Formality of Tone and the Moral Argument in The Eumenides

Eumenides Reflection

Aeschylus’ The Eumenides is a play that deals with issues of justice and revenge. In doing so, it contrasts concepts of divine and human justice. In the first 20 pages, the formality of the writing can be experienced and appreciated via the solemn speeches and invocations, which are effective in conveying the heavy weight of the alleged crimes. The formal style also helps to elevate the characters, particularly Apollo and Athena: they represent a kind of logical, structured, rational justice. The Furies in contrast represent a kind of ancient, otherworldly concept of vengeance—punishment to be paid out according to some divine plan or system.

The formal tone presents Orestes' crime—matricide—as a major moral dilemma. There is no agreement on the crime. Apollo defends Orestes, for example, asserting that he avenged his father's murder, but the Furies pursue him to exact revenge for his mother's death. The formal dialogue deepens the conflict between these two perspectives, with the gods favoring retribution through lawful trials. The Furies, however, pursue with their own sense of justice. This contrast lets the audience reflect compare vengeance-based retribution to humanistic law-based justice systems, which could be called a central subtext of the play.

Connecting this to In a Grove, both works raise questions about the nature of truth and justice. In In a Grove, there conflicting testimonies, which makes it difficult to ascertain what know what actually happened—which, in turns, suggests that justice can actually be subjective and elusive. Similarly, The Eumenides explores the clash between divine and human justice systems. The Furies are relentless and seem to be absolutely determined in their own way—as though their knowledge were above all else. Aeschylus seems to be suggesting that it doesn’t matter what man or the gods think—the Furies’ justice is above all else.