frenzy,” further exhibiting the destructive and fear-based aspect of this justice (330). Due to their revenge-based perception of justice, the implementation of it reflects the turmoil and torment that characterizes such vengeance. Just as the perpetrator carried out a barbaric act, they too are tortured with an even more intense barbarism that “[crazes] the mind” until the offender is leveled to the grave (331). This process is appropriately referred to as a “hymn of Fury,” which almost gives an ironic connotation (332). A hymn, usually seen as a positive work to celebrate the divine, is used here to destroy a life.
The Furies fully embrace their responsibility to plague those who break the ancient law codes, powerfully declaring that “this is [their] right,” given to them by the Fates (334).

The Furies deem themselves as the patrons of retributive justice. Every action the Furies carry out against an offender of the ancient law is a manifestation of this “right”. The repetition of the passage emphasizes this point through an AB pattern in terms of context. The Furies begin by explaining the “frenzy striking frenzy” they undergo while tormenting the offender, followed by an assertion of their right to pass judgment as ordained by the Fates (330). The next stanza is identical to the one that explains the frenzy, followed by a stanza reiterates the Furies right to judge lawbreakers. This repeating pattern accentuates why the Furies behave in the manner provided throughout the

play.
The Furies are also very defensive of their perception of justice, so their offense at Apollo’s attempt to absolve Orestes’ matricide becomes understandable. Their clear declaration that “none can shake [their] hold” may have been a slight at the Olympian gods, who held no previous authority in the retributive system (337). This line exhibits the root of the rivalry between the two classes of gods. The Furies, since their creation, have held on to this duty of protecting justice in the way that they understand it. The Olympian gods threaten this system with the Orestes conflict, and the Furies refuse to release their hold on this part of their dominion. If they concede, the result will turn their entire system into chaos. The Orestes conflict is seen as a blatant disregard for the Furies’ authority, and the Olympian gods should “keep their hands far off” of a matter that is not in their dominion (349). Since the Furies hold no interest in usurping on the territory of the Olympian gods, going as far to declare their disinterest of the Olympian gods’ “pious white robes,” their protective stance on justice holds more weight (350). The Furies do not feud with the gods because of power; they just want to keep what belongs to them.
The Furies, in their monologue, reveal both their understanding of justice and their need to preserve that perception. They represent the ancient form of justice, and hold themselves to be the sole patrons of this ancient law code. Although the retributive justice system’s pursuit of revenge calls for an intense form of penitence, and the societal expectations of the time praise this as the true form of justice. The Orestes conflict is emblematic of a shift from the ancient system described and paves the way for a more contemporary approach.