The audience wonders if Orestes had the right to kill his mother and waits for the poet to give an answer. 

Sophocles and other tragic poets have not always offered an answer (a given answer).

In Homer’s work, the son’s (Orestes) vengeance for Agamemnon’s murder is mentioned several times.

The Twelve Olympians consider the murder of Aegisthus a fine example of a son’s devotion. They don’t say much about the death of Clytemnestra.

As for Aeschylus, many people think that the poet approves of matricide, since Orestes is acquitted in the end because his act was necessary for the preservation of society.

In his play “The Eumenides”, Aeschylus acquitted Orestes not because he doesn’t consider him responsible for his actions but because he wanted to stop the vicious circle of blood-spilling. As we mentioned in a previous chapter about the Old Law (Trial), the killer would have to be punished by another killer: an eye for an eye.

Aeschylus, by including Orestes’ trial in the last play of his trilogy, puts an end to this strife and says:

“Stop killing each other, justice is the one who will judge criminals”.

The goddess Athena, mainly the goddess of Wisdom and Justice and the daughter of Zeus, is presiding over this court. Euripides, in his play “Electra”, has a totally different opinion than Aeschylus , and the heroes Electra and Orestes, having committed the crime of matricide, cannot find satisfaction in this act of vengeance.

There were also some other poets like Stesichorus (a lyric poet) who found nothing ethically wrong with this matricide. As far as we can tell from the few existing fragments of his work “Oresteia”, Stesichorus praised this act and called it a victory of the oppressed over their oppressors. 

Sophocles could not possibly have ignored Clytemnestra’s death, let alone omit it from his play. In the end, which point of view does Sophocles agree with?

1) With the point of view of Aeschylus, so that he justifies Apollo’s order as a decision deriving from a son’s higher duty to his father, rather than his mother?

2) With the point of view of Euripides, so that he places human passions (feelings) above the gods?

Perhaps he traces a path of his own and tries to discover a new solution.

Orestes has to deal with a dilemma. Should he avenge his father’s death, as the gods dictate (Apollo), or should he respect his mother, as Plato suggests. Plato thought that matricide, under any circumstances, is a monstrous act and no punishment fits this terrible crime. It’s an unjustifiable act, even if the killer was acting under the influence of an uncontrollable passion.

Sophocles may not offer a solution in the way that Aeschylus does, nor does he present the heroes of the play discussing if vengeance is right or wrong, however, a number of insinuations in the play urge us to think about the consequences of this drama.

These consequences are presented in a dramatic way and we end up with this question: What are the dramatic characters doing and saying?

The conclusion may not be as clear as that of Aeschylus it is, however, satisfactory.

One by one, the dramatic characters of this play express their expectation that the gods will assist this vengeance (lines 82, 110-118, 173-175, 411, 626, 637-659, 792, 825). All these characters believe that the gods will offer their assistance because they are punishers and protectors of the murder victims. We would say that Sophocles carefully creates the defense of this matricide, because he considers it to be moral, religious and legal.

This is also demanded by the human justice, which is in turn authorized by the gods.

Euripides asks a very serious question:

“Is it really right, under any circumstances, that someone should kill his mother, and why?

If in fact Clytemnestra should die, couldn’t the perpetrator of her murder be someone else?”

In Sophocles’ play, Electra hears the untrue story of Orestes’ death and decides to finish off the vengeance herself. 

However, in the end, Sophocles does not preserve this ending. Why? Why does he change the turn of events? Isn’t Electra, because of her nature, capable of accomplishing the will of the gods?

The couple that committed the murder was placed above the law because of the fact that they were not content only with the crime but also, they usurped the dead man’s power. So the law itself (which, as we can see, was created by themselves as rulers of the state) cannot be turned against them.

In consequence, the act of exterminating the killers cannot be an “inside job”, but it falls on people that they cannot control and that are capable of changing things.

When the power is in the hands of people that show no respect for the law, justice can be served only by people that have the will and the duty of doing what could, of course, be considered as a crime.

Sophocles reaches this conclusion, having already created the character of Clytemnestra and portraying her as a woman who is no longer a mother. He created her character in such a way that Orestes does not feel any strong guilt about killing her.

Electra – always according to the text - says that she no longer considers Clytemnestra as her mother, since her actions are in no way maternal. To sum up, we would say that she does not deserve her children’s affection and respect, because:

1) She killed Agamemnon.

2) She usurped his power.

3) She appointed to her lover the post of her murdered husband Agamemnon.

4) Aegisthus sits on the dead man’s throne.

5) He wears his clothes.

6) He offers libations on the hearth where Agamemnon was murdered and he sleeps in his bed.

7) Clytemnestra organizes monthly feasts in memory of the murder, meaning that she praises her crime. She treats badly not all of her children but only those that have a different opinion and show it with their attitude and their behavior.

We understand that Democracy is abolished. Another sign of her bad behavior towards her children is this: As soon as she hears about Orestes’ death, her motherly love fights with fear and hate.

However, after this inner battle, evil wins. She believes that she is now free to pass the remaining of her days in peace, free of the threat that distressed her.

The situation that Sophocles has created is that when injustice has reached the highest point.

Electra realizes that she is wrong but she thinks that her acts are inevitable. She has no other choice.  Electra and Orestes are obliged to commit this crime because of the terrible situation created by the original crime of their mother.

Sophocles accepts this evil act. Of course, in no way does he try to belittle this evil but also he thinks that duty is necessary and fair. This terrible situation can be changed only by terrible means.

In conclusion of this chapter, I provide an answer to a question addressed to me by an actor. Why is the play called “Electra” and not “Orestes”, since he is the one who kills the two usurpers and the one who takes the power afterwards? 

Electra is the one who has lived in the presence of evil for many years and not Orestes.

In order to give an answer to this question, I quote the following dialogue. I also explain my point of view, as a director, concerning “Electra-People” (λαός=people), since she is being referred to elsewhere by the name of “Laodice” (λαός=People + δίκη=Trial)

Orestes: I cannot hold my tongue anymore... Is this the famous face of Electra?

Electra: Yes, the one that has become like this...

Orestes: Alas! Poor woman! What a horrible disaster... Oh, body! You are ruined, in an indecent and unholy way!

Electra: Since I am living with killers.

Orestes: Of whom?

Electra: Of my father; and I am forced to work for them.

Orestes: Who forces you?

Electra: She is called “mother”. She is not a mother, though.

Orestes: What does she do? Does she insult or does she hit with her hands?

Electra: She uses her hands, she insults, and many more.

Orestes: Is there anyone helping you?

Electra: Noone.

EFTYCHIA LOIZIDE