The Relationship of Oikos and Polis in the Antigone and The Eumenides

Brayden Benham

Br767417Class/2001

Submitted to: Michael FournierNov/21/08

In Sophocles’ Antigone and in Aeschylus’ The Eumenides there is the

underlying theme of conflict between the Oikos and the Polis; only in The Eumenides

is this conflict resolved. In the Antigone the representation of the Oikos is made

manifest in Antigone herself, while, in The Eumenides it is represented by the Furies.

The Polis in The Antigone is embodied by Creon, whereas, in The Eumenides it is

championed by Apollo in a more progressive manner. The solution to the dispute

between the Oikos and the Polis, in both cases, is skewed because of the extenuating

circumstances in both affairs. The solution to this dilemma in The Eumenides is

through democracy, or more specifically, through the democratic process of the

court of law. Therefore the dispute between Oikos and Polis could have been

resolved in the Antigone had the characters gone through the process of the court,

but - as this was not the point of the play – it wasn’t.

In the Antigone the character of Antigone represents the Oikos. Her objective

is to bury her brother Polynieces - as the god’s command - despite King Creon’s

decree that he should not be buried because of his defiance of the Polis. Polyneices

has betrayed the Polis in Creon’s view because he has waged a civil war within his

own city against his brother Eteocles (a highly treasonous act). For Antigone,

despite the fact that “[Polyneices] died destroying the country the other defended…

[i]t was his brother, not his slave that died…[and]…[t]he god of death demands

these [burial] rites for both” (Sophocles, 567-570). Therefore since Polyneices is

Antigone’s brother the importance of his burial is made all the more critical to her

and, even though he died defying his native Polis, the god’s still demand that he be

buried. It is crucial to note that Antigone’s impulse to bury her dead brother is not

extended to a would-be husband, she says “[h]ad I been a mother of children, and

my husband been dead and rotten, I would not have taken this weary task upon me

and against the will of the city” (Sophocles, 961-965). She does not see the

importance of burying one who is not a blood relative, just as the Furies in The

Eumenides don’t appreciate the value of marital bonds (as will be explained later).

Ultimately Antigone sees the burial as her duty since the ruler of the Polis has failed

to act in accordance with the gods’ ordination of the Oikos. Thus Antigone is a

champion of the Oikos within the Antigone.

In The Eumenides the Furies act as the defendants of the Oikos. Like Antigone

they can’t stand to see blood relatives go dishonoured. Their purpose is “...to drive

matricides out of their houses” (Aeschylus, 210) and thus uphold the familial bond.

They are similar to Antigone in their ignorance of the Polis and staunch loyalty to

the family. In the Furies though, ignorance of the Polis is carried to a much larger

degree. This is because they are not motivated by any other factors but rather by

their primeval, basic and animalistic impulse to preserve the immediate family. The

Furies say to this effect things like: “I, the mind of the past” (Aeschylus, 838), “…the

motherblood drives me” (Aeschylus, 230) and “[p]rivledge primeval yet is mine”

(Aeschylus, 394). The only relation they can understand and respect is that between

blood relatives and, since they are Titans (the old order of gods), ancient and

underdeveloped notions of the family motivate them. Consequently they are

disinclined to the progressiveness of the Polis and, specifically, it’s institution of

marriage; instead they defend the Oikos in its most basic form.

At the beginning of the Antigone Creon makes his decree that Antigone’s

brother Polyneices shall not be mourned, given funeral rights or buried because of

his defiance of the Polis. For Creon the Polis gains precedence over all other things

and to this effect he says, “he who is loyal to the state in death, in life alike, shall

have my honour” (Sophocles, 227-229). Here he is asserting that, as the ruler of the

city he can decide whether people will be honoured after death or not, all depending

on their loyalty to the Polis; what he doesn’t realize is that this is a rite reserved for

the gods. Since Creon is sole ruler of the city he believes that he can decree anything

he likes and his word must be followed, which is true, but only so long as it applies

to the worldly realm. A ruler must not impinge on the god’s ordinances by putting

himself in the same position as the god’s, and this is exactly what Antigone sees

Creon is doing and why she feels justified in defying him. When Creon asks if she has

dared to disobey his law she replies, “[y]es…I did not believe your proclamation had

such power to enable one who will someday die to override God’s ordinances,

unwritten secure” (Sophocles, 497-499). She is right; Creon is a mortal man (“one

who will someday die”) unconsciously attempting to over rule the gods - who’s laws

“live forever” (Sophocles, 501) - and though he thinks he is doing what is right for

the Polis he fails to see the higher scheme of things of which Antigone is aware.

In The Eumenides, Apollo can be seen as a representative of the Polis, but in

it’s more progressive form. Evidence of his allegiance to the Polis can be found in his

reverence of the marriage bond, he says, “married love between man and woman is

bigger than oaths, guarded by right of nature” (Aeschylus, 217-219). He believes

that the marriage bond is equal, if not, stronger than that between blood relatives

because it is a necessary institution of the Polis. Furthermore, Apollo believes that

Orestes’ killing of his mother (Clytamestra) is just retribution because she has killed

Agamemnon (the King of the Polis); thus for Apollo and the progressive Polis “[i]t is

not the same thing for a man of blood to die honored with the king’s staff given by

the hand of god, and that by means of a woman” (Aeschylus 625-627). Here Apollo is

asserting that Agamemnon’s rule of the Polis was ordained by the gods and gains

precedence over the Oikos because of the King’s stature and importance within the

Polis. This is where the dispute lies between Apollo and the Furies; the Furies

cannot fathom the political importance of anything or anyone because their

understanding is confined to the realm of Oikos.

Though, like Creon, Apollo is a champion of the Polis his solution to the

problem is not autocratic (like Creon) but rather democratic. Apollo is a god and

therefore cannot act out of accordance with the god’s will as Creon did. He also does

not enforce his lone opinion in the matter but calls upon Athene who assembles a

jury so as to examine the situation more thoroughly: “Pallas divine shall review the

pleadings of this case” (Aeschylus, 224). He does this because he knows that the

democratic process of the Polis is far more effective than the autocratic process (of

Creon). The autocratic process will not get anyone anywhere. The Furies, along with

Antigone, are autocratic in their assertion that people must be punished on the sole

basis of their defiance of blood relatives, Creon is autocratic in his belief that people

must act predominantly in accordance with the Polis. Apollo is not autocratic but is

still a defendant of the Polis. This is not the same view of the relation of Polis and

Oikos as the Furies, Antigone and Creon, but is rather a progressive view of the Polis

which takes into account, the gods, the citizens, the institution of marriage as well as

the bonds of blood relatives. The way in which this ideal view of the Polis is

achieved is through the democratic process. In The Eumenides the democratic

process is introduced as a solution to the dilemma that is created from the

multiplicity of conflicting factors in the case between Orestes and Apollo against the

Furies. The solution to this problem cannot be solved simply by one god trumping

the other, but must be determined through a consideration of conflicting ideas on

either side of the case by members of the public and a high judge. Athene recognizes

that the dispute cannot be resolved directly between Apollo and the Furies saying,

“[h]ere are two sides, and only half the argument” (Aeschylus, 437). This means that

there is more to each side of the dispute than can be brought out by the two parties

involved; this is why Athene resolves to select jurors, saying that “[t]he matter is to

big for any mortal man to judge…since the burden of the case is here, and rests on

me, I shall select judges of manslaughter, and swear them in, establish a court of law

into all time to come” (Aeschylus, 470-484). Therefore, although Athene is a goddess

herself she still believes in the importance of mans decisions involving the Oikos

and the Polis, and this is why her solution to the problem is a democratic one to be

withheld for “all time to come”.

It can be seen that in The Antigone the conflict between Oikos and Polis

cannot be resolved because of the inability of Creon and Antigone to see the truth in

one and other’s arguments. Creon is right to defend the Polis and Antigone is right to

defend the Oikos, just as The Furies are right to defend blood relatives (because of

the Oikos) and Apollo is right to defend marriage (because of its importance within

the Polis). The problem between Antigone and Creon is that they each take their

arguments upon themselves and never consider the multiplicity of factors adding

into their cases. Throughout the Antigone Creon is constantly rejecting outside

opinions; when the Chorus asks “I wonder, could this be God’s doing” (Sophocles,

308-310), Creon rejects them, and consequently the gods, wholeheartedly. When

Haemon tells Creon that “the city mourns for [Antigone]; they think she is dying

most undeservedly” (Sophocles, 747-748), Creon chides Haemon for being young

and impudent and so neglects his sons opinion as well as the opinion of the people.

Antigone is also guilty of such ignorance when she reproaches Ismene for making

the correct claim of “how miserable [their] end shall be if in the teeth of law [they]

transgress against the sovereign’s decree and power. [Antigone] ought to realize

[they] are only women, not meant in nature to fight against men” (Sophocles, 66-

71). Ismene is right in saying this; by law they should not fight against the

sovereign’s decrees - especially because they are women. But the situation is not so

black and white, both parties have legitimate claims to justice and therefore the

situation is not as simple as either Creon or Antigone paints it to be. Just as in The

Eumenides “here are two sides, and only half the argument”. Therefore the proper

solution would be, as in The Eumenides, to establish a court of law to gain

perspective on the many claims of the conflicting parties, and so resolve the dispute

between Oikos and Polis in an incorporative manner.

In The Eumenides and the Antigone there lies the parallel theme of the

conflict between the Oikos and the Polis. In the Antigone Creon represents the Polis

but defends it ignorantly and is therefore destroyed by his unawareness. Antigone

herself is blinded by her allegiance to the Oikos and is destroyed by her ignorance of

Creon’s cliams to the Polis. In the Eumenides the Furies also represent the Oikos,

while Apollo represents the Polis, but neither of them are destroyed, but rather

prosper. This is because of Apollo and Athene’s progressive democratic solution to

the problem. Rather than leaving the matter in the hands of the parties directly

involved, as Creon and Antigone did, the gods in The Eumenides establish a court of

law in order to better discern the case. The court is made up of a god as the judge,

twelve citizens as jurors, the defendant and the prosecutor. In this why the case is

subject to all facets of life, the human and the divine, and since the burden is lifted

from the individuals directly involved and put into the hands of a diverse

assortment of people, more light will be shed on the underlying truth in the case.

Therefore, if Creon and Antigone had of gone through the court system set up in The

Eumenides they would have been able to find a happy medium between the Oikos

and the Polis.