Skip to main content

Apollo the Lawyer

Orestes is placed on trial for matricide in “The Eumenides”, one of the worst crimes a person can commit in Ancient Greece. Part of the reason he did so is because Apollo convinced him he should avenge his father’s murder. The furies now want justice served to him, and so Athena holds the trial to determine if he is guilty or not. Apollo makes an argument in his defense of Orestes that seems to slander woman, but in reality is not.
In his argument, Apollo states, “[t]he woman you call the mother of this child / is not the parent, just a nurse to the seed, / … The man is the source of life - the one who mounts. / She, like a stranger, keeps / the shoot alive unless god hurts the roots” (260). It sounds like Apollo is saying the mother is really no mother to the child at all, and the only purpose for which she exists is to bear the child. He then presents his reasoning behind his statement. “The father can father forth without a mother. / Here she stands, our living witness” (261). Apollo then goes on to explain how Athena was born from Zeus, not from a mother’s womb, proof that a woman is not needed to have children. Instead, he deems marriage bonds more powerful than parenthood. “Why, you’d disgrace - obliterate the bonds of Zeus / and Hera queen of brides! … Marriage of man and wife is fate itself, / stronger than oaths, and Justice guards its life” (240). His phrasing makes it sounds like to obliterate marriage bonds in any way, especially through death, is a far worse crime than parenticide. Therefore, Clytaemenstra’s action is more terrible than her son’s because she messed with something so sacred.
Keep in mind that the god has to sway the jury to his side so Orestes can go free. One way to do this is to convince the panel and Athena that the murder is not as terrible as it seems because Clytaemenstra never mattered that much. After the woman has the child, her job is over, signifying the end to her importance. If mothers are no longer important, then matricide is no longer a tremendous crime. If what the crime is for is no longer of much importance to avenge, the furies do no need to pursue Orestes to gain it for the dead queen. He also knows that Athena taking his side in the trial will be beneficial, for her vote can break a tie, and she is also a goddess, and Olympians hold power.
Apollo’s argument sways Athena to vote in favor of Orestes, so it seems like it was effective. “No mother gave me birth. / I honour the male, in all things but marriage. … I cannot set more store by the woman’s death - she killed her husband, guardian of their house” (264). She implies that Clytaemenstra’s death does not mean as much to her as Agamemnon’s because she prefers the male gender. Since she does, and deeply loves her father, the king’s murder goes against her beliefs, especially since the queen killed the person who protects the house, an important person in her view. If Apollo had not proposed what he did, he might not have persuaded Athena and half the jury to take Orestes’ side. He merely stated that women basically have no purpose, not because he necessarily believes it himself, but because it is the best way for the trial to swing in the direction he wishes.
Though what Apollo says sounds sexist, in turns out not to be when the his true motives are revealed. He really wants to have Orestes to go free, and in order to let him, he must appeal to the judges of the case. His way of doing that is to make Clytaemenstra seem less important so the charge of matricide is not so severe. Apollo is successful, for Athena clearly states that because of his words Orestes has gained her favor. She sides with him because his argument appealed to her since she is born from Zeus and favors men. She most likely also believes after his statement that a destroyed marriage holds more significance than what Orestes did, and so favors the one on trial instead of the furies who desire revenge for a woman who does not deserve it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Creative Essay: Atalanta

Just what I wanted. A girl. They serve no purpose and a boy would have been so much better. Girls do not rule kingdoms. But no, I, King Schoeneus, was not fortunate enough to have an heir. A frown forms on my face as I look down at the child. The slaves are trustworthy enough, but not for this task, so I take it upon myself to perform the deed. I take the infant up in my arms and to a hill on the outskirts of the palace near the forest and throw her off. Do I feel remorse at tossing my child out into the elements like this? No, and in fact I soon forget that the female was even born. Years pass and I still have no son sired to me. Who is supposed to take over the throne when I am gone? Offerings are made to the gods multiple times and still they do not bless my family. There is only one action left that I know to take: Visit the Oracle. The journey will be hard but I need to know if there is any hope. I take two servants and provisions with me. I have already prayed for protection b...

Refusing to Escape Justice

In Plato’s " Crito" , we meet Socrates who is in prison. His friend, Crito, proposes placing a bribe to help him escape, but Socrates refuses and proceeds to explain why he did so. While Plato was explaining the reasoning for Socrates staying in prison, I believe there is also a larger picture, one where he is attempting to convince the populace against placing bribes to help convicts flee. Plato was addressing those who have helped prisoners escape and the escapees by trying to convey the message of why running away and aiding runaways is not right. Crito says “Look here, Socrates, it is still not too late to take my advice and escape… a great many people who don’t know you and me very well will be sure to think that I let you down, because I could have saved you if I had been willing to spend the money” (56). From the way he explains his reasoning, it sounds like bribing people to help them out of prison was a common practice. It would make perfect sense then for Crito t...

Thoughts of a Penguin

When did it become common to use the word like multiple times in a sentence? Why is it done? Is it because we do not want to say exactly what we mean in case we are wrong, and, therefore, would rather use “like” instead of sounding correct, or is it simply a filler word? I f it is the latter, we should know what we will say before we speak instead of filling time with useless chatter. While recognizing our wretchedness is good because it means acknowledging our nature, dwelling on it too much is not beneficial because it could lead to feeling miserable, and no one needs to feel miserable on top of our present state. Our present world has enough misery. Seeing that humanity is fallen is not hard. For instance, there are the poor drivers or people who get involved in argument after argument. When I consider all that I see in one day, it is tempting to say “I am so done with humanity,” because truth be told, it is draining trying to live right and follow the rules when everywhere...