Daniel Tripp September 15, 2015 Biletz, Frank History 100-026 Justice, Triumphant Aeschylus’ group of plays, the Oresteia, is largely based on the feelings and emotional anguish felt by the protagonists after they believe a loved one is unjustly slaughtered. Left alone and unattended, these feelings of distress quickly fester into a desire for justice and, further, a lust for vengeance. We don’t see Clytaemnestra directly after her daughter is killed, but many years down the line, it is clear she wants vengeance for the slaughter of her daughter by her husband, Agamemnon; Orestes wants vengeance for the murder of his father, Agamemnon; and The Furies want vengeance for the perceived matricide of Clytaemnestra by Orestes. The …show more content…
The craving for vengeance, a primal lust, is a desire for revenge, a retaliation for a wrongdoing; it is a passionate feeling, pushing us to make rash decisions. Justice, on the other hand, is defined by objectivity and neutrality; it is a slow, methodical standard by which a jurisdiction is achieved. As we see in The Oresteia, however, vengeance and justice are intrinsically linked together. A desire for justice, in the absence of a system to examine the facts and determine a just resolution, leads to vengeance. One seems to be a product of the other, vengeance originating from the lack of an institution to uphold justice; The Furies, for all of their talk, never walk away with their revenge. The plays continue on and end with Orestes receiving his due process and being acquitted in a fair and just trial. Justice, in the end, triumphs over vengeance. Idealistically, justice is of a higher class than vengeance. It represents a move away from the need for individuals to procure justice. It represents an establishment of government to procure a just and fair trial. Justice is newer, justice is innovative, and justice is the law. The whole Grecian society shows a shift away from the old ideal of justice, vengeance, towards the new ideal, a unified body, created by the …show more content…
While Athena steps in with the new way, a democratic judicial system ends up getting Orestes a fair trial and acquittal of his killings. In the end we see the old way meld with the new one as the Furies agree to serve Athena, “I will embrace one home with you, Athena…” (Aeschylus 273) This represents the melding of the old ways and the new. A society is created where blood can still pay for blood, but where people can count on a fair trial for their wrongdoings. This goes along with the themes present in Aeschylus’ works; we see a progression from vengeance, seen in Agamemnon when Clytaemnestra slaughters the king and his mistress and The Libation Bearers when Orestes gets revenge for the killing of his father, to justice, when Athena steps in, in the last play, on Orestes’ behalf, and calls for a trial to determine his crime. We see vengeance, a primordial lust, fall to the wayside as justice, a more refined and fair system, takes the upper
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.
During the time of Aristotle, revenge was seen as something of honor. It was considered noble to try to restore your honor after someone intentionally caused you shame or harm. You were looked at as a coward if you did not try to sneak and plot your revenge. Revenge can either be sought after for ones own internal satisfaction, but in this book, it is usually required because of what others might think as far as ones reputation is concerned. During Aristotle’s time, if you were seeking revenge one had strict guidelines to follow to ensure that the one seeking revenge was doing it out of honor and integrity. In this paper, we will view if the character Odysseus followed these guidelines on two occasions when he was seeking revenge. The two main events of revenge in the book were against the Cyclops and the suitors that were courting his wife.
Aeschylus' The Oresteia features two characters burdened by seemingly hopeless decisions. First is Agamemnon, king of Argos, whose army was thwarted by the goddess, Artemis. Agamemnon was faced with the decision to call off the army's sail to Troy, and thus admit defeat and embarrassment, or to sacrifice his daughter, Iphigenia, to satisfy Artemis whom had stopped the winds to delay Agamemnon's fleet. Second is Orestes, son of Agamemnon, who was given the choice by Apollo to avenge his father's murder, thus committing matricide, or face a series of torturous consequences. Although both Agamemnon and Orestes were faced with major dilemmas, their intentions and their characters are revealed through their actions to be markedly different.
In conclusion three notions of justice developed in Book I of The Republics of Plato are outlined in On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is viewed as telling the truth and paying debts, doing good to friends and harm to enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
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 ...
Revenge is best served cold or so says the well-known expression. This idea of revenge that they seek is usually to restore a balance and take an “eye for an eye” as the bible says. Revenge, if by chance everyone were in Plato’s perfect utopia, would be in a perfect form, where justice and revenge would be one, and the coined phrase an “eye for an eye” would be taken literally. By taking an eye for and eye, and punishing those who did wrong equally as they did wrong, there is justice. However, this revenge sometimes goes to far and is consequently not justice. This notion of Revenge and justice is often in literature, one of the better-known being the novel The Count of Monte Cristo, written by Alexandre Dumas. However, literature is not the only time that revenge and justice is discussed in. Works and Rules and real-life events that took place like the Bible, Hammurabi’s code, Twelve Tables, and others each have something different about the topic. More religious texts seem to forbid violence, while laws, such as the Hammurabi’s code, recommend revenge, but equal revenge. By judging from literature, it can be concluded that most authors have different opinions on the matter at hand, and revenge is sometimes justice, but usually not, and tends to lead to violence that was not intended.
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...
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 satisfactory conclusion.
154, 956). This indicates two main points. Firstly, it speaks to the dangers of a conventional wisdom that is unwise in so far as it lacks the ability to sort out its own contradictions and to truly consider how the relationship between conventional laws and justice is a very complex relationship that needs to be articulated and sorted out for all its contradictions. Secondly, it points to the emergence of a discourse of hazardous individualism that emerges largely as a direct consequence of a collectivized political virtue that emphasizes the importance of restrain and justice, yet is unable to show the benefits the individual may incur from such virtues. Perhaps, this second point is made better evident towards the latter end of the interchange between the speeches. Consider, for example, how the unjust speech is able to promise those who follow its teachings positive and immediate pleasures, namely “boys, women, wine, relishes…” (p. 156, line 1001). Now consider how the just speech, speaking two lines before, simply celebrates the “ancient education” for the ways in which it “pitches [the singing of the sons] to the harmony of the fathers” and for “beating and trashing” those who seek to make any “modulations” (p. 154, lines 967-970). Finally, all the just speech is able to promise those
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.
Orestes’ revenge is the first important example of the gods’ revenge in the poem. In Book 1, Hermes told Aegisthus, “’Don’t murder the man,’ he said, ‘don’t court his wife. Beware, revenge will come from Orestes…” (Homer 260). King Nestor delivers the story of Orestes’ revenge to Odysseus’ son Telemachus, while Telemachus is visiting Nestor to discover answers about his fathers’ whereabouts. In Book 3 of The Odyssey, King Nestor tells this of Agamemnon, “…Aegisthus hatched the kings’ horrendous death” (Homer, 285). King Nestor continues on telling of the revenge Agamemnon’s son Orestes has on Aegisthus, “Orestes took revenge, he killed that cunning, murderous Aegisthus…”(Homer, 285). This example of Orestes’ revenge shows that the gods should be listened to or they will give horrific revenges to those who disobey.
Euripides'version is much more dramatic. The play begins with Electra's marriage to a peasant. Aegisthus had tried to kill Electra. but Clytemnestra convinced him to allow her to live. He decided to marry her to a peasant so her children will be humbly born and pose no threat to his throne. Orestes and Pylades arrive. Orestes says that he has come to Apollo's shrine to pledge himself to avenge his father's. murder. Orestes, concealing his identity, talks with Electra about the recent happenings in Mycenae. She admits that she is sad that her brother had been taken away at such a young age and the only person that would recognize him to be her father's old servant. She also discusses her scorn of Aegisthus desecrating the monument over. Agamemnon's grave and his ridicule of Orestes. When the old servant. arrives, after being summoned by Electra, he recognizes and identifies.
In both Antigone and The Republic, elements of death, tyranny, morality, and societal roles are incorporated into each work’s definition of justice. Both works address the notions of justice in a societal form, and an individual form. However, these definitions of justice differ with some elements, they are closely tied with others.
Throughout history, revenge, or vengeance, has been altered by several cultures and even the American culture. This is shown throughout many ancient greek epics. Throughout these two epics, what is just revenge and what the action of revenge is are much different than what Revenge is seen through today’s society. Revenge is the main theme in The Iliad, with Achilles’ revenge on Agamemnon and Hector, and in The Odyssey, with Poseidon’s revenge on Odysseus and Odysseus’s revenge on the Suitors, and these epics define how revenge was seen in the ancient Greek world.
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.