I've finished the trilogy. The ending was more about uniting two religions than it was about seeking justice. A deity decided whether Orestes was guilty or not. It wasn't really up to man at all.

Thinking about the killing of Agamemnon based upon my own beliefs and morality has led me to conclude the following: Killing another is wrong except under very extreme circumstances. But, Agamemnon killed Clytemnestra's daughter. Clytemnestra has absolutely no legal and social recourse to do anything about it. This IS an extreme situation. Yes, Clytemnestra had other motives, lust for power and other nefarious reasons. But the murder of one’s child in a world where there is no justice for the killer, is, in my opinion, one of the few situations that justify the killing of another.

With that said, the above judgment has nothing to do with the moral universe created in the play. I think that in terms of what Aeschylus was trying to say is that sometimes people kill for reasons that are in part, noble. Sometimes killing is somewhat justified. Perhaps the sacrifice of Iphigenia was necessary for the greater good of Greece. Orestes killing of his mother rightfully avenged Agamemnon and brought about justice.

However these acts were acts of “mixed morality”. They contained Kernels of evil. These kernels led to more revenge, more bloodshed and horror, including Clytemnestra's assassination of Agamemnon and the Furies pursuit of Orestes.

I believe that at the conclusion of the trilogy, Aeschylus tries to present a better path that society can take to satisfy justice and virtue.

President Camacho wrote:I've finished the trilogy. The ending was more about uniting two religions than it was about seeking justice. A deity decided whether Orestes was guilty or not. It wasn't really up to man at all.

Hmm. I am not yet at the end though I have read this before. Based upon your comments I am thinking that I remember the ending differently and perhaps incorrectly. When I have completed reading the last play I will comment further.

The furies allowed Athena to decide Orestes fate. The old god gives way to the new. Athena looks for outside help in the matter. Votes are cast but they are even. It's up to Athena who casts the last vote.

The furies won't be denied what they feel should be their right and threaten to curse the land and its people. Athena appeases the furies and tells them that if they refrain from doing this, men will worship them. They agree and now instead of one replacing the other, both the new gods and the furies are to be worshiped simultaneously.

I understand and agree with what you've said. I still think Clytemnestra killed her husband for power and not because he killed her daughter. Look how horribly she treated Electra.

President Camacho wrote:I understand and agree with what you've said. I still think Clytemnestra killed her husband for power and not because he killed her daughter. Look how horribly she treated Electra.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with you that power is Clytemnestra's first motivation. But, one thing that makes these work so great is that fact that almost everyone's motivation is multifaceted and complex.

For sure... Clytemnestra, Aegisthus, and Orestes all had more than one reason to murder.

I have finished the trilogy. It seems tat the cycle of retribution and vengeance is ended. It is "replaced" by Democratic methods, in particular, Trial by Jury. As presented in the last play, the systematic gathering and examination of evidence, followed by a vote of citizens settles the dispute.

The old ways and traditions, as symbolized by both the Furies, and the sequence of events that had gone before, are to be replaced by the newer, less brutal, and more rational ways, symbolized by Athena.

I am often so very amazed, at how much present day civilization, owes to those relatively few people, living in the Greek City states, so long ago.

I understand that is the meaning of the play. Athena/Athens is law and under god. They reach their verdict with the help of God. God is law.

All I'm trying to say is that a deity still controls men. It's a society which makes their own laws but somehow convinces itself that the wisdom is sent from above.

President Camacho wrote:I understand that is the meaning of the play. Athena/Athens is law and under god. They reach their verdict with the help of God. God is law.

All I'm trying to say is that a deity still controls men. It's a society which makes their own laws but somehow convinces itself that the wisdom is sent from above.

This is a good point. The fact that in the Athena makes the final decision adds an interesting wrinkle.

As I said before, Aeschylus is never simple!