Justice, fairness, and decency, abstract concepts that are innate in society and human nature. However, despite their near universal status in humanities mid, they often have different meanings for individuals. Aeschylus uses The Oresteia in order to explore these issues as characters in the play try to determine what it means to be just, what a just actor does, and what is the best model or means of achieving justice. The characters discuss ideas such as vengeance, reciprocity, balance, moderation, and finally the end result of the implied debate leads to a jury system. In this paper I will go over two of the several different interpretations of justice used in the Oresteia and compare and contrast them in order to demonstrate which is the …show more content…
Vengeance often goes overboard and isn’t always viewed as justice. In the Oresteia, this sort of escalation is apparent. It began with Helen being kidnaped or seduced and taken to Troy. In order for the King to achieve vengeance he needed the help of his brother Agamemnon. In order to do assist his brother and fulfil his oath, he had to sacrifice his daughter in order to appease a god. Then his wife Clytemnestra killed him as revenge for the death of their daughter. To follow that up, Orestes was commanded to kill his mother as an act of vengeance for the death of his father, for which he was then chased and threatened with death by the Furies. If it hadn't been for the intervention of another model of justice, the trail of death did not appear to be stopping. Vengeance doesn’t consider the background and circumstances surrounding an action. It is perhaps too simple as extenuating circumstances don’t matter even though an individual may have no choice in the …show more content…
The goal of justice ought not to be punitive, but rather to come to an understanding between the two parties. If the goal is to make things right and just, it is only fair that the backstory of both are taken into consideration. Life, unfortunately for the model makers is not binary. Nothing is ever simply black and white, upon closer inspection it becomes clear that there are a verity of shades affected by the lighting we have in our own minds – our own inescapable bias. This is why I believe that deliberation and restraint is the more useful method of achieving justice. Its restraint allows for reason and understanding to influence the direction of the judgment. As the Oresteia demonstrated with Orestes, he had to choose not between a good and an evil act, but between to morally ambiguous acts, that by choosing either he would have suffered extreme punishment. Instead, moderation and restraint would have looked at what he deserved as he was forced into committing his act of murder. Moderation and restraint is the greater method that can easily be applied to a myriad of situations. It is the best model presented and would serve as a greater basis for building a more complete definition of
Odysseus returns home and seeks revenge on the suitors that plague his wife. In order for him to be successful with the revenge he must use his cunning, knowledge of battle and his desire to be with his wife Penelope.
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.
It is without fail that throughout Aeschylus’ trilogy, The Oresteia, the presence of light and dark can be found in the characters, the plot and the themes. The trilogy follows the House of Atreus its emergence from darkness into the light. However, the light and darkness are often presented symbolically throughout the trilogy and often appear as pairs, which are constantly at odds with each other like Clytaemnestra versus Orestes and Apollo verses the Furies. Light and dark are not defined, nor strictly categorized, as good against evil, rather they move towards the primal versus civilized nature of the culture, and the two merging, and moving into a new era of Greek civilization. The dark is not pure evil, the light is not pure good; they are a coming together of two different times, and because of that transition, from primitive to civilized, tension builds and breaks, which causes the tragic events of The Oresteia throughout the three plays: Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Eumenides.
giving him the welcome of a god, "give me the tributes of a man, / and
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.
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 debate between Unjust and Just Speech in Aristophanes’ Clouds draws the reader’s attention to the theme of natural pleasure versus lawful justice. The debate begins with the two Speeches representing
The Odyssey is a Greek word meaning 'the tale of Odysseus.'; Odysseus, the King of Ithaca; husband of Penelope; father of Telemachus; and son of Laertes was not able to return home after the war he was once in: the Trojan War. Stuck on an island, he is presumed dead. In his absence, suitors for his wife ruin his house with lavish feasts. This epic poem, by Homer, describes how Odysseus, with the help of the gods, gets home and regains his kingship. Justice is always harsh in the Odyssey; there is either no justice or a lot of it; the punishment however, is always severe. Justice in the Odyssey plays out among these characters: Odysseus and his crew, the suitors, Poseidon, Aeolus, Hyperion, Agamemnon, Aegisthus, Melanthius, Melantho, Telemachus, and Polyphemus. Each one of these characters does something wrong and receives a harsh punishment. In the Odyssey, justice, when done, always allots a large punishment, never a small one. Aegisthus courted Agamemnon's wife and then killed him. The justice of the Gods is a swift and powerful one. However, Aegisthus had been warned: 'we ourselves had sent Hermes, the keen-eyed Giant-slayer, to warn him neither to kill the man nor to court his wife'; (pg. 4). Aegisthus ignored the warning, killing Agamemnon and courting his wife. Orestes, Agamemnon's son, killed Aegisthus to avenge his father's death. The gods saw this as swift, fair, and powerful justice: 'And now Aegisthus has paid the final price for all his sins'; (pg.
...ther and being unable to know what that means, Athena proclaims that "[m]ine is the final vote, [a]nd I award it to Orestes' cause" (Aeschylus 140). He was simply following the unspoken law that you kill the person responsible for your family member's death. No matter what action he took, he would of be looked down upon with disdainment.
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.
In this essay I will examine the war-of the-sexes taking place in The Eumenides, the final play of The Oresteia. The plot of The Eumenides pits Orestes and Apollo (representing the male gods and, to a certain extent, male values in general) against the ghost of Clytemnestra and the Furies (equally representative of female values.) Of more vital importance, however, is whether Athene sides with the males or females throughout the play.
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.
Pylades arrives bearing the sad news of Orestes death. He tells Clytemnestra that Orestes was killed in a chariot race at the Delphian games; his body was cremated and his ashes were sent to. Mycenae. Concealing his identity, Orestes arrives with the help of Electra and Pylades, plots the murder of his mother and his mother's. lover. Orestes enters the palace, kills his mother and returns to Electra. When Aegisthus arrives, Orestes kills him as well. his destiny.
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.