The People v. Orestes
In the last portion of 'The Orestia';, titled 'The Euminides';, Aeschlyus describes the trial of Orestes, who is brought in front of a jury on the charge of matricide. The jury hands in a tied verdict and the goddess Athena casts the deciding vote in favor of Orestes. This of course begs the question: Was Athena's decision fair? I believe that this decision was in the best interest of fairness because Orestes was motivated by Apollo, enraged by the murder of his father, and aggrieved by the vicious cycle of antisocial behavior that was running rampant in his family.
Often, jurists, counselors, judges, politicians, and citizens alike are called upon to distinguish the difference (and subsequently choose) between the interests of fairness and justice. While Athena's decision might not have carried out the value of justice, it upheld the advantages of reasonable fairness.
The supporting rationalization, I listed above might not have been taken into Athena's consideration of this matter; however, one must consider the practical application of the verdict. This application ceased the Taleonic nature that had befitted the House of Atrius. Although it is difficult to imagine that this action was in the interest of fairness, the applied perspective that the outcome was more important the means, supplied the burden of proof for this acquittal.
Many parallels between modern American juris prudence and that applied in Orestes case can be illustrated, with a primary focus on circumstances creating a reasonable doubt. To better understand this concept one should apply the conditions of this case in a modern setting. If Orestes were called forward, on the same charges under the jurisdiction of a United States court of law, would he have been acquitted? Furthermore, would similar circumstances be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt? By my estimation, I would suggest so.
It is easy to assume that democratic legal standards (standards of law favored by most citizens) are involved in a constant evolutionary process. Subsequently, one is lead to the interpretation that ancient cultures would most likely subscribe to hedonistic principles; however, examination of 'The Orestia'; proves otherwise. Just like the final decree of Athena, most modern juries would see Clytaemnestra as a catalyst for Orestes homicide. This illustrates that while specific legislations evolve to mirror social change, the foundational essence of democratic trial-law remains unmolested.
Orestes was by no means innocent of matricide.
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.
Two ancient examples of disobedient actions come from different ages revered for standards that hold today and provide a basis for modern law; the Greek and ancient Roman empires. From the Greeks, we have come to know the story of Socrates as memorialized by Plato, and the Roman age was the time of Perpetua, an early Christian woman. The fate of those individuals is the same – a death sentence handed down by the society they lived in. Although the conclusion of their respective lives is the same, the differences that lie in the reasoning of their death run deeper, with several key factors impacting their individual destiny. As we will see, these factors affect their relationship to the states and time periods they existed.
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.
Due to some of the conservative elements, as well as the oral tradition common in Ancient Greek societies, it is thought that some, if not many, of the laws present in the code have been passed down from previous generations. Consequently, it can be inferred that due to the post hoc nature of the text in addition to oral tradition, many of the laws of the code could have been influenced by other
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
The character of Orestes is somewhat down-played in The Eumenides and in fact his role is far less significant than that of Apollo. Our first sight of Orestes sees him in a contradictory stance at Delphi, "Orestes holds a suppliant's branch in one hand, wreathed with a shining, pious tuft of wool, but in the other hand a bloody sword - bloody from his mother's wounds or from Apollo's purges, or both, since purging contaminates the purger and Apollo's shrine is polluted either way." (Fagles, R., The Serpent and the Eagle, p. 73, Penguin Classics, 1977.) Orestes admits his guilt (with no small amount of rationalization) but also attempts to place the bulk of the blame on Apollo, "And Apollo shares the guilt - he spurred me on, he warned of the pains I'd feel unless I acted, brought the guilty down." (Aeschylus, The Eumenides, Robert Fagles Trans., lines 479 - 481, Penguin Classics, 1977.) Apollo is representative of the new gods and, more particularly, of Zeus. "In the rapid succession of scenes at Delphi the representatives of the male and female divine forces appear before our eyes in bitter enmity with each other. And, they are indeed only representatives. Apollo speaks with the voice of Zeus... and hence of the Olympian patriarchy..." (Harington, J.,...
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence. The views presented by the three men are invalid and limited as they present a biased understanding of justice and require a re-examination of the terminology. The nature in which the faulty arguments are presented, leave the reader longing to search for the rational foundations of morality and human virtue.
At first thought, we associate laws as prohibited activities and lawyers as people who have high quality suits and expensive brief cases. However, law is not nearly as simple as it appears to be on the surface. There has been no time within human civilization where law was not present. Implementation of laws can be recalled back to New Testament times in the Bible where murder was a condemned crime that would be punishable by death. Law is defined as the principles and regulations created by a community or some authority applicable to its people. If we did not enforce laws or punishments, how many more crimes would be committed on a daily basis? In this paper, I will be discussing what Criminal law is, its historical contributors and its
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
Thrasymachus has just stated, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger", and is now, at the request of Socrates, clarifying his statement.
Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.
In Shakespeare’s The Tempest and in Sophocles Antigone, the text compares itself whether if the belief is toward “human law” or “higher law”. Prospero, in The Tempest, is a person who did control others and proves the point that no gods rule. However, Creon, in Antigone, also did control others yet, in that time, the Gods did rule and they did make the lives in Thebes destructive when one breaks their laws. Comparing the two plays, the authors did write in two different periods with different beliefs. The ancient belief is the setting where the “higher law” is in effect when Antigone is in place. Moreover, in colonialism, there is a different belief, which the “human law” is in order when The Tempest is in place. Whereabouts, the authors seem to favor different laws depending either of how the authors make their stories or in what kind of setting is taken place.
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In