Punishing Crime at the Expense of Relationship - Essay Example

Thesis statement: Punishing crime at the expense of relationship Introduction The Eumenides, written by Aeschylus is the number three part in his Orestia. The Orestia was a collection of the plays he had written and the eumenides was just a part of it. Aschylus was a renowned figure in matters of drama in the western part of the world. He wrote many plays but to date only seven are left after the other got lost in the course of history. In his Orestia Aeschylus gives us a vision which is beautiful, unique and whole. The constitution of Athens on the other hand is a name given to any one of the two texts from antiquity. One text was associated to Xenophon but probably done by his associate while the other is attributed to Aristotle himself or his student. The text associated to Aristotle is unique since it is not counted as part of corpus Aristotelicum. It disappeared until the discovery of part of it in Egypt in 1879 upon which its publication was done in 1880. This paper examines the clash between politics and kinship in the eumenides and the Athenian constitution by Aristotle. The constitution of Athens by Aristotle displays a contrast between what is expected of kinsmen and the interests of politics. A clash is presented because the interests of politics completely disregard the existence of kinship in the society where the constitution was being executed. Politicians and leaders according to the constitution were chosen from among the tribes’ people. This meant that they were given authority over their tribes’ men and women, their kinsmen and their relatives. The constitution required that every tribe should have a king and the Neucrari who were officers ruling the Neucracies. Areopagus was a council made up of people from the various tribes appointed to every archon Fagles (1979). Members of the Areopagus had the responsibility of punishing or fining offenders in their duty of watching over state affairs. They guarded the constitution of Solon. Apparently, it is common for people to treat their kins with favor and special treatment. The possibility of giving personal punishment or fining a relative, tribesman or family members presented a dilemma to the persons responsible for this duty. Political office demanded that they do it in order for them to retain their political positions. There were evident clashes since seeking to preserve and execute the laws of the constitution at the expense of the relationship with their own relatives was a big challenge Rhodes (1993). The Neucrari were involved in receiving and spending money which probably was collected from their people. As much as they were expected by law to perform this duty, their families, tribe’s men, women and their relatives were suffering. In these duties they in one way or another exploited them. It is not clear whether they enjoyed their responsibilities or not but it can be reasoned out that they could have been felling a level of discomfort in those positions Rhodes (1993). Their people could have had many expectations of them at the time of taking office. These expectations consisted of getting cover from those of their own in power whenever they were on the wrong side of the law. This definitely put pressure on them Fagles (1979). The Areopagus had another duty of carrying out trials on people who ever made plans of overthrowing the state. Such fellows were impeached through a laid down procedure. The recurring dilemma could again come into play at such times. Since the offenders were most likely the same people from the community the issue of kinship and justice could have arisen in the minds of the members of the Areopagus Rhodes (1993).They had to inflict punishment on the offenders even is they were their closest family members. The issue of kinship was therefore expected not to override the duty of guarding and executing the constitution. Family members or relatives were expected to receive punishment as harsh as they deserved disregarding the fact that they were related to those in authority Rhodes (1993). More laws enacted by Solon demanded that in times of civil war where factions within the tribes were at war all people were expected to fight the rival factions Aeschylus (1953). Those who restrained themselves from fighting were to be stripped of their citizenship and denied anything to do with the state. This was a tough piece of legislation both for the citizens and the politicians. Politicians were supposed to accept and implement it upon each other and upon their kinsmen and women. By virtue of the fact that they were holding political offices they had to follow these rules. If their family members or relatives were caught breaking this law they had to revoke their citizenship and cut them off from the community. This could have been more painful and expensive compared to the gains of being in power and authority. It presented a dilemma and a clash in the interests of both requirements Collard (2008). In eumenides the leaders and those in power had clashes as well with their requirements as leaders in office. In this text people are overwhelmed by the desire for power and government and elevate it above kinship and blood relationships. Aegisthus and Claytemestra were killed by the Orestes. They had installed themselves as the rulers of Argos unlawfully. Claytemestra kills the King because she was hungry of power. After the king’s death she decides to take over power with Aegisthus. In this we see that her political interests clash with her requirement to protect her kinsmen. She values power more than sparing the king’s life Fagles and Stanford (1979). Her new lover Aegisthus with which she seeks to rule is not even perturbed by the murder that his lover commits. He seems to support her ill intentions since both of them illegally take over the throne. Orestes also pursues and kills Aegisthus and Claytemestra for the reason of avenging the death of the king. Death is used as a punishment by those who want to take up power. Their values of life and relationships are lower than the way they value power. The interest of seeking to secure power and execute the responsibilities of a leader, clash with the desire to spare and protect the lives of those who are close to those in power. The resultant effect is death for those who are the victims of the others seeking to revenge Collard (2008). In the text Apollo seeks to know why the Furies could not follow the killer of her husband. They tell her that Clytemnestra did not pour kindred blood. Apollo does not agree to this because she thinks the society does not value blood relationships. She thinks the society is founded on social laws that value institutions made by man such as government and marriage Aeschylus (1953). The society placed much emphasis on government and devalued the relationship between kinsmen. This was the reason why the murders and the curses placed on families took place. The balance between power and the bond between relatives and kinsmen is the main challenge for the rulers in this text. Clymenestra betrays the original human institutions as Apollo laments that the man made institutions have created different bonds that go against the original biological bonds. The different bonds made are the ones between subject and ruler and husband and wife Fagles and Stanford (1979). The furies in the text do not understand how a man can have the audacity to kill his own mother. Definitely they expect that according to tradition one should protect blood relations and choose to forego any other thing. The Areopagus council which was concerned with solving murder cases was destroyed as an old aristocratic rule. This is an indication that murder cases were no longer taken seriously and hence punishment was not vetted upon the guilty. This shows that human relations and kinship bonds could possibly be undermined without care. Government was possibly elevated above any other blood bonds Aeschylus (1953). Conclusion In conclusion evidence has been presented in this paper for the existence of a clash between politics and kinship in the two texts discussed. The Athenian constitution by Aristotle and the euminides by Aeschylus both display a kind of contrast and clash between the interests of the political class and kinship. In both of the texts the leaders and those in power are faced with a challenge of whether they should spare their kinsmen and women or treat them according to what the law or their political requirements. In the Athenian constitution the Areopagus and other political leaders were faced with the choice of punishing their relatives who had disobeyed the law or sparing them and breaking the law. In the euminides the characters value human made institutions as opposed to the original biological institutions. Incidences of murder in the text display a lost balance between blood relations and the love for power and husband wife relations. Bibliography Fagles F. and W.B Stanford(1979). A Reading of the Oresteia: The Serpent and the Eagle, Introduction to Penguin Classics edition of the Oresteia, Aeschylus I (1953).Oresteia – Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Eumenides. Grene, David and Lattimore, Richard, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago, Collard, C. (2008). Introduction to and translation of Oresteia (202) Oxford University Press Rhodes P. J. (1993). A Commenthorseary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford University Press), 1981,: introduction, pp. 2-5. Blass F. in Hermes 15(1880:366-82; the text was identified as Aristotle's Athenaion Politeia by T. Bergk in 1881. Mitchell J. and Caspari M. 2001, (eds.), p. xxvii, A History of Greece: From the Time of Solon to 403 B.C.", George Grote, Routledge Rhodes, P. (1981). A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. George Grote, Routledge Read More