Justice and the Courts in Sophocles and Euripides - Sophists

As we contrast Sophocles’ Electra with Euripides’ Orestes what we can infer about Justice and the administration of the Law and the Courts in Athens of that era?

In Sophocles’ play we have the single-mindedness of Electra whose only purpose in life is to avenge the murder of her father and the injustice that has been brought to her house. Sophocles, through Electra, tells us that Justice must be served or else society will not be able to function.

“…For if the hapless dead lie in dust and nothingness, while the slayers pay not blood for blood, all regard for man, all fear of heaven, will vanish from the earth.”

In Euripides’ Orestes we see the view that “..yes! crime must be punished, but not by the citizen who has suffered the injustice. The perpetrators of a crime must be brought in front of the courts and let the courts decide of their guilt and their punishment.” Euripides view on this matter is expressed through Tyndareus below.

“Take this case: the wife of his bosom has slain him; his son follows suit and kills his mother in revenge; next the avenger’s son to expiate this murder commits another; where, pray, will the slain of horrors end? Our forefathers settled these matters the right way. They forbade any one with blood upon his hands to appear in their sight or cross their path; ‘purify him by exile,’ said they, ‘but no retaliation!’ Otherwise there must always have one who, by taking the pollution last upon his hands, would be liable to have his own blood shed…….My daughter is dead, and she deserved her fate; but it should not have been his hand that slew her.”

We know what is happening in 5^th century BC Athens and in the age of Pericles. Arbitrary decisions to  punish crime, either by the laymen or the rulers, are not allowed and each case has to be brought in front of a court and decided by the jurors of the court. We have the codification of Law which started from previous leaders like Drako in the 7^th century BC and later Solon, and in the 5^th century, we have the establishment of an elaborate system to administer justice. The system, unlike today’s 10-15 randomly selected jurors, was more direct in the sense that each court could have from a few hundreds of people to over a thousand, depending on the seriousness of the case. The people were randomly selected and assigned to each case which eliminated corruption. Although the courts had a magistrate, Archon, his function was only to administer the case, and the decision was solely made by the jurors.

So here Euripides reflects the custom of the Law as it was practiced in Athens of his time. But he also expresses his disdain for the dangers and abuses of the system. He calls the jurors “mob” that can easily be manipulated by anyone with the ability to play to people’s emotions and their idea of justice.

In that era, Justice had to do more with the ability to appeal to people’s idea of what is reasonable. Extreme actions and thinking wouldn’t go well with the jurors in Athens of 5^th century BC (Socrates’ trial and conviction provides some evidence to that.) Euripides is especially critical of the group of people who came to be known as Sophists. One of the main premises of this School of Thought was that one could argue both sides, pro and con, of an idea or a case. The Sophists were claiming that they could train people to argue a weaker point of view and win over a stronger one. In essence they were saying that “reality and truth are what each of us perceives them to be.” So, they were saying “..It’s not the facts that count but how people perceive of them and we could argue a weaker point and win over a stronger one by manipulating “people’s perception of what reality is.”

We see some evidence of how people argued in front of the courts in the reasoning and the appeals of Orestes.  Orestes says to Tyndareus,

“…….I sacrificed my mother, a crime, no doubt, but done to avenge my father. Now as regards the reasons, for which I deserve to be stoned as you threatened, hear the service I am conferring on all Hellas. If women become so bold as to murder their husbands, taking refuge in their children, with the mother’s breast to catch their pity, they would think not of destroying their husbands on any plea whatsoever. But I, by a horrible crime – such is your exaggerated phrase – have put an end to this custom.” And then he continues towards Menelaus,

“..A long statement has advantages over a short one and is more intelligible to hear…Say I am doing wrong. Well, I have a right to a little wrong-doing at my hands to requite that wrong, for my father Agamemnon also did wrong in gathering the host of Hellas and going up against Ilium, not that he had sinned himself, but he was trying to find a cure for the sin and wrong-doing of your wife…so this is one thing you are bound to pay me back. For he had really sold his life to you, a duty owed by friend to friend,….make me the same return. For one brief day exert yourself, not ten full years, on my behalf, standing up in my defense…Why, there is the point of that old adage, ‘friends are bound to succor friends in trouble.’  But when fortune giveth of her best, what need of friends?”

The Chorus at some point sings “….what seemed so right became so wrong, to cut a mother’s skin with a ruthless hand…” which gives account to the Sophists’ view that both sides of the story can be argued and the “right can become wrong.”

Euripides clearly expresses his revulsion against the Sophists and the ways they used to manipulate the assembly, when he has a messenger describing the deliberations of the people to decide what should be done with Orestes and Electra.

“Next stood up a fellow, who cannot close his lips; one whose impudence is his strength; an Argive, but not from Argos; an alien forced upon us; confident in bluster and licensed ignorance, and plausible enough to involve his hearers in some mischief sooner or later; for when a man with a pleasing trick of speech, but of unsound principles, persuades the mob, it is a serious evil to the state; whereas all who give sound and sensible advice on all occasions, if not immediately useful to the state, yet prove so afterwards. And this is the light to regard a party leader; for the position is much the same in the case of an orator and a man in the office….”

While he expresses his admiration for the people he thinks are the backbone of the society,

“…another then stood up, not fair to outward view perhaps but a brave man, rarely coming in contact with the town or the gatherings in the market-place; a yeoman, one of a class who form the only real support of our country; shrewd enough, and eager to grapple with the arguments; his character without a blemish, his walk in life beyond reproach. He moved that they should crown Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, for showing his willingness to avenge a father in the blood of a wicked profligate who was preventing men from taking up arms and going on Foreign Service; ‘since,’ said he, ‘those, who remain behind, corrupt and seduce our wives left as keepers of our homes.’ To the better sort his words carried no conviction…”

“…Yet, for all he seemed to speak so fair, he should not persuade the assembly; but that villain who spoke in favor of slaying you and your brother, gained his point by appealing to the mob.”

Euripides wrote Orestes in 408 B.C., only a few years before the end of the Peloponnesian War and Athens’ devastating defeat from Sparta. Historians have been arguing about the possible causes of the War and why Athens lost the War. One argument claims that, after the death of Pericles from the plague during the war, the new leaders were lacking in “reason and moderation” so characteristic of the earlier era. One of those leaders was Cleon, characterized by his contemporaries as a warmonger and demagogue, who was known for his ability to manipulate the Athenian assembly with his eloquent speeches and his superb use of the Sophist techniques. Euripides’ villain in the play is believed to be Cleophon, the demagogue of Athens, who was a Thracian.

Euripides ends the conundrum of how to administer justice in the Orestes play by invoking the supernatural and having Apollo intervene and administer justice. It’s a disappointing end and it seems like Euripides was running out of ideas!

Could it be that Euripides was expressing his view here about the state of affairs in Athens and that the city was doomed with the leaders it had at that time?

Could we speculate that Euripides, in essence, was saying that “Athens is in such a mess and that there is no leader around with good judgment and reason to lead out of this mess and only the Gods can save us?”