Asher Sisneros

The Orestia Trilogy is a story about the death, curses, and misfortune haunting one family. Over time, it became a classic Greek play because of its poetry and tragic quality. This essay is about the final play in the trilogy and will answer whether the outcome was just. It will also compare how future hope differs in Aeschlyu’s Orestia Trilogy to that of Hesiod’s Works and Days.

The final play in the Orestia Trilogy is The Eumenides. Agamemnon was about the king of Argos, Agamemnon, going on a war campaign to siege Troy. The entire war was a ploy for personal vengeance. Greeks gave their lives to avenge a score between two kings. A powerful gust resisted Agamemnon’s fleet of warships, and he sacrificed his daughter, Iphigenia. Predictably, the wind subsided when the goddess Artemis accepted his sacrifice.  Simultaneously, his wife back home was in a love affair. After Agamemnon returned from his campaign, she and her new lover murdered him. The brutal, backstabbing betrayal was done in the name of justice, to avenge her daughter’s death. The Libation Bearers was about Agamemnon’s son seeking vengeance on his mother. The god Apollo commanded him to honor his father’s name. Through deception, he connived his way into the palace and killed his mom and her lover. That brings us to the final play, The Eumenides.

Demise always followed judgment in Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers. As I wrote in a prior article about The Libation Bearers, Aeschylus’ plays decorate revenge as justice. The two are often synonymous in the stories. Agamemnon’s wife killed him and received “justice,” i.e., he was murdered in retaliation for their daughter’s death. In return for his murder, she was also killed. Once again, it was executed in the name of “justice.” But if a judgment was just, how could some form of retaliation against it, also be just? Perhaps I should elaborate and be more specific. Agamemnon killed his daughter and claimed it was justified. In return, his wife killed him. She said justice demanded his death. Infuriated by his father’s butchering, Orestes wanted to kill his mother. Why? Because justice demanded her death. The point I stress is simple. If justice was a necessary punishment for justice, then something wasn’t just. There are no repercussions for justice. In other words, Agamemnon, his wife, and Orestes can’t all be guiltless.

In The Eumenides, Orestes was fleeing the Furies, who were demons from the underworld. You could describe them as vengeance incarnate. The ghost of his dead mother summoned the Furies to kill Orestes, but he believed murdering his mother was justifiable since Apollo commanded him to kill her. The vengeful demons didn’t care and rejected Apollo’s authority. They were underground gods, while Apollo was an Olympian god, ruling by Zeus’ side in the heavens. The Olympians didn’t respect the wretched Furies, and the sentiment was mutual. After a standoff between Apollo and the Furies, Orestes fled to Athens. He desired a judgment from Zeus’ daughter, Athena.

The Greek goddess listened to both parties. Orestes pleaded not guilty to murder, since his father was disgraced by his mother, and passed the blame to Apollo. However, the Furies persisted. They argued that only a horrendous wretch would kill their mother. Bewildered by the predicament, Athena admitted that judging was too hard for her. She called a jury of mortal men to judge the case for the first time. In the end, Orestes was acquitted of all the charges and pardoned. Originally, the Furies threatened to ignore the verdict and kill him regardless. After he won the case, they conceded to let him live. However, they also threatened to burn and plague Athens for disrespecting their historical jurisdiction over familial homicide. Athena promised them glory and worship in Athens if they relented. They agreed on fame and glory. The other Olympians always disrespected the underground gods, but if Athena gave them riches, a throne, and worship, they agreed to make peace with Athens.

The play ended with the Furies receiving robes and Orestes escaping their wrath. A court’s jury rendered the final judgment in the Orestia Trilogy because it was most just. I disagree with the verdict. By modern standards, everyone committed murder. Agamemnon murdered his daughter, Clytaemnestra murdered her husband, and Orestes murdered his mother. We make a distinction between vengeance and justice. The two are not the same because of jurisdiction. Individuals do not have the right to proclaim to find each other guilty or not guilty. Individuals cannot kill each other and claim innocence. There are four forms of governance, and each one has different jurisdiction.

 First, there is individual governance. This is when humans judge themselves. Often, it’s for personal ethical decisions. The personal governance is guided by our conscience. It condemns unethical actions but praises moral behavior. Self-judgment and self-control/self-regulation fall to individual governance.

Second, there is familial governance. The household head and family body set rules, judge rule-breakers, and execute a verdict in the family government. The standards in the household generally focus on directing the family towards good conduct. But while all four forms of government direct people towards appropriate and righteous conduct, the family can’t enforce the death penalty. They can enforce physical punishments—grounding, timeout, spankings, etc.—but not the death penalty. Other punishments may include the exclusion of rewards. Both positive and negative sanctions accompany family governance.

Thirdly, there is church governance. The church has jurisdiction over its members. Once again, it exists to guide them toward good conduct, as defined by the Bible. Similar to individual and family governments, the church cannot enforce the death penalty. They can, however, strip its members of membership or refuse to allow them to partake in the Lord’s Supper. Those instruments are used to punish heresy and unbiblical practices in the family, such as adultery.

Lastly, there is state governance. Historically, a monarch possessed unmatched and universal authority over the entire state. However, the United States has a structure dividing the state’s authority into three branches: The judicial, legislative, and executive branches. Such legislative, judicial, and executive branches are further divided into the national, state, county, and city levels, but they will collectively be referred to as “the state.” The state possessed jurisdiction to make, judge, and enforce the law. It (ideally) protects the inalienable rights of its citizens. Enforcement of the law can range from a petty warning, a fine, imprisonment, or all the way up to the death penalty.

Why stress the four branches of government? Because understanding jurisdiction is critical in assessing The Orestia Trilogy. Every perpetrator in the story acted for personal vengeance. Justice and vengeance are not equatable. Justice depends on jurisdiction. Even if something is deserving of death, if a party with the wrong jurisdiction enacts that “justice,” it isn’t justice anymore. Clytaemnestra committed murder by killing her husband, not because he didn’t deserve to die, but because she didn’t have the jurisdiction to kill him. The same is true for Orestes. His mother deserved execution, but not from him.

The Furies’ wrath is different. In Greek religion, killing murderers was in their jurisdiction. Unfortunately, they are often killed through agents on their behalf. Then vengeance was then necessary on those agents and the cycle continued. However, the cause-and-effect relationship in The Eumenides does contrast some with Hesiod’s Works and Days.

In Works and Days, good behavior is rewarded with blessings. The blessings include wealth, prestige, happiness, and a long life. There was a direct correlation between your actions and its outcome. Specifically, focus on “long life.” With sovereignty, Zeus knew all of men’s actions, and punished violence severely, but there were rewards for good behavior.

In Aeschylus’ Orestia Trilogy, there is a particularly pessimistic message and an absence of hope or mercy. Blood guilt often trickled down in the family throughout the generations. If one member committed murder, the other family members would kill each other until everyone died. Also, just retribution was impossible. There was not a civil authority in the trilogy who could condemn murder and achieve justice. Instead, their quasi-justice came through revenge. Even in the end, when Orestes was pardoned for killing his mother, that wasn’t justice or mercy. The jury’s votes ended in a tie. There wasn’t a conclusion until Athena broke the tie by voting to acquit Orestes. But why did she vote to pardon him? According to Aeschylus, it was because of his sacrifices and since Agamemnon was allied with Athens. In other words, Athena was bribed. The dreadful Furies prepared to unleash their wrath regardless, but they didn’t. Why? It was because Athena bribed them as well. That is ironic since Hesiod advised people to avoid the courts in Works and Days since they were corrupt.

In conclusion, every perpetrator in the Orestia Trilogy was guilty. All of them deserved to die, and there was no justice; there was only revenge, bloodshed, and corruption.