Recently in Oresteia Category

This week saw the trial of Kaing Guek Eav commence. He is directly implicated in the tortures and death of over 14,000 people as a member of a regime responsible for 1.7 million deaths in just four years.

And he has a lawyer.

In spite of his record of human rights abuses, Mr. François Roux has chosen to represent the man in a fair trial, not necessarily to preserve his freedom but out of commitment to a concept of justice.

One passage of particular interest:

The argument of Duch's lawyer, François Roux, amounted to a passionate rationale for defending people accused of the most terrible crimes, and of the primacy of legal principles in even the most emotionally charged cases. It was in effect an indictment of the methods and actions of the man he was defending.

In a judicial proceeding, Mr. Roux said, rules are sacrosanct, the final line of defense of impartial justice.

"We are defending a man, and although this man has acknowledged responsibility, he is entitled to a fair trial," he said. "The work we are doing is hard work but essential, and we can only do our work if we respect the rule of law, respect the rights of the accused and respect the principle of an adversarial proceeding."

Such language is analogous to what occurs in The Eumenides. Athena does not have to respect the Furies in order to recognize their status as equal (or as a potential threat), and concessions to the Furies are not indicative of admiration but reveal a belief in a system that supersedes the desires of the individual. This article emphasizes what I consider Athena's important contribution - establishing that "final line of defense of impartial justice."

In today's discussion we talked a lot about Athena's relationship with the Furies. Unlike anyone else that comes into contact with the furies, Athena respects the Furies. In the Eumenides, the Furies represent a tie to a by-gone era of retributive justice. What does Athena have to gain by continuing to associate herself with them. 

Here for your viewing and listening pleasure is Ryan and Nick's video weekly roundup podcast.

The short answer is no.

It is worth noting that, once again, the force of Persuasion is only effective when backed up with the threat of violence. In addition to the oft-cited "keys to Zeus' thunderbolts," Athena arrives fully clad in armor after a busy day of surveying her land (land won by force, no less, in lines 397-402). The Furies "respect" Athena's authority, but a later passage calls into question the nature of this respect:

"There are times when fear is good. It must keep its watchful place at the heart's controls. There is advantage in the wisdom won from pain. Should the city, should the man rear a heart that nowhere goes in fear, how shall such a one any more respect the right?" (517-525)

These lines and the surrounding speech provide insight into the Furies' concepts of Justice and Right. As they rue the collapse of the "House of Justice", they posit that the foundation of their respect is one of fear-inspired awe, yielding to their opponent's power (and by extension, Zeus). This may sound like the reflections of archaic traditions, except Athena echoes these same sentiments in her instructions to the jury in lines 697-699:

"Thus I advise my citizens to govern and to grace, and not to cast fear utterly from your city. What man who fears nothing at all is ever righteous?"

Fortunately, it works both ways, forging a mutual respect. While Athena has the keys to the thunderbolts, it is the threat of pestilence that draws her to the bargaining table: "We cannot brush them aside...the venom of their resolution will return to infect the soil, and sicken all my land to death." (476-479) Had it been a less worthy opponent, can we assume the dispute would have been settled in such a civil manner? Even if we reject the notion that Athena's authority is rooted in coercion, it seems that the Furies' own position is legitimized through their threat of retaliation.

To avert what may have been divine Mutually Assured Destruction (which, of course, introduces the debate of deterrence as an effective strategy for peace), we have the genesis of a new form of Justice - quintessential dues ex machina. The infallible judgment of Athena resolves the conflict and everyone lives happily ever after. But what of her deciding vote, cast in favor of Orestes? In siding with the matricide, Athena denounces the female role in both deed and word:

"It is my task to render final judgment here. This is a ballot for Orestes I shall cast. There is no mother anywhere who gave me birth, and, but for marriage, I am always for the male with all my heart, and strongly on my father's side." (734-738)

Given our previous discussions of political theories associated with the gender stereotypes of Greek society, this seems like a direct refutation of the female role and an affirmation of Justice composed of those male qualities: strength in independence, reason, and physical domination (tempered by compromise, in this case, but without sacrificing her own position of strength).

The questions posed by Oresteia are no less relevant but serve only as a theoretical vignette - a moral exercise to challenge existing concepts of Virtue and Justice. The presented denouement does little to provide a sustainable alternative to current notions of political power. As suggested by Kaitlyn's previous post, power and force may very well be inseparable; the real challenge is implementing a viable balance of the two that establishes legitimate authority in the eyes of its constituents.

    Fear plays an integral role in the Eumenides, especially in the creation of a juridical/political system. This however is not a pitfall. In this class we have spent a significant amount of time discussing the difference between power and force and how the former is the more legitimate, longer lasting. This said, Zeus' authority, which is considered the most legitimate, depends heavily on his ability to inflict his will through the application of force. In Hesiod's Theogony, Zeus demonstrated his immense force to prove that his power was incomparable. "...he seized his weapons, thunder and lighting and lightning-bolt, leaped from Olympos, and struck;... and the vast earth burned widely from unspeakable heat (line 854-862)," is proof that he was capable of action and not just speak. Athena in amassing her legitimate power acted similarly. Her use of well formulated rhetoric and respect allowed her to establish her power and her invocation of potential force legitimized that power. I would even argue that any major political power, modern and past required an element of force. Instead of viewing power as the only appropriate means of running a society and force as a slippery slope towards demise, they should be viewed as mutually reliant. A legitimate political power cannot survive without the use of force, or at least the capability. And conversely, purely force will never result in a stable regime when it is the primary or singular actor. Therefore, political or judicial court systems are both in need of some degree of force behind them and more importantly cannot exist properly without it.

    To Hannah's point of what is justice and do the court systems of modern society effectively administer it, I ask does it matter? In the case of the U.S., people appeal to the court system to deal out justice on those they feel have wronged them. They believe in the system and are willing to seek justice through these prescribed avenues. Whether the courts actually administer just rulings is significantly more ambiguous. There are numerous cases in which unfair or unjust rulings were made and subsequently enforced. But the fact that the majority of people feel that for the majority of time the courts provide justice is enough to make the court a legitimate institution. In a way, the court systems of today provide a civil means of retributive justice. Governments have no interest in allowing for vicious cycles of vengeance to thrive in their societies, but recognize that humans will always seek to avenge themselves and therefore institute courts to allow citizens to legally exact justice. The court systems, of the United States in particular, are themselves a political institution that can be analyzed through the lens of the power, force dichotomy. Like Zeus, their power relies heavily on the use of 'metis' and rational thought processes. This is a major contributor to the legitimization of the court system. Again, force at their disposal is the all important lynch pin, however, which makes their power completely legitimate and interminable.

    In conclusion, power and force are two sides of the same coin. Longevity and legitimacy rely on a combination of the two. Secondly, a justice system is very similar to a political one; a court system must be viewed as legitimate by the people and there must be the promise of force to back it up.

    One question I have is: what role exactly does respect have in legitimizing social institutions? For Athena, it proved very effective and justices of the U.S. wear black robes - it seems a highly underestimated tool. If so, to what extent can it manipulate a situation?

In a recent interview on Fresh Air, Thomas Ricks talks about his new book The Gamble, in which he outlines the process the US military undertook to mute some of the violence in Iraq and to begin to turn the country toward a more stable future.

Motivated by Monday's class I recently reviewed and analyzed various symbols and metaphors occurring throughout the Oresteia in an attempt to comprehend them more thoroughly. Below are some brief summaries my observations.

The Net

The net represents entanglement, confusion, treachery, and deception. It seems to be the most widely used of the Oresteia's symbols and appears in multiple situations such as Zeus' metaphorical casting of it over Troy (355-60, Agamemnon), Cassandra's hysterical claims of the net like death trap awaiting Agamemnon (1125-29, Agamemnon), and Orestes' angry account of the entrapment and murder of his father (1114-16, The Libation Bearers). Along with these specific references to the net, there is also an ongoing theme in the Oresteia of characters weaving plots and lies in order to ensnare their intended victims.

 

The Serpent / Snake

            The snake is very similar to the net in that its main characteristics are entanglement, and deception. Both symbols usually remain out of sight until it is too late to avoid them. The snake though incorporates a human element. It is the combination of intellect and cunning as a means of entrapment rather than just an object of entrapment itself. The snake implies thought along with deception. An example of this would be Clytamestra (the snake) entangling Agamemnon in the robes (the net) in order to exact her revenge.

Light vs. Dark / Old vs. New / Juridical Justice vs. Retributive Justice

            All three of these are major motifs in the Oresteia and, in a way, are all interconnected. Throughout the plays there is a sense of change. Each play brings its characters closer to a new way of being. In the beginning the house of Atreus is covered in the darkness of bloodshed, vengeance, and war. The furies have free reign and torment all those they encounter. Then when Orestes returns, at the will of Apollo (who represents the Sun and illumination), we begin to see a change. It seems to be a transition period between dark and light, old and new. As time passes the need for vengeance fades, even though it is still clearly present, and thought and reason become more prevalent. Finally, the full transition is made to the new, illuminated way of life when Orestes is found innocent, the cycle of retributive justice is replaced by juridical justice, and the Furies are appeased.   

 

These are just a few of the major themes and symbols in the Oresteia and are far from complete in their analysis. If you have anything to add, or just completely disagree with what is being said please comment.

Today we had a long discussion on the authenticity of Clytaemestra's words to Orestes before her death and whether or not she respected him.  Some said that, yes, her words were sincere and that she truly respected Orestes while others argued that Clytaemestra was using her words in a way to guilt Orestes as a way of self preservation.  I would have to say that I agree with the group that sided against Clytaemestra.  However it wasn't clear until after reading the Eumenides.

I was thinking, if Clytaemestra truly respected her son, why would she return again to cause misfortune upon him?  Clytaemestra's ghost appears and is angered because she is no longer being honored, seen in lines 110-116:

Now I watch all these honors trampled into the ground, and he is out and gone away like any fawn so lightly, from the very middle of your nets, sprung clear, and laughing merrily at you. Hear me. It is my life depends upon this spoken plea.  Think then, o goddesses beneath the ground. For I, the dream of Clytaemestra, call upon your name.

This reinforced my position that Clytaemestra has never had respect for her son Orestes.  She awakes the Furies and sends them off like hound dogs to find Orestes and attempt to cause him unhappiness for the rest of his life.  This is all due to Clytaemestra's insatiable appetite to feed her immense ego.

Today in class we spoke about different themes in the Eumenides. One of the themes that we spoke about was the battle between the old and the new. In the Eumenides, the Furies represent the old way of justice and thought. The Furies embody violence and primal thought. On the other hand, Apollo represents the new way of thought that utilizes logic and reason. He cleverly argues that males are more improtant in marriages than females by pointing out that Athena herself was born only to Zeus. The Furies seek vengence on the side of Clytemnestra during the trial and Apollo acts as Orestes attorney. The end result of the trial shows the transition in the way of thought towards logic and reason as Orestes is ultimately let off the hook. The trial brings an end to the violent and chaotic cycle of retributive justice that encompassed the first two plays in the Oresteia. Before the trial, justice was sought out through revenge and murder. Maybe the lesson in the Oresteia is that justice cannot come from the blade of a sword, but only by logic and reason.

We also talked about how some of the themes in the Greek tragedies we are reading in class relate to modern pop culture in movies and music. I think that the song "We Will Fall Together" by the band Streetlight Manifesto is a good example of music that pertains to the themes found in the Eumenides, in particular the theme of old thought verse new thought. I feel that the last line in the song pretty well sums up the theme: "With the fury of a soldier who will answer to his God - So how will we fight? All we have is logic and love on our side" In the first two plays, the characters justified themselves by hiding behind gods like Apollo and Zeus and sought their approval. However, justice is finally found when instead of looking towards the gods, logic and reason is simply employed.
Here is the song in case anyone felt like giving it a listen.
01 We Will Fall Together.m4a

Weekly Roundup - Week 2.m4a

This podcast, created by Dan and Maryam, discusses the relationship between the characters in the Oresteia and the role of justice. This podcast covers the week of 2/2 to 2/6.