Play Vs Oresteia Essay

In Sartre’s play, Orestes is not absolved in any manner as compared to the original Oresteia where he is given mercy. The reason behind this is that Sartre wants to point out his existentialist philosophy which basically says that the life of a man should be revolved around freedom and being for itself. In a nut shell, he wants to say that human beings should act freely and the life of a person must revolve around himself and the only way one can find meaning in his existence is by seizing his own life.
As compared to the original Oresteia where his crimes are forgiven, Orestes’ actions in the play are not forgiven because for something to be forgiven, it must mean that there is something wrong that has happened, and this “something wrong” is wrong because it does not go with the
norms of the morality in a certain society.
In the case of Orestes in The Flies, Sartre emphasizes that Orestes stands by his actions of murder. He does not think that his actions are wrong because he believes that what he did is correct despite the attempt of the Argives to murder him in the latter portion of the play. He believes that by murdering the king and queen, he has given the Argives a brighter future; by eliminating the one who is blinding the Argives, he thinks that he has given them freedom. He did not allow the norms of the society to hinder him from acting the way he did which is why he is the only one in the play who is truly free. Sartre wants to point out that a one can only find meaning in his/her life if he/she seizes his/her own life with his/her own hands. In the play, Orestes embodies Sartre’s existentialist philosophy as he was the only one to take responsibility of his actions as compared to the Argives who are guilty of their actions; being guilty of a certain action also entails
that the action is wrong which is based on a certain standard which is why the Argives are not free, they are puppets of society. Sartre ultimately ends his play without the absolution in the original Oresteia because he points out that one cannot be truly free while at the same time being guilty for something because as mentioned earlier, being guilty entails that there is something wrong that has happened and by following the societies morality, one cannot be free if he/she lets the society control him/her.
The ideas of the original Oresteia oppose that of Sartre’s because in the original Oresteia, the author points out that the times have changed slowly from condemning a sinner for his crimes to forgiving him. In doing so however, the author seemingly points out that there is a definite right and wrong because there is a judge (in the case of the Oresteia, the judges are Apollo and Athena). There is a judge who says whether or not a certain action is right or wrong which is not what Sartre wants to point out. By suggesting that there is a right and a wrong, the author of the Oresteia suggests that freedom does not exist because moral values are predetermined, definite, and are not susceptible to change; there are certain guidelines to follow in order to be a good member of society. Sartre wants to point out that a man must live for himself and not for anything other than the self which is why he changed the ending of the Oresteia; the ideas of the original Oresteia oppose his own.