nt human sacrifice creates a double-standard in mythological theory: on one hand it is nothing more than the sacrifice of a victim as a means to satisfy the vengeance of the gods; but on the other hand it is a violent sacrilege resulting in the murder of another human. Greek mythological accounts of human sacrifice reflect the hesitancy of society towards killing one of their own. Rene Girard, a Civilization Professor at Stanford University presents the rationalization of this position in his novel, Violence and the Sacred: “this dividing of sacrifice into two categories, human and animal, has itself a sacrificial character, in a strictly ritualistic sense. The division is based in effect on a value judgment, on the preconception that one category of victim—the human being—is quite unsuitable for sacrificial purposes, while another character—the animal—is eminently sacrificeable” (11). Girard further maintains that both forms of sacrifice are unnecessarily violent in nature contributing to a misunderstanding of value categorization. In order to remain morally sound, there must be a unified set of specifications regarding individual’s appropriateness for sacrifice.Typically, Greek mythology portrayed the current moral standards of society, thus creating the prominence of animal sacrifice in ritual. Yet, in the Oresteia, the story of Agamemnon revolves around human sacrifice as a secondary motif. Simultaneously, however, epitomizing public reaction to such types of ritual. The first instance of sacrifice, and the cause of all following retribution, begins when Agamemnon resolves to sacrifice his daughter, Iphpigenia, because of constraints being placed upon him by Artemis and Zeus. And because Agamemnon is blinded by his determination for his Army’s success, he commits the sacrifice fervently. The chorus then provides the appropriate reaction to this, announcing that the King ̶...
