Antigone Article 14

Guide to Sophocles)

ANTIGONE

Defense of the Unwritten Laws

A Student Edition with Commentary, Grammatical Notes, & Vocabulary

JOAN V. O'BRIEN

/rsarn

C/O,

e.

6 :b. ('~r-cI

11,/2,13

Southern Illinois University Press CARBONDALE AND EDWARDSVILLE

Feffer & Simons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

SOPH. WROTE THIS PLAY in an age much like our own, when the traditional respect for law, so ingrained in the Hellenic psyche, was under assault especially from the new advocates of reason and from the researches of his friend, the historian Herodotos. The following age would echo with debates on nomos, "custom," "law." "convention"; and Ph}JS1S: "nature," "character." The poet doubtless heard such debates. And An. is the earliest~play that brings such philosophical argument onto the stage. In origin, nomos is a deeply religious concept. 2 As early as Hesiod, it designated divine revelations through oracles, rites ordained by the gods, moral rules imposed by them, and the divine world-order. Traditionally in Athens, only the ancient laws of Solon and Draco were called nomoI; the ordinary decrees of the ekklesta, the assembly, were only pseph.smata (see 60 n.) and lacked the stature of lIomo•. The philosopher Heraclitus (fl. 500 B.C.), who may have been a major influence on Soph. 's understanding law. stated that all human Iaws are nourished by one law the divine nomo~t.~u.5ioil1'~ By mid-fifth century, however, the word nomos had become the f~w rallying point for Athens' belief in the Integrity of her system of law in her struggle against Persian tyranny; it stood for the particularly Athenian fusion of the ideal of order (whether conceived in

or

2

1/

loNDON AND AMSTERDAM

'J

Guide to Sophocles' ANTIGONE / religious or nonreligious terms) with the practical observances of meaning of nomos, Ut~di~on" or "reli ious ISlam." ThF phrase the laws of the city-state. But the fusion did not last long. The agrapta nomina, "unwrtrrei1laws," ay ave been a traditional" historical studies of Herodotos, showing how vastly different the one-Pericles uses it a deca e later l~· e famous Funeral Oralaws and customs of other peoples were from those of the Hellenic tion-but An. uses it here in its earliest extant occurrence. Pericles world, precipitated the deterioration and relativization of the congives it a secular context, but for Soph. it connotes the timelessly cept that became prevalent with the ~movement. Thus, eventually nomos. "law," i.e., the artificial, conventional, and some(lrtJ\l,valid law of Zeus and 0; nature in distinction from positive decrees, U 'owhether oral (as In Cr. s case) or written (as, e.g., in contemporary times false, was devalued in favor of PhYSIS. "nature," i.e.• the 'vJflJ~b, &\JI~thenS}4 ItJ1refers to eternal laws as distlDct from the temporally natural and true. .,/{> and spatIally limned decrees of mere men. An. is thus asserting Only the first signs of this deterioration were evident when J that there IS a dimenSiOn of life over which the decrees or Hlawsll Soph. wrote this play. For An. and presumably for Soph., there (~rt~~ polis and ItS kIng have no jurisdictIOn. Cr. has gone beyond is only one nomos and it is in harmony with the heroine's deepest his sphere in legislating fQr one who is In the domain of Hades human instincts, her PhYSIS. her nature, which is to join in loving (seerin. on 3UI -62 and 450 ff.). and not in hating, as she later (523) puts it. In the lines considered l. An. fully comprehends the COSI of her defiance (460): her inevihere (450-70), the heroine gives her formal defense of her' act in ~\' ~<;t~bl~death is a profitable exchange (note the twist ofCr.'s monetary terms of the law of Zeus. . However, this is not the first introduc~lOn. of nomos into the \l.~)\:qJ i~age):> wI:er:..~~ml?~~ed.~.i~.~ t?C sinful compromise that is its ~\.\. ~llernatJye He~Jlf.!:~1 remarks in the passa.Ee return to two themes play. An., Isrn., and Cr. early defend their diverse posinons by (,'fI using nomos with different meanings. In the Prologue, An. urgesyM. of. the P,:-ologu,,", .paln(64) an.E..LoJ!y (95)· S~e defines intolerable t. pain as the compromise involved In living by Cr.ts "Law." And her nomos (i.e., her principle) on her sister, namely that one must (\,..oD(I. ina sharp thrust at the king, her triple useof miiros/mima, "fool/folly," revere the rights of family and nature above all. Ism., however, l ) -: ..\) leaves no doubt about her conviction: "But if I seem to you to takes /lomos as merely synonymous with the king's decree, and so, VIQJY oS do foolish things now, perhaps it is a fool who convicts me of folly" despite her great love of family, she chooses to obey Cr.'s no~os. 12- f)DIf\! 6 In the First Episode, while An. is putting her nomos into action 0' (4 9- 70 ) . ~ In their desire to show the depth of An.'s religious convictions Off.stage with the symbolic burial, Cr. promulgates his nom. Olt:(}.~g~~ herej crrncs sometimes picture her as putting divine law in opposiof conduct" (19 t), in his opening address. There, too, heJi:;hows 0 Y\ . . . .! tion to human law) That is not what is at srake.t she sees no hiS distrust for the custom (nomos) of ordinary Citizens, accusm them of habItual gree In IS use of nomlsma 296), a word which di§c~ancy between thelaws of Zeus and hiiToyalty to hurnanifv.]; means bothcurrent coin an ordinary practice. Finally, the Cho. She doesnot'seeTierseIrfaced"\v,tn a Kierkegaardian choice between (38 1":82)'-and 'Cr.'(449) 'precipitate An.'s discourse here on the God and man) In her e e l is not a nomos precisely because itiB at ~;ar!2nce"W{th hu~an decency and t ere ore unwritten laws when each accuses her of transgressing Cr. IS "laws. n a~~o with Zeus'laws In An.ts language, Cr. IS proclamation IS always She expresses her thought in these lines with uunost-sirnplicitv. called a me-;'e'decree, kerygma (see 452 n.), not a nomos. Her love Zeus is not the author of Cr.'s decree, and no mortal can override ercelves that the burial of her brother must be in harmon with (hyperdrameziJithe' unwrTii~n"-;;nd unchanging laws of Zeus, laws eus' laws Zeus is present to her in the dishonored corpse of her of infinite age and-mysterious origin (450-55). Cr. has gone beyond -brother. J5he comes to understand the divine not in abstract terms his sphene (see -4-55'n:) of influence, beyond the marker (dike) of b~!. thrQ1Jl:A .ildeeply. felt human experience. For An" !!.iYine law ine7;;'T{s: She uses noma? derivative, nomlmon, a word less s~llied is embodied in phitia. concern for those she loves. She reveals her by popular devaluation and thus better able to convey the original ii1"st1ncti;;·f~th.j~._~~~~~T~f~~a~t.~ on'enes's- of Ze'usi" law (true nomos) _.. . . . . . . -. 65 66

i\6

f';k,

" cP

£

-'--'-'

_'.

._~

.".-

.

.• _-"

,.>.,

-._/-.

~

Defense

of the

Unumtten Laws

and of her lovmg nature (Physls). ~~s_t~~s concrete religious convic.t.iQ!> that makes her both a. nobl." -"nd l'_.b~l~evable character. Cr. answers her defense of the agrapta nomzma, t...he unwritten laws, With a neatly balanced response that shows not only hIs ability,. to handle rhetorical debate in the fashion of contemporary oratorY 15iJl also his utter failure to comprehend her argument. He proceeds thc·general to the particular, lectunng on the just deserts awaiting iron-stiff spirits (473) and overly spirited horses (477-78), and then specifically accusmg An. of insolence in her transgression (hyperbamem) of the established laws, nomous tous prokeimenous (48 1). He fails to hear that there may be a law transcending his decree. He sees and hears only thc evidence of thc senses: a female threatens to take Qv~r ~h~_:nan~s rightful mastery (484). This leads ~im to ....-\,,(f\. the..tyran!1!.f"Ul!Qgic..oLcQndcmning the other girl. Ism., WIthout .Y-' any evidence her involvement. In so doing) he cle~~~y'_!.~ects the legltlma.\e.delIlands of physu, nature, and of phi Iia, family, not 0':'!Y3_~LlliJL"Iso by statement: "Even if she were closer in kinship than any who worship Zeus at our family al tar, she and her sister (xynounos, Iit., 'one of common blood') shall not escape the heinous fate of death" (486-89). Cr. thus links Zeus and family --and rejects both. "Tlic debate between /lomos and PhyS1S resonates throughout the play: It~.:~nc:I_T~!':.Csias ~oth try in vain to warn ,the king of his D~ > ~.i.~~.5e ~f_ nomo~ through. Images: ~r the sea and d~sease. Cr. onh'Cr t . harden~_ his.,posltlOn, addIng to hIS nomOl the subservlence?f females v~ r I> and the unassailable position of th.e J:uler..whe.tl1C~ h." IS n ht or wrong( 59 5. ~ o. reproaches An. WIth t e epithet autonomos, "follower of one's own law" (821).6 The-odes keep returning to the role of nomos (e.g., 368-69, 613-(4). Especially notable is the Ode on Eros, where if Goheen 's Interpretation IS correct," "the great laws" (i.e., the unwritten laws) with Eros sitting alongside are in conflict with the lesser written laws (i.e. of Cr. and the po/is). Only the androgynous hero, able to revere both Eros and the agrapta /lOm1rna of Zeus, faithfully fuses /lomos and PhySlS. For An., /lornos stands for these ancient laws implanted in the human psyche by Zeus. They include basic human rights (e.g., respect for family and for burial). This /lO"IOS cannot be in conflict with

from

or

---

h.

GUIde to Sophocles' ANTIGONE

/

ph'ySlJ, since its very ongln IS in one's natural rights, not in the

rights of posrtive law. That this union of pl!YSlS and 1lOmos was a deep Sophoclean convrcuon is clear from the plavwrighr's rcasscrtion of It at the end of the Oedipus at Kolonos (1381-82)" He may very well owe this insight to Heraclitus," but it has become the cornerstone of his rcl igious edifice.

68