Tragic Choices and Justice in Euripides’ Orestes

Abstract

Interest in classical studies remains strong,
including in law, where jurists are perplexed by the
growing demand for cases referred to, since Aristotle, as tragic choices; their academies, following the crisis in post-war legal theory (Linhares, 2010), have been engaging in open dialogue with poets. This interdisciplinarity, exemplarily conceived by Nussbaum (2009), will be explored in this work. We believe that such studies can be enriched by readings from comparative literature, as established by Schmidt (2009), drawing on literary texts (ancient and contemporary) for principles of ethical, legal and political life. With this focus, a study of Euripides’ Orestes will be conducted, focusing specifically on the idea of justice experienced by the young man; namely, the trial for matricide and the loss
of trust in the gods and the court. The methodology,
in the form of a narrative-argumentative exploration,
analyzed and compared the play with specialized criticism, legal doctrine on guilt, and Nussbaum’s notion of justice (“capabilities approach”). The work presents a classic example of a tragic choice: Orestes must choose between avenging his father or forgiving his mother, Clytemnestra, for the murder of Agamemnon, his father; he then accepts his predestination supposedly established by the gods, resists misfortune and assumes responsibility for matricide; however, strictly speaking, it cannot be said that the agent is guilty. He was encouraged and supported by Apollo. We conclude that this is a play that has much to contribute today, not only because it describes an authentic tragic case, but also because it poses other challenges to contemporary moral and legal thinking.