Comparative Essay: The Eumenides and The Apology Diandra Giroletti

Whilst different in many ways, Aeschylus (c. 524 455 BCE) The Eumenides and
Platos (c. 427 347 BCE) The Apology also share many similarities. These
comparisons and dissimilarities span across the themes, content, and aims
conveyed throughout these two texts, as well as the socio-historic context of
both Aeschylus and Plato, and of society at the time of their creation.
To begin analysing these two texts, we must first look to their creators. How did
their history impact on what they were writing? How did their lives and the lives
of those around them, provoke them to write such great pieces of work? Lets
begin with Aeschylus born around 524 BCE in the city of Eleusis near Athens, he
participated in a number of great military battles, notably the Battle of Marathon
during the Persian Wars. However, this was not why he is regarded as such a
famous figure throughout history. Rather, he is observed as such as he was the
first of the three great playwrights of the Periclean Age (5 th century BCE)
Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. He introduced many new aspects to the
increasingly popular and entertaining Greek theatre, including the use of better
costumes, back drops, and the addition of a third actor. Based on the time in
which Aeschylus lived, we can make a few assumptions as to why and how he
wrote his Oresteia trilogy. For starters, unlike Plato, he lived to see the rise of the
Athenian Golden Age, whilst Plato merely witnessed its downfall and eventual
destruction. Also, perhaps Aeschylus felt inclined to base the characters of his
story as those returning home from the great Trojan War (in reference to
Agamemnon), given that he could draw on his own personal experiences as a
result of his participation in the Persian Wars. It can also be assumed that, as a
result of his participation in the glorious Persian Wars, he felt the need to try and
bring some of the glory of his life to the scrolls of his work. The dramatic
incorporation of the gods in his work brings his war glory to the ever-popular
Athenian theatre in ways which sought to entertain his fellow citizens during
their own age of glory. Now, Plato on the other hand, dedicated his work [in a
way] to his mentor Socrates. It may be argued that he strove to show his own
followers the man who sparked his thought process and brought philosophy to
fruition, in a manner of speaking. In doing so, he was also able to show his own
followers a little of his own background and status, for want of a better word.
Although written at the end of the Golden Age the fall of Athens the manner
in which Plato writes is far too eloquent to be the work of any ordinary person in
Athens, indicating that Plato was indeed from a wealthy, aristocratic family. In
addition to his educational status shining through in his work, we can also
observe his dedication to and respect held for his mentor, Socrates. Given that
the text is almost entirely a speech of Socrates defence [against the accusations
brought against him], it serves to paint Socrates in a favourable light and makes
his accusers (Meletus, Antyus, and Lycon) look foolish, just as we believe
Socrates used to make people feel in obliterating their arguments and opinions.
Unlike Aeschylus, Plato is not known for any glorious act other than being a
follower of Socrates, whilst, as previously mentioned, Aeschylus is known not
only for his renovations of the world of Greek drama, but also for his bravery and
participation in the Persian Wars. Plato would have only been a baby or toddler

when the war between Athens and Sparta was occurring, and so he had no desire
to bring any of the extravagance and glory that comes with war to his writings,
allowing him to focus on the pitfalls of the Athenian democratic regime. It is
Athenian democracy and its corruption which he believes condemns Socrates
and for that, he mocks the regime and all its drawbacks through the words and
criticisms he put in Socrates mouth in his writings of his mentor. It is through all
this which we can see that it is not only the two texts which vary a great deal,
but also their authors.
In addition to the two authors sharing a great many differences, the content of
their inquiries are also markedly different. Aeschylus The Eumenides is about
the trial of Orestes son of Agamemnon over the murder of his mother,
Clytemnestra. He is hunted by the Furies who desire his death as a means of
retribution, no matter that the god Apollo sanctioned Orestes actions. This
particular text serves as only one of the founding myths of the Athenian judicial
court at the Areopagus [Crag of Ares] and, likewise, the method for carrying out
court trials from then on. Platos The Apology on the other hand, is a speech of
Socrates defence against his the accusations thrust upon him those of impiety,
believing in other daimonia and gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. With
few exceptions in which Meletus speaks, The Apology is essentially a monologue
carried out by Socrates by twisting the words and allegations of his accusers and
showing them in a logical manner, that he is not in fact guilty of these charges,
whilst angering his accusers and the jury in the process of doing so, and making
them look like fools. Unlike Aeschylus Orestes, Socrates is found guilty at the
end of his trial and is sentenced to death [by hemlock]. In providing a brief
explanation of what occurs in the text, we can now look for the differences and
similarities in these two texts. Firstly, there is the manner in which both men
carry out their defence. Whilst Socrates conducts several very long speeches,
explaining why the charges against him are unjust and unwarranted, Orestes
allows the god Apollo to act as both his lawyer and his witness. In doing so,
Orestes himself says very little, other than admit that he did kill his mother at
the request of Apollo, allowing the young god to speak on his behalf. Socrates
on the other hand, call no witnesses to defend him, but rather quotes and refers
to friendly members of the jury who bear no ill will towards him. Perhaps the
greatest difference of all between the two trials lies in the juries. Orestes is
believed to have only had a jury of 10 whilst Socrates is thought to have had 500
jurors deciding his fate. The two differ greatly and may also be seen as having a
huge impact on the variations of the trial outcomes. In having so few people
judging him, Orestes jury was able to only vote individually rather than being
coerced into a group. By means of clarification, his jury was not large enough to
form cliques and group opinions as may have been done in Socrates case.
Moreover, Orestes jury did not know him and so they were able to decide his
fate in an unbiased manner; one in which their decision-making was not affected
by previous prejudices and opinions as was the case of Socrates. Orestes and his
jury had never met before, nor had Orestes ever met the Furies before, meaning
that all held no personal enmity for him and allowed him to plead his case.
Socrates, on the other hand, was very well known as a pest to society, meaning

that his jury didnt truly listen to his arguments, but merely based their decision
on their preconceived notions and opinions of the man before them.
Furthermore, the two texts differ greatly in the protagonists methods of pleading
not guilty Socrates presents a long, rational argument to the jury as to why
the charges against him could not be true, whilst Orestes appeals to divine
providence, claiming that his actions were justified as they were sanctioned by
the god Apollo. On that note, there is one tremendous similarity between the two
in that both trials essentially stem from the advice of Apollo. Apollo is the one
who told Orestes that he should kill his mother, and Orestes listened. Likewise, it
is believed that a friend of Socrates once went to the Delphic Oracle and asked
is there anyone more wise than Socrates?, to which the Oracle replied a
resounding no. Socrates, at first did not believe this and went to verify such
claims, only to leave believing that he had been set the task by Apollo, to find
out who in the world is truly wise, and to make those who wrongly believe
themselves to be wise to see that fact. It is with this that we can see that whilst
there are many differences within the two texts, there are also a few similarities
shared within their contents.
On a simpler note, we can now look at the aims of Aeschylus and Plato in writing
these two texts. Beginning with Aeschylus, we can observe that his play was for
entertainment purposes. Written for the Festival of Dionysia, in which it won first
prize [along with the rest of the trilogy], The Eumenides works to depict the
hopes for the Athenian judicial system during the Golden Age. Meanwhile, Platos
Apology is for educational purposes to ensure that people remember his
mentor as the great man which he believed Socrates to be and to depict not only
the historic event of Socrates trial and death, but also to preserve the idea and
belief that Socrates was, in fact, wrongly and unjustifiably accused and was killed
for no reason other than the people of Athens believed him to be a public
nuisance. Whilst Aeschylus depicts the hopes and dreams for the Athenian
judicial system, Plato attempts to attempt its pitfalls and what it actually became
a place where corrupt people could falsely accuse innocent people of
unjustifiable charges based on personal gains and desires. Whilst both texts still
depict public opinions, it is Aeschylus which depicts the way Athenian juries
should have been unbiased, without prejudice, and fair whilst Plato depicts
the manner in which it resulted corrupt, jaundiced, unjust, and unfair.
Throughout these two texts there are also a number of themes which both
correspond to one another, ant d then differ greatly. Lets begin with The
Eumenides a major theme in the text is that of the transformation in the way in
which justice is served. Aeschylus has attempted to depict the change from
justice being achieved in a personal and emotional manner, to being achieved in
a public manner decided by the community. We can see this in the way in which
Orestes goes from killing his own mother and taking matters of justice into his
own hands, to having his fate decided by a small group of strangers who listen
attentively to his pleas of innocence, based on divine providence. This
transformation depicts the manner in which, at that point in history, law courts
were being created by the people, and being accepted by them as authoritative

institutions which would allow Athens to further prosper. In doing so, this theme
also links in with the idea of changing from explaining everything as being an act
of the cosmos, and rather using rationality and logic to explain all manner of
things. This particular idea can be seen in The Apology for Socrates, whilst
defending the notion that he still believes in the gods, carries his arguments for
defence in a logical and thought-out manner. Both texts also contrast to one
another when we explore the theme of the greatness of Athens. Of course,
Aeschylus texts would be a direct representation of such a theme, for it was
written during a time in which Athens was flourishing and prosperous. It was
written during the Golden Age, of which Aeschylus had seen its rise and as now
actively participating in it by adding to the growth and development of Greek
tragedy and drama. Plato, on the other hand, merely saw the end of the
Periclean Age. He saw Athens fall and he saw how corrupt and hubristic it had
become. It is because of this that he had such a degrading and hateful view of
Athenian democracy, whilst Aeschylus had only praise to offer when speaking of
Athens. In addition to this, both plays also correspondingly look at the concept of
justice, and whether it was rightly delivered in both texts. Aeschylus looks at the
notion of the Athenian courts dealing justice that is fair and deserved. This is
depicted in the case of Orestes whereby, although he should not have killed his
mother, he believed himself to be doing the right thing for his actions were
sanctioned by a god. This situation again poses the question what is right and
what is wrong?. Apparently Aeschylus believed that Orestes deserved to be
determined not guilty even though he did kill his mother. He was justified in his
actions, and whilst jury gave a hung, it shows that they were deciding fairly and
without the pressures of one another weighing in on how they passed their votes.
Plato on the other hand, looks more at the idea of justice being served to satisfy
personal needs and desires. From the text, we can deduce that not only did
Socrates accusers and members of the jury know of his past actions, but they
also used these so-called past indiscretions as a means to drag him to court
and have the philosopher put to death. Again, we can see that Aeschylus has
depicted the justice system which he believed would be established as a result of
the development and rise of the power of Athens; whilst Plato has described the
way that the so-called justice system actually functioned, based on corruption
and personal gain.