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

Brayden Benham

Br767417
Class/2001

Submitted to: Michael Fournier

Nov/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.