Aeschylus’ Oresteia and the Problem of the Tragic Nature of Man

The signifi cance of the ancient tragedies is still relevant. Their constant inspiration for education lies, among other things, in their contribution to the issue of fi nding the essence of human nature. Aeschylus’ work is one of the key milestones in literature, but it is also an example of the formation of specifi c (non-philosophical) answers to the question of man and his essence. The aim of the analysis of the trilogy Oresteia is to present selected aspects of this thinking which refl ects and foreshadows problems in the philosophy of the 5th century BC. The study also focuses on the instrumental value of tragedy. Tragedy (not systematically, but more eff ectively and suggestively) represents one aspect of human nature – homo tragicus. Aeschylus’ answer to the question of human nature is also related to his emphasis on the importance of law and justice which should be the only ruler in the community.

change and social criticism. 4 However, an equally important aspect of Greek tragedy is the existence of a tragic hero -an individual whose identity and nature is determined by a tragic context. Regardless of the anthropological signifi cance of theatre, ancient drama itself presents to us the general contribution of the culture of tragedy and drama to the debate on human nature even before philosophy. For prosaic reasons, this aspect of the view of human nature is not something that appears automatically in drama theory. Th e fi rst systematic thinking theorist of tragedy and theatre, Aristotle, stopped understanding theatre as a performance in the modern anthropological sense, an echo of the ritual world, a world where the profane and the sacred meet. He sees tragedy as an eff ective tool that cleanses the excess of the passions. Th is trap, into which Aristotle draws all his followers due to his authority, infl uenced the understanding of theatre theory and tragedy until the postmodern theatre period. 5 Jean-Pierre Vernant emphasises that tragedy emerged in Greece at the end of the sixth century. Within a hundred years the tragic seam had already been exhausted and when Aristotle in the fourth century set out, in his Poetics, to establish the theory of tragedy, he no longer understood tragic man who had, so to speak, become a stranger. 6 It is precisely the tragic nature of human existence that ancient drama teaches us and for which it continues to be relevant today. Th e tragedies that stem from interpersonal relationships are no diff erent from the problems of today's man. As Alessandro D' Avenia points out, the essence of tragedy is the current presence of tragic choices only. We cannot escape them, and we have to choose. 7 Th is aspect goes beyond the perspective of Aristotle's thinking about tragedy as an activity that mediates only catharsis. At the same time, Vernant implicitly emphasises the present confl ict of ancient theatre and drama as one paradigm of the education of and discussion about human nature with the advent of the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, and fi nally Aristotle. 8 In the ancient playwrights, the authors of tragedies and comedies, we refl ect on those concepts and problems that we encounter in the works of contemporary and later philosophers, but also in the whole spectrum of humanistically oriented psychology and pedagogy. 9 But why should we focus on the work of ancient playwrights, when problems that are only hinted at in tragedies are solved in the fi eld of philosophy more systematically and more precisely? Aft er all, it is philosophy which gives us answers to the question about man. An analysis of Aeschylus' 4 Cf. Charles SEGAL, Divák a posluchač, in: Řecký člověk a jeho svět, ed. Jean-Pierre VERNANT, Praha: Vyšehrad, 2005, pp. 183-185.
According to Segal, several socially critical problems can be clearly identifi ed in tragedies. We can mention a few: gender issues (examples are Aeschylus' Oresteia, Euripides' female heroines like Medea or the Bacchae), the idealisation of a rational ruler (King Oedipus by Sophocles), criticism of tyrannical and wayward ways of governing or violent politics (Th e Trojan Women by Euripides). Th e ancient tragedy, the text of the drama or comedy as well as the theatrical performance are a refl ection of the problems of the polis. Segal emphasises that it was a tragedy that 'was able to symbolically develop contemporary debates on major moral and political issues on stage' (p. 183 10 2020 selected work reveals that, in addition to myth, the world of ancient drama and theatre has the ambition to answer such a question. Contrary to philosophy, however, the world of drama is much more eff ective. Th e reach of art, doubted by Plato, was and still is much greater than the words of a philosopher. Regardless of this tension, art and philosophy are united by the eff ort to refl ect on reality. Th e subject of the following parts of the text is an analysis of Aeschylus' trilogy Oresteia. Th is work -albeit a tragedy framed by ancient myth -shows the artist's ambition to answer questions which are typical of philosophy: what causes human misery -tragedy -and what is the key to the ability to face it. Th e fate of its heroes illustrates the playwright's pre-philosophical examination of the existential situation of man (free/unfree), his nature (rational/irrational), and the meaning of his existence (social creature). 10 Th ese selected areas represent a context that frames the question of human nature not only for Aeschylus, but for Sophocles and Euripides as well. 11

Aeschylus and the Freedom of Subjects
Regardless of the debate on the development of tragedy and the comparison of individual works, their content, and formal specifi cs in the classics of ancient tragedy, it can be said that Aeschylus is the fi rst of the great playwrights whose work contains practical confl ict. Th e term was coined by Martha C. Nussbaum, and she defi nes it as follows: 'Greek tragedy shows good people being ruined because of things that just happen to them, things that they do not control. Th is is certainly sad; but it is an ordinary fact of human life, and no one would deny that it happens. ' 12 Since Aeschylus, the Greek tragedy has taught us to deal with this fact which cannot be solved by faith, nor by intellectual analysis. Th is practical confl ict is the already mentioned essential motif of tragedy which is not defi ned so suggestively in any ancient culture. For comparison, there is the exclamation of the Jewish prophet Jeremiah (Jer 17:5-8) which is an example of contrast thinking. Th e Greek tragedies and the prophetic exclamation of Jeremiah are a refl ection of two diff erent cultures and religious beliefs. Jeremiah emphasises the direct causality between human will, human free choice, and subsequent action and the will of God who lets these tragic trials happen. For a believing Jew and later a Christian, however, this situation of letting something happen is linked to purpose. Unhappiness is always interpreted with regard to providence and justice, and thus hope. 13 Th e purpose of the misfortune encountered by biblical fi gures such as Job or Jeremiah is to convert the sinner, respectively the demonstration of providence. God blesses or punishes according to the situation, that is, an individual either behaves or not in accordance with the covenant. However, there is no trace of such an intended purpose in ancient drama and tragedy. Th ere are simply tragedies. Th ey have no purpose; they do not lead to any knowledge of transcendence which overlaps tragedy and gives it meaning. In addition to the banality of evil, we have the banality of tragedy. However, this 10 Discussing human nature at the moment of the turning point in Greek culture is not only a broader philosophical-literary problem, but also a living philosophical problem to this day. Th e problem of nature is framed by the extreme positions of essentialism with the postulate of unchanging nature and the opposite position of extreme social constructivism. Between these two positions, there is room for discussion about, so to speak, the hard core of immutable characteristics and the coverage that forms the variable and cultivable characteristics. 10 2020 motif, which is fully expressed especially in Sophocles' work, can be seen in Aeschylus' and Euripides' work. It characterises their thinking about human nature, about man as a homo tragicus. Th e tragedy of human existence is not something distant in a historical point of view. On the contrary, tragicism and related positions such as Kafk aesque absurdity or bizarreness are, as D' Avenia suggests, a natural part of everyday life. 14 Th is is the core of suggestiveness and the eff ect of tragedies depicting practical confl ict. 15 Classical works, such as tragedies, are as close to existential questions as works of modern literature, because the author and the reader are the same subject -man. Th ey depict experience in the form of works of art which cannot be paraphrased. Th e eff ectiveness of these works not only supports our imagination. Th e dramas show the story of one type of generalisable human experience to the performance viewer or the text reader. Subjective experience becomes a part of the whole spectrum of one set of experience -the experience of man and his existence. Th e range of historical answers to this existential starting point (whether we understand tragic practical confl ict as a way-out without the end or, vice versa, as something that has a solution) can be found in various philosophical-anthropological, religious-spiritual, and ethical theories. According to Erika Fischer-Lichte, Aeschylus (525/524-456/455 BC, the fi rst of the classical ancient playwrights) and his work present the birth of what can be described as a dramatic expression of the ideal of emerging and future polis and related circumstances. In the case of Aeschylus' tragedies, the practical confl ict of tragic heroes, who decide between diff erent tragic choices, is set in the context of thinking about justice. Naturally, this leads to questions: what does justice have to do with the character of human nature, and in what sense can art teach us about this practical confl ict?

Th e Hero as a Free and Fair 'Slave' of the Polis
Tragedy originates in the fate of the human being. Despite this burden of slavery and the lack of freedom, Aeschylus uses the space of his drama to build the ideal of a being who faces the slavery of predestination, curses, and destiny. Such a being acts with tragic consequences, but his actions are typically human. At the same time, Aeschylus outlines a space in which it is possible to moderate and partially eliminate the impact of tragedy. It is a justly administered polis. Oresteia is an example of the connection between the subject of tragic confl ict and the context of the debate on justice. 16 It is a trilogy that consists of several separate dramatic units. Th ey contain one specifi c myth, namely the genesis and history of the curse of Atreus' house or family. 17 Th e trilogy consists of Agamemnon, Th e Libation Bearers, and Eumenides. 18 Concerning form and content, Aeschylus bases his work on traditional epics and the art of poetry. However, his elaboration of older mythological stories is, in many ways, paradigmatic. Th e search for the nature of law (nomos) and the ideal of justice (diké), which one already fi nds in Hesiod or Homer, is clearly present in Aeschylus' tragedies as well. However, unlike older myths, his work is enriched with specifi c details which are not only for formal decoration, but, on the contrary, serve to explicitly point out what the playwright wants to emphasise. Regardless of the interpretation itself, these details can be recognised and refl ected upon. Details concerning, in particular, the spread of the Atreus myth divert the mythical story (as presented in the older literature) and promote new political social solutions to confl icts. 19 His work is characterised by original formal elements such as dramatic dialogue, a noble type of recital, and the introduction of the character of the second actor. Th is brings a radical formal novelty into the theatre performance. 20 However, something more important than form is refl ected in his work. To understand the Greek culture of the late 6 th and 5 th centuries BC, but also to understand the already mentioned problems of human nature, the political context seems to be the key factor. Aeschylus wrote his work at a time when one era of political and social development of Greek culture was coming to an end and another was just beginning. With the end of the Greco-Persian wars, trade fl ourished. As a fi nancial aristocracy had been arising, fi nances no longer accumulated in the hands of the families. With his tragedies, the playwright refl ects Heraclitus' view that life is a struggle in which there is a constant transformation of opposites. 21 Th e monarchical and oligarchical establishments based on the families ended their development at that time. 22 Th e value of equality and the rule of equals also characterise the aristocratic-oligarchic elite, but the democratically oriented current is dominated by a more general and horizontal understanding of the ideal of equality (isonomy). Vernant points out that in the 6 th century BC, there is a radical change in the understanding of the ideal of equality. Before that time, it was understood in the narrower political context of the ruling aristocracy. Th e change consists in the fact that the ideal of equality was not refl ected in the idea of equality of 'more equal' only, that is, aristocracy, but it shows itself in the equality of all, more widely understood free people. Th is change is the result of complex social and cultural relationships. One of them, though, is prosaic and symbolically refl ects the radicality of change. It is about democratising the military and transforming military strategy. During the 8 th and 7 th centuries BC, there was a strategic economic and social transformation of the army and the associated demanding capital expenditures for the cavalry, a signifi cant component of the military strategy of the monarchy and aristocracy. While in the older way of leading also a social space in which the individual fulfi ls his freedom, meaning, and political identity in the best way. Cf armed confl icts, horses and chariots dominated as a symbol of political power, in the period of the 7 th and especially the 6 th century BC, there was a signifi cant transformation of combat strategy, namely a strategic emphasis on infantry and more eff ective phalanx manoeuvres. During the Greco-Persian confl icts, this type of fi ghting proved to be an eff ective response to the demands of both defence and attack. An economically cheaper and militarily more eff ective way of fi ghting, which was tested not only in regional confl icts but also in the clashes of the Greco-Persian wars, became a source of equality not only on the battlefi eld and during the war, but also within the village in peacetime. 23 According to Vernant, Homer's Achilles, dragging Hector's corpse around the walls of Troy, was a hero whose actions were no longer valuable in the time of Aeschylus. Th is way of military heroism ended not only at the moment of the transformation of military strategy, but also hand in hand with the transformation of ancient Greek society in the 6 th century BC. Th e new ideal of heroism and the virtuous warrior was a man in heavy armour bravely fi ghting for the survival or glory of the polis. Th is is the opposite of the individualistic heroism of mythical warriors who were subject to greed and pride (hybris). Th e hoplite, who did not come from an aristocratic family, was recruited from the free citizens of the city, and was the owner of his own armour, was the exact opposite of the mythical hero, whose aristocratic origin itself bore the mark of nobility. Th e hero of the real battlefi eld rejected individualism, and his survival and victory were the victory of the whole phalanx. He was aristocratic -noble and courageous -not by his origin, but by the nobility of ideals that transcend individuality. What was desirable in the new warrior was no longer stubborn passion (thymos) or the pride (hybris) which springs from it. Th e preferable elements were moderation and deliberation (sófrosyné). Th e new hero was characterised by 'perfect self-control, the ability to submit to a common discipline, coolness suppressing instinctive tensions that could disrupt the order of formation' . 24 Th e heroes of the trilogy, by their will to act justly or unjustly, are subject to or resist pride. Th ey become part of the set of consequences which have an impact not only on them, but on the whole community, and the situation can be solved in the context of the polis itself only. Aeschylus was the fi rst of the great playwrights dealing with the ideology of the polis. He promoted those ideals of equality. Th e sanctity of such ideals guaranteed the survival and prosperity of any community. Th e context of the confl ict of diff erent ideas about the form of justice, which results in a practical confl ict, provided him with a space for thoughts. In it, he corrected and moderated the consequences of bad decisions, and, at the same time, he emphasised the ideals that defi ne tragic human nature. Man in any of his tragic moods, chooses and acts within his community. Th is is his nature and it is only thanks to community and being within it that he is destined to be free, and at the same time he really is. 25 23 Th e formation of hoplites armed with relatively unifi ed armament, which consisted of a large shield (hoplon) and a spear, was eff ective precisely because of its ability to close up and manoeuvre as a whole. Th e heavy armament of soldiers limited individualism on the battlefi eld and naturally led to an emphasis on the eff ectiveness of collective manoeuvring.

Curse of Fate or Choice of Curse?
Th e key idea of Aeschylus' trilogy is that the consequences of some kind of choice and action not only aff ect the actor himself, but change the order of things and disrupt the justice of the community. Th e actions of the heroes are not separated from the existence of the community. Th is is why the polis is able to correct the tragic nature of human existence. 26 But are the heroes free, or are they just pieces on the chessboard of destiny? If they are acting freely, what does the free choice that leads to the tragic event stem from? Aeschylus realises that the drama which his heroes rush into lies in their misjudgement, blindness, sinfulness, or simply it is the will of the gods. Each of them decides and chooses on the basis of external and internal circumstances. Although the idea that we are a toy in the hands of the gods is contrary to our idea of the relationship between freedom and justice, it is connected with the understanding of the relationship between the gods and man in ancient religion and also with the meaning of freedom. 27 Th e will of the gods, or any transcendent cause beyond our ability to explain and justify it, is, so to speak, synonymous with the inexplicable tragedy of human destinies. One can only resign oneself and accept the fact that a given destiny is something which one cannot break free from. However, this frustration of ancient man, who lives under the weight of destiny, does not diminish personal responsibility and the limits of human freedom within the restricted possibilities provided by curses or gods. In this tragic situation, which transcends the limits of our rationality or the idea of absolute freedom, Aeschylus -like Sophocles later -tries to illustrate the key idea to the spectator. Th is one stems from the connection between religion and morality. According to Stiebitz, the tragic confl ict and misfortune -sent by the gods to the individual heroes of the tragedies who are seen by us, the readers and the spectators -serve to educate the hero and man in general and to improve one's morality. 28 Th e will of the gods and the justice of this will are in many ways an incomprehensible secret to man, but it still gives direction. Considering the debate on piety, Aeschylus adds something that transcends the external form of religiosity. Even though a person's destiny is unstable, and the gods oft en intervene in it with their motivations which we do not know, one must be able to make the right decision and accept destiny as a challenge. He must seek the most just decision and must act in accordance with divine justice. But how to know justice in the confusion of gods' desires and traditions that refer to gods' laws? What characterises Aeschylus' work on the outside is the confl ict of the concepts of justice and obedience to the law. Th ese are sometimes determined by tradition (duty of vow) and at other times by a specifi c god. 29 Are these justifi cations in confl ict which will be resolved by rational reasoning? Is it a confl ict between a better and a worse concept of justice? Contrary to the hypothesis that this is logically inconsistent internal confl ict in which several conceptions of justice (diké) compete, and which for some interpreters of the trilogy is evidence of the imperfection of form or rather the beginnings of the development of dramatic literature), Martha C. Nussbaum off ers an alternative interpretation. 30 or other formal form of the infl uence of destiny represents what we might call, using the modern Popperian term, metaphysical determinism. Th e relationship between determinism and freedom understood in this way, which, however, does not exclude the moral responsibility of a person for his actions, was already known in ancient philosophy. 26 Like Steibitz, Nussbaum emphasises the importance of the community as a tool that can purify or stabilise corrupt or tragic human nature. Cf Martha C. Nussbaum sees the supposed logical inconsistency as a positive motive, not a mistake. She sees this element, which others perceive as a formal imperfection, as an intuitive expression of a tragic practical confl ict. Several controversial concepts are contradictory only if there is a dichotomous taxonomy on the basis of which one choice is clearly good and the other bad. In Sophocles' Antigone, for example, there is a relatively clear confl ict of justice. Namely, it is the requirement of obedience to the law of the community governed by Creon and the requirement of piety and obedience to the divine law that Antigone chooses to follow. Regardless of the in-depth analysis, the dichotomy of the demands of justice is clearer in Sophocles and is primarily seen as an interpretive key in the case of some of Aeschylus' heroes. Agamemnon's guilt for killing his daughter also seems clearer than the mitigating circumstances he is defending. 31 But what about obedience to two laws which have divine origin and are explicitly required by a god? And how to act in a situation which his son Orestes is in? Th is is not a formally inconsistent literature, but a truly unsolvable problem of the confl ict between the law of revenge and the law of 'conscience' . Orestes must decide between competing demands of which legitimacy is given by the gods themselves. Th e duty to a god and to the law or the murder of the mother. Th at is a dilemma!

Orestes -an Example of a Tragic Hero
For Aeschylus, it is the specifi c choices and subsequent actions of the hero that trigger the practical level of tragic confl ict. In general, and from the point of view of the value of religiousness (eusebia), everyone who does evil must also suff er. Th e act of evil brings a natural need for reaction, and evil cannot remain without retribution. 32 However, Aeschylus brings the theme of the moral dilemmas which the young hero must face at several levels. His problem begins with the murder of his father, his mother's husband and the king. Th is act seeks revenge. However, the murder of the king, father and husband, is only an imaginary beginning. Th e assassination of Agamemnon was brought about by a series of causes that make his killing not only a murder stemming from his wife's personal transgressions, but also the necessary updating of the curse on his family. Orestes faces the duty to avenge his father by punishing the murderers and the dilemma of murdering his own mother. Aeschylus portrays the actors of the tragedy as beings facing more or less unsolvable dilemmas. Th ey stand between the freedom not to obey an order or divination and the obligation to obey a request that stems from tradition, divination, etc. Th eir decisive obedience leads to another part of their fate. Clearly, these demands are presented as dilemmas of justice. However, free choice seems to be in contrast with the fate of the curse over the whole family which stands behind it. None of the heroes is free in the sense in which we understand free human actions, because every hero of the trilogy and his actions appear to be another link in the chain of curses. In absolute terms, everyone is determined, and he just updates the potential for a curse. 33 Is this determination 31 If we place Agamemnon's guilt in the broader context of the myth, his case also seems tragic and unsolvable in many ways. Dodds emphasises the religious reason for Agamemnon's defence and his choices and actions. Given this context, Agamemnon's practical confl ict seems much more burning and unsolvable. Cf. DODDS, Řekové..., pp. 11-35. 32 'Justice turns the wheel. "Word for word, curse for curse be born now, " Justice thunders, hungry for retribution, "stroke for bloody stroke be paid. Th e one who acts must suff er. " Th ree generations strong the word resounds. '  Th e second critical point is the critique of the very way in which they act and the position they hold aft er the emergence of this confl ict. At the level of their lives, there is a discrepancy between their actions, which are determined by the circumstances, but also by an intuitively understood idea of justice. Th is idea is contrary to what they perceive as an obligation to the gods. Nevertheless, they consciously violate a certain type of moral imperative, being orders that are just (not to kill a daughter, not to kill a husband, not to kill a mother). Tragic nature then results precisely from the fact that they choose the supposed solution over the insolvability of tragedy. Each of the heroes, Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, and their son Orestes, act with the knowledge that they will suff er. Each of them is intuitively aware of the dilemma between objective norms and subjective desire. Even if their choice is supported by divine will, this still applies. In order to be able to march with his army to Troy, Agamemnon kills his daughter. He knows he should not do it, but he does it. 34 His wife Clytemnestra kills the returned tyrant, her lawful husband and rightful ruler. Using the act of revenge, she hides her own infi delity. 35 Revenge for the daughter's death and subjective motivations -jealousy and infi delity -are stronger than the fear of killing a husband and king. Th e female heroine also assures herself that her right to revenge is fair. Aft er it, facing her son's revenge, she does not hesitate to defend herself using the fact of predetermination of ancestral curse. One murder follows another, and the trilogy of revenge is completed by the son of Agamemnon and the Clytemnestra -Orestes. He kills his mother without this intention and punishes the murderer which is the act he desires to do. Agamemnon justifi es his decision to sacrifi ce his daughter by emphasising obedience to the divination which makes it possible to fulfi l the demand for revenge and punishment. 36 However, the cause of the sacrifi ce of the daughter is not the divination itself. Th is is only a means of making peace with the goddess and thus of one type of justice. Th e reason is the obedience of the ruler to his people, the obligation to punish the betrayal of one Trojan prince, etc. However, Agamemnon accepts the yoke of necessary obedience to the law of tribe and family fanatically and without any fi ght, as evidenced by the singing of the choir. 37 What makes the monarch guilty is, so to speak, that he avoids taking responsibility for his choice to sacrifi ce his daughter with the imperative of the law. Th e King solves the tragic confl ict by cynical thinking, that is, he tells himself: when the various choices are all tragic, why not fi nally choose the one that is more benefi cial? 38 Th e death of a daughter is less of a loss than the loss of the opportunity to conquer Troy and fulfi l the obligation to punish disgrace. Aft er all, the reasons for his choice are the ones which usually determine his actions -passion and pride. Th e internal justifi cation for obedience to the command is thus not based on piety, which would not solve anything anyway, as obedience should respect both types of laws, which are inherently divine in origin. Th e way how Agamemnon justifi es obedience, on the other hand, is a caricature of piety that obscures his passionate irrational surrender. Regardless of the moral assessment that is the subject of constant debate, the dilemma of the two demands of justice (diké) is still the framework of the tragedy. Unlike his father, Orestes is in an even more complicated situation. According to Martha C. Nussbaum, the playwright underlines the basic hypothesis of the insolvability of practical confl ict using Orestes and his situation. 39 Orestes is aware of the dilemma of the laws of the family and the natural doubts to which this legal obligation is directed. Like his father, he is aware of the practical confl ict. Unlike his father, though, he has no lateral motivations, such as the obligation to punish treason and gain fame by conquering Troy. He is not driven by ambition or pride (hybris). Th e resolution of the practical confl ict in the case of Agamemnon led to an update of the curse, but also to the heroic fate of the conqueror of Troy. In the case of the son, the confl ict is framed by the avenging (his father) and the murder (his mother). Th e tragedy captures how the son ponders the decision to avenge his father through the murder of his own mother. 40 He perceives murder as a spoil. It does not make him a famous winner like in case of his father; it is just the opposite. 41 From the beginning of the second part of the trilogy, he realises that he is sent to act in the name of a god, and to act in a very diffi cult task -to be the murderer of his mother. 42 Th e execution and subsequent awareness of the act leads him to what the chorus declares: none of us can live without being aff ected by tragic confl ict. At every moment of a tragic decision, however, Aeschylus emphasises the autonomy of choice, but also some uncertainty in the decision. However, the guilt and punishment, which each of the heroes of the trilogy is aware of, are the consequences which they accept in the name of subjective demands. Th ey freely choose to be determined, and the curse, which was said a generation ago, continues. Th ey know the curse that results from breaking the law. And yet, they make indirect decisions in favour of it. 43 Th e identity of each of the actors of the tragedy is tied to the blood and the tribe. 44 It is a predisposition that individuals carry with them. Th ey are determined by a curse, but their actions are always their choice. So, it is their choice that will allow them to remain in this curse. Th eir free choice is confi rmed by their mythical genetic code; their bloody origin is at the source of the curse. Th eir decision will actually bring them into a cursed community. Individual characters are even aware of their identity, where it goes, and how they fulfi l it. It is freedom that is blinded by personal motives or ancient laws of the family which the new polis seeks to change. Against such thinking, Aeschylus sets the point of his trilogy which culminates in the Eumenides. 45 Th e tragedy of the curse of the family, which is reinforced by the choice of each participant, is broken by divine intervention at the end of the whole drama. 46 Against the identity and nature of 2020 the person who is subjected to the curse stands a new possibility -the identity of the citizen of the polis. In Eumenides, Athena intervenes and appoints a new arbitrator of justice, a court within the community. With her vote, she advocates for the last hero of the trilogy to be pardoned. 47 However, the entry of Athena is more than just a symbolic entry of wisdom. Other gods appear in the drama as well. It is Apollo who advises Orestes to kill his mother. Paradoxically, Orestes' mother is not persecuted for the murder of her husband and his father, but Orestes is. It is the Erinyes, an older generation of gods, who persecutes the hero. However, both divine parties in the dispute over Orestes, that is, the god who inspired it and also the goddess of revenge, are wrong. Th is is why the input of another divine entity is diff erent and refers to a different conception of justice. Aeschylus, emphasising piety, speaks of the entry of a goddess who symbolises something more than that which was previously considered divine. 48 Athena symbolises not just wisdom. By her actions she represents true piety in practice -the righteousness of wisdom. Th e fi gure of the goddess in this tragedy symbolises the 'principle of the polis' . 49 Athena does not resolve the confl ict in terms of support for one of the parties in the dispute. She does not even agree with Apollo, who is a symbol of Zeus, Athena's father. She does not agree with the Erinyes either. Th ose call for compliance with the law which restore the viability of the community. Athena establishes a court consisting of people, not gods. Th e practical confl ict of heroes has led to tragic consequences, so Athena, using her position, moderates this confl ict by emphasising missing elements, and by emphasising the elements which have led everyone to fateful tragedies. She emphasises moderation as such (sófrosyné). 50 or the will of Apollo and his prophecy and the Erinyes cannot be settled justly in favour of one party or the other. Th is is the essential idea or underlining point. Fairness between option A or B cannot be established. Th is is not because there is a third possibility, but because the morality of divine confl icts and de facto erroneous divine decisions (the imperfect divination of one god and selective activity of punishing done by the Erinyes, who punish just the son but not the mother) is not a righteous morality, and therefore it cannot be truly divine. Th e goddess, a symbol of wisdom, legitimises the law of the community and the judicial tribunal. Th ey are both placed above older traditions and the will of the gods. It is an aeropagus that has the right to punish but also to forgive. Its divine establishment is the beginning of a morality of which the ideal of justice is above the chaos of blood and ancestral ties. 52 Aft er all, the goddess herself also appeases the punishing goddesses. Th ey are entitled to punish, but the playwright portrays their justice as selective and in fact unjust. Th ey punish and demand punishment for the son, but they did not punish the mother who had murdered as well. Athena, as a symbol of wisdom and objectivity, also transcends Apollo's divine power and places a new synthesising element between the two divine powers (Apollo and the Erinyes) -the polis and its institution of the aeropagus.

Conclusion
Th e tragic fate of ancient heroes is not only a distant literary memory. In the work of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, this problem acquires its specifi c formal expression, which is inspiring not only for philosophy, but also for education. Th e specifi c fate of ancient heroes is not that important here, as it is more about the practical confl ict which leads them to tragedy, and it resonates in the everyday personal tragedies of contemporary man as well. Man in Aeschylus' work appears to be subject to the fate of a curse or to the duties of a family and deities. Th e frustrating situation in which ancient heroes (not only in Aeschylus' work) fi nd themselves is the cause of the choices that lead to a tragic situation. However, the tragic nature of life cannot be perceived as absurd. Th e hero does not face tragedy as something that does not make sense. Th is question is absent in ancient tragedy. Th e hero faces tragedy as something with an unknown meaning. It cannot be clear to us either. Th is is why we are all obliged to face tragedy in the best possible way even more. Th e challenge of facing the tragic consequences of one's actions is also linked to the refl ection of their origins and their causes. Here is outlined the second perspective of thought that Aeschylus is aware of. Although his heroes are cursed and their decisions are given by a curse or other heteronomous cause, it is more or less their autonomous decision that updates their curse potential. In his trilogy, Aeschylus presents a paradigmatic anthropological observation -a practical tragic confl ict. As Martha C. Nussbaum points out, not only in ancient drama but also in everyday experience, 'we fi nd, instead, a complex spectrum of cases, interrelated and overlapping in ways not captured by any dichotomous taxonomy' . 53 Th e idea of a practical confl ict that leads to tragedy is a type of experience, universal and timeless. Th at tragic nature of human existence, our empathy with others in their own tragic situation and the associated compassion, converge with each other over time. Th is can be seen as an inspiration not only for education but also for raising children. Aeschylus' response to the tragedy is not philosophical in the sense of seeking certainty and means to overcome the tragedy. However, it is not religious either. Otherwise, it would perceive the experience of a tragedy with hope. Th e world of tragic art is a far more sceptical and -one might say -more realistic approach. Th e literary work carries an instrumental value. On the one hand, it teaches us about the tragic nature of being, but on the other hand it shows Aeschylus' specifi c attitude towards the situation as he wants to fi nd space for growth in a tragic destiny. Tragedy has the potential to immunise our rational refl ection on the tragedy of everyday life, without the prospect of faith and hope. Th e question arises: how does it immunise human existence against the reach of tragedy? Paradoxically, it is a refl ection upon the existence of man as a person who is endowed with the intellectual nature and pro-sociability which he develops in community. It is the nature of man as a social and rational being in which Aeschylus' ancient hero fi nds the source of strength to face an insurmountable obstacle, to face the consequences of the tragic nature of his being. Although the tragedy remains, and the grief of the heroes and spectators (who in everyday lives represent the actors of their own tragedies) does not diminish, the example of the heroes clearly shows the way how to accept a tragic existence into one's life, how to be prepared for it, and fi lter the values which one follows. Tragicism is rationalised and its consequences are eased and carried by the whole polis. Th e fi nal part of the tragedy also reveals the importance of society and the culture of law. Th is infl uences human nature and cultivates its natural talents. Aeschylus' trilogy shows the content connection of two areas, the problematisation of which we fi nd in the ancient philosophy of man and no less in current debates. Th e question of human nature and its rationality (rational in Aeschylus and Sophocles, subject to the passion of Euripides) cannot be separated from the problem of justice. It is precisely in the search for justice and submission to the law where human dignity refl ects itself. Th e human ability to face tragedy with dignity and not succumb to the passions stems from a rational nature that recognises and refl ects upon the practical confl ict leading to tragedy. Whatever the fate of man is, mitigation is possible only in the community, because it is ultimately a community that is aff ected by the misfortune of the individual. Th e polis, which is governed by the law (nomos) and by the search for justice (diké), is (for both Aeschylus and Sophocles) a space in which the individual can mitigate, but not negate, the consequences of practical confl ict. Th e emphasis on the polis as a space of law and justice, which is consciously incorporated into Aeschylus' dramas, is later explicitly expressed in Plato's and Aristotle's political philosophy and ethics; and a well-managed polis becomes a medium in which the individual is allowed to reach for bliss.