Oreste nelle Coefore: la doppia motivazione da Omero a Eschilo

The paper discusses the interpretation of Orestes’ action in Choephori. Lesky, Dodds, Lebeck and other scholars argued that the gods necessitate Orestes’ action, and that he is morally responsible of his action. These scholars claim that Orestes’ actions are ‘overdetermined’; a ‘double motivation‘, divine and human, determines his action. The paper discusses the concept of double motivation in Homer, and Dodds interpretation of some Homeric scenes. It argues that it is necessary to distinguish cases where gods directly intervene in the thought process of heroes from cases where gods threaten or persuade heroes. The paper then argues that the concept of double motivation does not apply to Orestes. Orestes acts under pressure from external forces, but also claims that he has reasons of his own to act. This type of moral dilemma is compared to the thought experiments discussed by Chrysippus and Frankfurt (1969). These conceptualisations of moral action help to ascertain that Orestes takes moral responsibility for his actions in the drama.