“Sing sorrow, sorrow: but good conquereth in the end” (Oresteia, Agamemnon 121). This is the refrain of the chorus in the opening lines of Aeschylus' trilogy, the Oresteia. Written in the 5th century BC, Aeschylus' classical tragedy not only had a profound impact on the Athenians of his time, but continues today to provoke weighty questions about the nature of justice, revenge, and resolution. What is justice and how is it achieved? How does seeking justice on one's own terms differ from seeking justice within a framework that best benefits society? Through the actions and consequences of the mortal and divine characters in the Oresteia, Aeschylus reminds the audience that justice cannot be defined by personal revenge, but must be implemented through a jury, as was the case during Aeschylus' life in Athens. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first play of the Oresteia, Agamemnon, begins by weaving a complex web of family relationships caught in conflicting demands for justice. Agamemnon and Menelaus, both sons of Atreus, had sought revenge against Troy in hopes of taking back Helen, Menelaus' wife. In the words of the chorus, the Trojan War was a “war waged for a woman” or, more literally, “the woman's vengeful war” (Agamemnon 225). Early in their journey, however, the goddess Artemis harassed the Greek fleet with twenty antagonists and demanded the sacrifice of Agamemnon's beloved daughter, Iphigenia. Heartbreakingly torn between loyalty to family and loyalty to community, Agamemnon finally thought he could not fail his ships and sacrificed Iphigenia on the altar forever. Clytemnestra, as a woman living in a male-dominated culture, had no say in her husband's decision and harbored deep bitterness over the loss of her daughter. During Agamemnon's ten-year absence, Clytemnestra began a long-term relationship with Agamemnon's cousin Aegisthus, who was also seeking retaliation for Atreus' crimes against Aegisthus' father and his own brothers. As he triumphantly proclaims after killing Agamemnon: "It was I, in my right, who committed this murder... / justice has brought me home... / now I can die... / having seen him caught in the nets of his just punishment" (Agamemnon 1604-1611). In the swirl of their emotions, both Clytemnestra and Aegisthus seek justice in the form of revenge – in particular, both seek retribution against Agamemnon for what they perceive as unjustifiable offenses against their families. Even so, Agamemnon considers his actions completely justified, in light of his royal duty to exact justice on the Trojans and his brotherly duty to win back his sister-in-law, Helen. Furthermore, Atreus' murder of Thyestes' sons was also not entirely without motive, as audiences familiar with Greek mythology would understand. In the end, as the chorus sings, “again fate sharpens the blade on yet more stones / for more acts of terror” (Agamemnon 1535-1536). As the chorus fears, even more acts of terror and vengeance seem inevitable: since the characters' subjective opinions of what justice requires are slanted toward their own needs, desires, duties, and circumstances, no satisfactory conclusion will ever be reached. Instead, an endless cycle of recrimination and retaliation becomes inevitable, just as Cassandra prophesies: “There/will come one to avenge us too, born to kill/his mother and to bring about death by the blood of his father” “For this is astrong oath and oath from the supreme gods” (Agamemnon 1279-1281; 1284). Cassandra's prophecy was not inaccurate, since the second work of the trilogy, The Libation Bearers, unfolds with the story of Orestes' revenge against his father's murder. It is interesting to note that Orestes' incentives for the murder of his mother and cousin do not derive entirely from himself, but also from divine order. While meeting his long-lost sister Electra, Orestes explains: "For [Apollo] has charged me to overcome this danger / ... / warning of a cold disaster beneath my warm heart / should I fail against the murderers of my father" (Libation Bearers 270 -273). Although Apollo's motivations remain unstated throughout the play, it should not be too presumptuous to infer a desire to bring justice to Orestes' clan. Unlike Clytemnestra, Orestes is continually guided by a divine being who oversees the realization of his quest for justice; however, like Clytemnestra, Orestes still seeks a traditional form of justice defined primarily by retaliation, as the chorus understands: “In the turn of Justice / … / … the spirit of Law / cries out and extracts atonement / due: blow of blood for the blow of blood / will be paid. Whoever acts will suffer" (Libatori, 308-313). Since putting his mother to death is not entirely his choice but a direct command from Apollo, Orestes differs from Agamemnon and Menelaus in their revenge against Paris, and from Clytemnestra in her revenge against Agamemnon, in that Orestes seems to assume that his La revenge mission is destined to settle the circumstances once and for all. Right before killing her, Clytemnestra desperately pleads: “A mother has her curse, daughter. Are you not afraid?" Orestes replies resolutely: "No" and "This is death, your wages for my father's fate" (Libation Bearers 912; 913; 927). While Clytemnestra leaves no relatives (except, ironically, Orestes himself) who would be responsible for plotting revenge against Orestes, after his death, his spirit pushes the Furies to torment Orestes. These goddesses also primarily define justice through revenge; blood, as Agamemnon's chorus enchanted: “The black Furies, pursuing the man / fortunate but without justice, / tear away from him again the order of life / and throw him into darkness” ( Agamemnon 463-466). Furies, Orestes flees from Argos, to Delphi, and finally to Athens, where he pleads with Athena from her temple. When Athena arrives, running on her “tireless feet,” the leader of the Furies immediately confronts her with the multiple reasons for Orestes' condemnation (Eumenides). 403). In her wisdom, however, Athena simply observes, “Here are two sides and only half the argument” (Eumenides 428). Although the Furies claim to be “upright and just,” Apollo also claims, regarding Orestes' actions, that “this is justice” (Eumenides 312; 619). Finally, the root causes of the family's cycle of bloodshed are clearly exposed: both sides indeed seek justice, but their personal and limited views on justice are mutually antagonistic and retaliatory, leading to never-ending mutual revenge. For definitive justice to be achieved, the decision must be made not by one of the two parties, but by an external judge. Since “the matter is too great for any mortal man,” Athena decides to “establish a court for all times to come,” which, by vote of the city judges, will henceforth have the authority to judge trials in Athens (Eumenides 470; 484). After dramatic questioning, defense and persuasion on both sides, the jury throws its voting pebbles into the ballot box.The vote is split. Athena breaks the tie. Orestes is acquitted. Athena and the jury do justice certainly does not suit the distraught Furies, who had lamented that “the House of Justice has fallen,” because Orestes escaped punishment for his bloodguilt (Eumenides 515). Only through bribery is Athena able to tactfully convince the Furies to accept the results of the trial, along with their new roles as guardians of Athens. The moral implications of the establishment of an Athenian jury, however, are more profound. The application of justice is no longer exclusively in the hands of the avenged and the avenger. Nor is the application of justice relegated to a single judge, who may, intentionally or unintentionally, be influenced by personal experiences and inclinations, however impartial he may try to be. Rather, justice is now placed in the hands of a jury, which is given the opportunity to examine, as objectively as possible, both sides of a conflict and to “render what they believe in a true verdict” (Eumenides 675) . Here, however, another nuanced question arises: can a jury ensure true justice? The drama between Apollo and the Furies illustrates the extent to which a jury is swayed and influenced by factors unrelated to the reasonable arguments presented by either side. For example, while the jurors cast their votes, Apollo and the Furies take turns appealing to the jurors, also uttering threats such as "We can be a burden to crush your hand", "If I don't win the case... / ... this land ... will feel my weight” and “I command you to fear and not to annul the fruit of the oracles of Zeus and me” (Eumenides, 712; 719-20; 713-714). Furthermore, in Orestes' trial, "a good vote... ended in a tie," and the final decision is made by Athena's casting vote (Eumenides, 796). Previously, the Furies had based their accusations on the fact that, while Clytemnestra had no blood relation to her husband, Orestes "share[d] with [his] mother a blood relation", making him guilty of killing a relative of blood (Eumenides 606). Apollo, however, had retorted that "the mother is not a parent... / ... but only the nurse of the newly planted seed / ... the parent is the one who mounts" (Eumenides 658-660). Proving the ancient Greek belief that male sperm served the primary function in procreation, Apollo referred to Athena as "the living witness... / ... who was never reared in the darkness of the mother's womb," but was fathered from the head of Zeus (Eumenides 664-665). Since mother and son are not related by blood, Apollo argued, the Furies had no reason to incriminate Orestes. Apollo then continued to cajole Athena by promising “to make your city and its people great” and guaranteeing “a strong bond” between Apollo's descendants and the Athenians (Eumenides 668; 672). Influenced by Apollo's speech, Athena ends up voting in favor of Orestes solely on the basis of male superiority. His reasoning – “I am always for the male / with all my heart, and strongly on my father's side” – seems almost arbitrary, perhaps even irrational (Eumenides, 732-733). The obvious risks of entrusting justice to a jury become even more worrying in light of Socrates' trial, recalled in Plato's Apology. Influenced by Miletus's words and feelings, as well as by their own exasperations with Socrates, the jury narrowly condemned him to an undeserved death. The trial of Socrates was a historical realization of the flaws that Aeschylus rightly described through the fictional trial of Orestes: namely, that a jury can never be guaranteed to be an impartial, rational, and impeccable executor of justice. However, Aeschylus, in choosing the jury as the final judge of justice in the Oresteia, still recognizes a vital point:..