Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aeschylus and the concept of justice
Aeschylus and the concept of justice
Idea of justice throughout Aeschylus's The Oresteia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aeschylus and the concept of justice
The workings of justice and what falls under it have been debated for a very long time, ever since men started to interact with one another. Some say justice is based on what is fair, lawful, or moral, but that only depends on what someone sees as fair, lawful, or moral. During the time of Aeschylus, justice was all three of them as well as none of them. Justice in itself was contradictory, and was subject to follow the whims of both man and god. This is seen especially in Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Furies, where from story to story someone’s views on justice were different than that of the person before them. However, they all did have one key component that they followed. This component was an edited version of Hammurabi’s code of an eye for an eye, and focused on vengeance and retribution as the primary reasons pushing for justice. In Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Furies, justice is an arbitrary term that is used to give reasoning to someone’s actions of vengeance and punishment of others.
When we first get into Agamemnon, we get a glimpse of what was happening while Agamemnon was gone to the Trojan War. Clytemnestra has been ruling in his place, and more importantly planning his death. She wanted him to die for sacrificing their daughter Iphigenia, which under her views was unforgivable and punishable. This is our first view of how justice is used as the title of vengeance and revenge, and how a character’s rectitude is used as a justification for their actions. Aeschylus shows us in his first play that not only was Clytemnestra’s view of justice for Iphigenia was for her to kill her daughter’s killer, but that she also believed that the gods would agree with her. This is seen in the play during when...
... middle of paper ...
...hy.
Throughout the trilogy of plays written by Aeschylus, we see the word justice used when discussing what people deserve. Yet, vengeance and retaliation would have been a better word to use when discussing a character’s actions. In Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, as well as The Furies, the character’s used justice as a word to try to pretty up what they are doing, and make their actions seem more righteous. Their behavior was not even close to that though, as it was arbitrary, contradicting, and hypocritical through each story. Justice in mythological times had nothing to do with what was lawful and unbiased, and was instead about what they wanted personally, and was what they named and used to describe the vicious cycle of revenge and violence.
Works Cited
Aeschylus, Peter Meineck, and Helene P. Foley. Oresteia. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 1998.
Print.
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.
Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
When a person is accused of a crime they are either found innocent or guilty. This is the basic idea of justice and it is what many feel needs to happen if someone has done something controversial. In the play The Oresteia by Aeschylus, the story of Clytemnestra guilt or innocents is questioned. She does many things that people are not too happy with and those controversial actions throughout the story, mainly in the first part Agamemnon get her into the trouble. As we explore the case that builds against her innocents by exploring the killings of Agamemnon and Cassandra and the boastful expression about the killings.
Justice in our times is almost completely different from what the ancient Greeks considered as justice. Justice, today can be defined as the quality of being just, the principle of moral rightness. In the ancient Greek era and most certainly during the time when the story of the Odyssey happened; Justice was frequently instantaneous and severe, almost unswerving. Odysseus is sometimes seen as being the one carrying out justice or being the one affected by justice. In the Odyssey, we see justice as revenge, and areas in which we can use to say that Odysseus is a just man.
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. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
Justice is a theme that differs in many different texts, and this also true in the Odyssey and the Bible. Justice in Homeric texts was served to neutralize a situation and bring things back to the way they were, to a time of stability and respect for authority. The bible has usually been interpreted, however, as serving justice on a moral basis, as a way to punish those who did not respect each other or act in God likeness.
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
Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...
In the Republic, Plato discusses many topics, including the issue of justice versus injustice (Plato 34). Plato’s argument indicates that justice works interchangeably with proper ethics (Plato 35). According to Plato, in order for a person to live the “best life”, they must live with justice and ethics (Plato 35). These two terms are similar in the sense that it is subjective to each individual. One’s definition of justice results from their own beliefs of ethics, which varies from person to person. Plato claims that doing “justice” is the better way of living, even if it brings misfortune in the end (Plato 34-35). This brings up the ethical dispute that misfortunes from justice is better than rewards earned from injustice. However, as seen in modern day, there is still no universal idea as to whether or not something is justifiable or abides by the ethical conduct that is expected. Often times, an action may seem justified to one individual while it seems unjustified to another. In order for someone to get what they want, they don’t think about their actions, whether or not it is following their ethical codes. In this case, the idea of “justice” and “ethics” is purely a mirage of the mind that people created so that they have a reason to feel good about themselves. In today’s society, many people get away with doing “injustice” while the actions of “justice” are disregarded. The definition of “justice” and “ethics” is still open-ended as demonstrated by justice system of the United States. There are people getting away with crimes and innocent people being put into prisons. Many times, these cases communicate the racial discrimination in the states.
Along with the irrational means of conviction came harsh punishments that ignored the degree to which they matched the crime. In the Justinian code of Roman law there is an excellent example of the amplification of sentencing that declares “anyone who composes a libellous song to the injury of another” or some other form of publically ridiculing another would be banished to “an island by the authority of a Decree of the Senate”. This declaration is representative of most sentences of ancient codes of laws and further into history, although many verdict...
Revenge in The Iliad it the main theme and drives men to do things that they would not normally do. The main example of this is Achilles wanting revenge on Agamemnon. The first book of the Iliad explains that Achilles wants revenge because Agamemnon is forced to return Chryseis, his war bride, to her father, and he decides to take Achilles war bride from him. According to “Some Thoughts about the Origins of ‘Greek Ethics’”, by Nicholas D. Smith, “Agamemnon’s unjust affront to Achilles leads to and extraordinarily deadly retaliation, the ultimate outcome of which is that multitudes of these men’s innocent allies are killed unnecessarily”(smith 10). This is out of character for Achilles, who would normally be the first man into battle, not sitting one out. By “rejecting even the most earnest and impressive entreaties Agamemnon offers, and increasingly making decisions which are rationally indefensible”, he shows how much his wanting of revenge has turned him into a madman (smith 10). His only desire is to get revenge for his loss. It takes the death of Patroclus, his dear friend, to bring him back to the war, which he has left.
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
While scientific curiosity was high during this time period crime and punishment remained similar to the system that was set in to place during biblical time. The "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" mentality continued. Despite this both Plato and Aristotle recognized that some individuals should not be held responsible for the crimes that they had committed. Aristotle believed that a crime committed with hatred was worse and therefore should be punished more severely than a crime that was committed unintentionally. These ideas still
In Aeschylus’ The Agamemnon, Agamemnon and Clytemnestra have to make tough decisions throughout the play, decisions they believe are justified. The actions of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra are not justified because they are caused by their blinding hubris and desire for power. Agamemnon makes the choice to kill his daughter just so he could lead his troops to Troy. Clytemnestra kills her husband, not just for revenge, but for his position and power as king of Mycenae. They make selfish choices and do not believe they will be punished for them. By exposing their true motives, Aeschylus makes it clear they are not justified in their actions.