Aeschylus’ Oresteia Reflection

Since I was so captured by the brief look we got into Clytemnestra and Agamemnon’s story during our discussions about Mycenae, I jumped at the opportunity to learn more about them and their story. I was so excited to read some of the Oresteia, and I was certainly not disappointed! Once I got the hang of reading Aeschylus’ elaborate writing style, I enjoyed reading his perspective on Agamemnon’s murder and all that ensued afterward. The third play of the trilogy was my favorite, something that surprised me because I truly was so entranced by Clytemnestra’s story that comprises the first play. However, the complexity of Athena and Apollo’s arguments to the Furies in Eumenides really struck me.

I was intrigued by Apollo’s argument that marriage was just as strong as, maybe even stronger than, blood relations. In the context of the Oresteia, this seems like quite the outlandish idea, but when I consider the issue in my everyday life, it seems obvious. For example, whenever my dad is being extra goofy, my mom always says to me “I could divorce him, but you’re stuck with him,” to which I respond something along the lines of “maybe, but you chose him.” This exchange happens quite often, my dad is a rather goofy person I must admit, but sometimes I start with the fact that she chose him, and she’ll counter that I’m stuck with him. Either way, we end in a sort of stalemate. While these arguments have truth to them, we see each relationship as equal, and therefore no one has a stronger or weaker tie to him (usually this ends with us just shaking our heads and going back to whatever we were doing). I genuinely believe that marriage, an institution that we have created, rivals that of blood, created by nature. We’ve been overcoming and outsmarting nature our entire existence by creating tools and shelter and making constant developments. While we have natural instinct to care for and protect those in our kin, our society has grown into a structure where a spouse is considered family. Therefore, man-made institutions are just as valid as natural ones, because we control their validity.

Bringing it back around to the Oresteia, I believe that Clytemnestra committed an act equal to that of killing a sibling or parent (no matter how justified I think she was). However, we are then led to Athena’s argument that a blood justice system is, in actuality, an injustice system. Athena convinces the Furies that people do not need fear to be good, that hope and a strong justice system can keep people in line. I strongly agree with Athena’s arguments, and I think she brings up a good point about the importance of reward for citizens. In the US today, though we do not have Eumenides to reward us for doing good, I tend to think of the “American dream” concept as a suitable comparison. Ancient Athenians believed (after the Furies became the Eumenides) that if they were responsible citizens, they would be rewarded by the Eumenides similarly to many Americans today believing that if they are upstanding, hardworking citizens, they will prosper in this country. I think that the hope of prospering in our economy and society is a crucial encouragement for people to do good, but I do not mean to belittle the role that our justice system plays in citizens’ choice to abide by laws. I think that the balance between natural reward for doing good and the awareness of a fair justice system if you are not good, as Athena argued, can lay a strong foundation for a functioning society.

Overall, I really enjoyed the discussion and getting to indulge in sections of the Oresteia. I found the story captivating and many aspects of the third play easy to relate to our society today. While this may be the last literary work that I focus on for this class, I can say that the course has sparked an interest in ancient works. I’d love any suggestions for reading further this summer!