Sunday, March 9th, 2014
The Eumenides
In “Aeschylus’ ‘Eumenides’: Some Contrapuntal Lines,” David H. Porter proposes the argument that the play’s ending was sort of anticlimactic, and the seeming progress towards a civil society
achieved by way of the establishment of a judicial court was not actually all that impressive. Throughout the finale, Orestes was never alone, and was continuously in need of the support of others.
The trial was dominated by the Gods, with Orestes only playing a small part. The deciding vote was cast
by Athena. In his speech following his acquittal, Orestes made no mention of the twelve Athenian men who took part in the trial, but offered praise and blessings to the Gods. We also saw the return of
the misogynistic, patriarchal bias that was so prevalent at the time.
Do you think Mr. Porter makes a strong case for his claim that no revolutionary change did occur, and the humans were simply used as pawns while their fates continued to be determined by the Gods?
Or, perhaps, was it a genuine effort and proper step in the right direction in favour of a democratic process instead of the old take-matters-into-your-own-hands method?
Porter, David H. “Aeschylus’ ‘Eumenides’: Some Contrapuntal Lines.”
The American Journal of Philology , Vol. 126, No. 3 (Autumn, 2005) , pp. 301-331
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3804934
~ Joshua Sturm