8/14/2019 Antigone Article 14

1/3

Guide to Sophocles)ANTIGONE Defense of the Unwritten Laws

INTRODUCTION

SOPH. WROTE THIS PLAY in an age much like ou r own, whenthe traditional respect for law, so ingrained in the Hellenic psyche,was under assault especially from th e new advocates of reason andfrom the researches of his f riend, the historian Herodotos. Th efollowing age would echo with debates on nomos, "custom," "law.""convention"; and Ph}JS1S: "nature,""character."The poet doubtlessheard such debates. And An. is the e a r l i e s t ~ p l a y that bringssuch philosophical argument onto the stage.

In origin, nomosis a deeply religious concept. 2 As early as Hesiod,it designated divine revelations through oracles, rites ordained bythe gods, moral rules imposed by them, and the divine world-order.Traditionally in Athens, only the ancient laws of Solon and Dracowere called nomoI; the ordinary decrees of the ekklesta, the assembly,were only pseph.smata (see 60 n.) and lacked the s ta ture of lIomo.The philosopher Heraclitus (fl. 500 B.C.), who may have been amajor influence on Soph. 's understanding or law. stated that allhuman Iaws are nourished by one law2 the divine n o m o ~ t . ~ u . 5 i o i l 1 ' ~By mid-fifth century, however, th e word nomos had become the 1/ f ~ 'Jrallying point for Athens' belief in the Integrity of he r system oflaw in he r struggle against Persian tyranny; it stood for the particu-larly Athenian fusion of the ideal of order (whether conceived in

V. O'BRIEN/rsarn e. 6 :b. ( ' ~ r - c IC/O, 11, /2 ,13

loNDON AND AMSTERDAM

Feffer & Simons, Inc.CARBONDALE AND EDWARDSVILLE

Southern Illinois University Press

JOAN

Grammatical Notes, & VocabularyA Student Edition with Commentary,

8/14/2019 Antigone Article 14

2/3

Guide to Sophocles' ANTIGONE /meaning of nomos, U t ~ d i ~ o n " or "reli ious ISlam." ThF phraseagrapta nomina, "unwrtrrei1laws," ay ave been a traditional"one-Pericles uses it a deca e later l ~ e famous Funeral Ora-t ion-but An. uses it here in its earliest extant occurrence. Periclesgives it a secular context, but for Soph. it connote s the timelessly

(lrtJ \ l ,val id law of Zeusand 0; nature in distinction from positive decrees,U i\6 'owhether oral (as In Cr. s case ) or written (as, e.g., in contemporary' v J f l J ~ b , & \ J I ~ t h e n S } 4 ItJ1refers to eternal laws a s distlDct from the temporally.,/{> and spatIally limned decrees of mere men . An. is thus assertingJ that there IS a dimenSiOn of life over which the decrees or Hlawsll

( ~ r t ~ ~ polis and ItS kIng have no jurisdictIOn. Cr. has gone beyondhis sphere in legislating fQr one who is In the domain of Hades(seerin. on 3UI - 62 and 450 ff.).

l . An. fully comprehends the COSI of her defiance (460): he r inevi-~ \ ~ < ; t ~ b l ~ d e a t h is a profitable exchange (note the twist ofCr.'s monetary\ l . ~ ) \ : q J i ~ a g e ) : > wI:er:.. ~ ~ m l ? ~ ~ e d . ~ . i ~ . ~ t?C sinful compromise that is its

~ \ . \ . ~ l l e r n a t J y e H e ~ J l f . ! : ~ 1 remarks in the passa.Eereturn to two themes" cP of. th e P,:-ologu,,", .paln(64) an.E..LoJ!y (95) S ~ defines intolerablet. pain as the compromise involved In living by Cr.ts "Law." And

in a sharp thrustat the king, hertriple useof miiros/mima, "fool/folly,"leaves no doubt about her conviction: "But if I seem to you todo foolish things now, perhaps it is a fool who convicts me of folly"(469- 70 ).

In their desire to show the depth of An.'s religious convictionsherej crrncs sometimes picture her as putting divine law in opposition to human law) That is not what is at srake.t she sees nod i c ~ a n c y between thelaws of Zeus and hiiToyalty to hurnanifv.];She doesnot'seeTierseIrfaced"\v,tn aKierkegaardian choice betweenGod and man) In hereel is not a nomosprecisely because itiB at ~ ; a r ! 2 n c e " W { t h h u ~ a n decency and t ere orea ~ ~ o with Zeus'laws InAn.ts language, Cr. IS proclamation IS alwayscalled a me-;'e'decree, kerygma (see 452 n .), not a nomos. Her loveercelves that the burial of her brother must be in harmon witheus' laws Zeus is present to her in the dishonored corpse of her

-brother. J5he comes to understand the divine not in abstract terms-'--'-' . ". - . _ . _-" , .> . , - ._/- .

b ~ ! . thrQ1Jl:A .ildeeply. felt human experience. For An" !!.iYine lawis embodied in phitia. concern for those she loves. She reveals heri i 1 " s t 1 n c t i ; ; f ~ t h . j ~ . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ f ~ ~ a ~ t . ~ on'enes's- of Ze'usi" law (true nomos)_._'. . .... . . -.65

religious or nonreligious terms) with the practical observances ofthe laws of the city-state. But the fusion did not l as t long . Th ehistorical studies of Herodotos, showing how vastly different thelaws and customs of other peoples were from those of the Hellenicworld, precipitated the deterioration and relativization of the con-cept that became prevalent with the ~ m o v e m e n t . Thus,eventually nomos. "law," i.e., the artificial, conventional, and some-times false, was devalued in favor of PhYSIS. "nature," i. e . thenatural and true.

Only the first signs of t hi s deterioration were evident whenSoph. wro te t hi s play. For An. an d presumably for Soph., thereis only one nomos and it is in harmony with the heroine's deepesthuman instincts, her PhYSIS. her nature, which is to join in lovingand not in hating, as she later (523) puts it. In the lines consideredhere (450-70), the heroine gives her formal defense of her' ac t interms of the law of Zeus. .

However, this is not the first i n t r o d u c ~ l O n . of nomos into the f';k,play. An., Isrn., and Cr. early defend the ir diverse posinons by (,' fIusing nomos with different meanings. In the Prologue, An. u rge s yM .her nomos (i.e., her principle) on her s is ter, namely that one must (\,..oD(I.revere th e rights of family and nature above all. Ism., however, l) -: ..\ )takes /lomos as merely synonymous with the king's decree, and so, VQJY oSdespite her g reat love of f amil y, she chooses to obey Cr.'s n o ~ o s . 12- f)DIf\!In the First Epi sode , wh il e An. is putting her nomos into action 0'Off.stage with th e symbolic burial, Cr. promulgates his nom. O l t : ( } . ~ g ~ ~of conduct" (19 t ), in his opening address. There, too, heJi:;hows 0 Y\. . . .!hi S distrust for the custom (nomos) of ordinary Citizens, accusmthem of habItual gree In IS use of nomlsma 296), a word whichmeans bothcurrent coin an ordinary practice. Finally, the Cho.(38 1":82)'-and 'Cr.'(449) 'precipitate An.'s discourse here on theunwritten laws when each accuses her of transgressing Cr. IS "laws.n

She expresses her thought in these l ines with uunost-sirnplicitv.Zeus is not the author of Cr.'s decree, and no mortal can override(hyperdrameziJithe' u n w r T i i ~ n " - ; ; n d unchanging laws of Zeus, lawsof infinite age and-mysterious origin (450-55). Cr. has gone beyondhis sphene (see-4-55'n:) of influence, beyond the marker (dike) ofine7;;'T{s: She uses noma? derivative, nomlmon, a word less s ~ l l i e dby popular devaluation and thus better able to convey the original

66

8/14/2019 Antigone Article 14

3/3

Defense of the Unumtten Lawsand of her lovmg nature (Physls). ~ ~ s _ t ~ ~ s concrete religious convic.t.iQ!> that makes her both a. nobl."-"nd l ' _ . b ~ l ~ e v a b l e character.Cr. answers her defense of the agrapta nomzma, t...he unwrittenlaws, With a neatly balanced responsethat showsnot only hIs ability,.to handle rhetorical debate in the fashion of contemporary oratorY15iJlalso his utter failure to comprehend her argument. He proceedsfrom thcgeneral to the particular, lectunng on the just desertsawaiting iron-stiff spirits (473) and overly spirited horses (477-78),and then specifically accusmg An. of insolence in he r transgression(hyperbamem) of the established laws, nomous tous prokeimenous(481).

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 threatensto take Q v ~ r ~ h ~ _ : n a n ~ s rightful mastery (484). This leads ~ i to ....-\,,(f\.the..tyran!1!.f"Ul!Qgic..oLcQndcmning the other girl. Ism., WIthout .Y-'any evidence or he r involvement. In so doing) he c l e ~ ~ ~ y ' _ ! . ~ e c t sthe legltlma.\e.delIlands ofphysu, nature, an d of phi Iia, family, no t0 ' : ' ! Y 3 _ ~ L l l i J L " I s o by statement: "Even if she were c loser inkinship than any who worship Zeus at ou r family a l ta r, she andher sister (xynounos, Iit., 'one of common blood') shall not escapethe heinous fate of death" (486-89). Cr. thus links Zeus and family

--- ---and rejects both."Tlic debate between /lomos and PhyS1S resonates throughout theplay: I t ~ . : ~ n c : I _ T ~ ! ' : . C s i a s ~ o t h try in vain to warn , the king of his D >~ . i . ~ ~ . 5 e ~ f n o m o ~ through. Images: ~ the sea and d ~ s e a s e . Cr. onh'Cr t .h a r d e n ~ _ his.,posltlOn, addIng to hISnomOl the subservlence?f females h. v r I>and the unassailable position of th.e J : u l e r . . w h e . t l 1 C ~ h." IS n ht orwrong( 59 5 . o. reproachesAn . WIth t e epithet autonomos,"follower of one's own l aw" (821).6 The-odes keep returning tothe ro le of nomos (e.g., 368-69, 613-(4). Especially notable is theOde on Eros, where if Goheen 's Interpretation IS correct," "thegreat laws" (i.e., the unwritten laws) with Eros sitting alongsideare in confl ic t w ith the lesser wri tt en laws (i.e. of Cr. and thepo/is). Only the androgynous hero, able to revere both Eros andthe agrapta /lOm1rna of Zeus, faithfully fuses /lomos and PhySlS. Fo rAn., /lornos stands for these ancient laws implanted in the humanpsyche by Zeus . They include basic human r ights (e.g. , respectfor family and for burial). This /lO"IOS cannot be in con fl ic t with

GUIde to Sophocles' ANTIGONE /ph'ySlJ, since its very ongln IS in one's natural rights, not in therights of posrtive law. That this union of pl!YSlS and 1lOmos was adeep Sophoclean convrcuon is c lear from the plavwrighr's rcasscr-t ion of It at the end of the Oedipus at Kolonos (1381-82)" He mayvery well owe this ins ight to Heraclitus," but it has become thecornerstone of his rcl igious edifice.

68