The Orestia Trilogy of Aeschylus: Part III - The Eumenides
Written: Feb 20 '07 (Updated Feb 20 '07)
Product Rating:
Pros: the third play in Aeschylus' trilogy on justice ends on a happy note
Cons: courtroom arguments tend to suspend belief
The Bottom Line: This play will demand more of your attention than the previous two plays in the trilogy, but it's worth reading for the ideas that Aeschylus explores
The final play in the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus’ Oresteian trilogy, The Eumenides (sometimes called The Furies or The Kindly Ones) brings to an end the curse on the house of Atreus that began before the events in the first play, Agamemnon, and continued through the middle play, The Libation Bearers. In doing so, it places a limit on the cycle of vengeance by establishing a court of justice. A propos to this solution, it is also the only play of the three that features the gods as characters.
Picking up where The Libation Bearers left off, Orestes has left his homeland of Argos to seek refuge in the sun god Apollo’s temple at Delphi. He is pursued by The Furies, a hideous group of female spirits from the underworld sent to torment him by his dead mother, Clytemnestra, for killing her. Apollo, who had ordered Orestes to kill his mother as punishment for her having killed her husband, Agamemnon, appears in the trilogy for the first time. He instructs the young man to travel to Athena’s temple in Athens where he will be absolved of his deed. To assist him, Apollo puts a sleeping spell on The Furies.
Clytemnestra’s ghost enters and reprimands The Furies for neglecting their job. They wake from their slumber and follow Orestes to Athens where they claim they will drag him down to Hades. Athena enters and insists on judging the case against Orestes.
Central to The Eumenides is not whether Orestes is guilty or innocent of matricide. Clearly, and by his own admission, he is guilty. Rather, the question is whether he was just in killing his mother. Orestes pleads that it was the divine command of Apollo that ordered him to murder, but we have read earlier in the trilogy where Apollo has been duplicitous. Certainly the Furies believe that Orestes was not in the right, but even they need to be goaded into action by the vengeful ghost of Clytemnestra.
It is left to Athena, a goddess, to decide Orestes’ fate, and she does this by creating the first court of justice in Greece. In principle, the court is similar to our own modern-day law court for it is comprised of a judge, twelve jurors, a prosecution (The Furies), and a defense (Orestes, represented by Apollo). The prosecution begins with opening remarks and an interrogation of the defendant. The defense then brings up its witnesses.
Within the counter-argument scene, there is a heated exchange between Apollo and The Furies over which is worse: to kill one’s husband or one’s mother. By not pursuing Clytemnestra after she killed Agamemnon, The Furies appear to condone the murder of one’s spouse. So why wouldn’t they also condone matricide? Because they draw the line at the slaying of blood, or kinship. Any murders that occur between members who are not related by blood are of no concern to them.
This line of reason leads Apollo to the claim that mothers are not related to their children by blood, but that only the fathers are. Of course, such a statement sounds preposterous and I cannot believe that the Greek audience at the time believed it to be true. Yet, in the play Apollo manages to win the point.
That Orestes is cleared of the charge and allowed to go free is not too surprising. After all, the curse had to end at some point and order needed to be restored to Argos. What is surprising is that the play does not end there. Instead, it continues for some 200 lines in order to give The Furies some satisfaction, too. But why does this have to be a win-win situation? One answer I can gather is that The Furies need to be assured they can still perform a function in a world where courts of law will seek justice and not see things only in black and white. But this appeasement of The Furies only adds suspicion that the court Athena has created can be impartial and objective and not give in to bribery or threats.
Another answer requires the reader to understand a little bit about Athens during the time Aeschylus wrote this play in 458 B.C. Athens had recently become a democracy after years of tyranny and subjection to foreign rule. As a result, changes had to be made which included new ideas in favour of old ones. The Furies represent the old order where an eye for an eye was valid as a reason to commit murder. The new order, as established by Athena, took circumstances into account. The act would be judged according to the reason behind the action. In this way could a seemingly never-ending cycle of murder be resolved in a way where justice is attained for all.
Perhaps because The Eumenides is where the complex of ideas of justice and revenge are resolved, I found it to be the most difficult read of the three plays in The Orestia. But that shouldn't stop anyone from reading them all. The plays are rich in insight to the human psyche and will give readers much intrigue, for these nearly 2500 year-old plays resonate with drama and suspense.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.