A Sacrifice to Athena: Oikos and Polis in Sophoclean Drama

In Sophocles’ Antigone and Oedipus Rex (Oedipus the King), the chief characters, Antigone, Creon, and Oedipus, become entangled in a complex web of events relating in important ways to both oikos (οἶκος) and polis (πολις), and each character threatens the existence or stability of one of the other (or both) of these spheres, by neglecting or rejecting outright their respective claims, rules and duties. Each of the three protagonists presents a different case, but the resolution to the two plays is similar, and evoke, in majestic fashion, the tragic essence of Greek tragedy at its highest. The complex power system of the Greek world creates complications, some of which are never fully resolved by Sophocles, but the New Order of the polis, despite its weaknesses, reigns supreme at the end of the drama. The final resolution is not, however, unmixed, as the continuance of the polis order necessitates the sacrifice, as it were, of the plays’ protagonists. In this essay, the interdependent but sometimes conflicting spheres of oikos and polis are examined with reference to the development of ancient Greek civilization and Greek tragedy, specifically the works of Sophocles and Aeschylus. [H]ow many griefs our father Oedipus handed down! ... There’s nothing, / no pain – our lives are pain – no private shame, / no public disgrace, nothing I haven’t seen in your griefs and mine. – Antigone to Ismene, Antigone 2, ll. 5-8 Private shame and public disgrace—thus laments Antigone, daughter of the once glorious but now disgraced and exiled king of Thebes. In the Greek world of Sophocles, the nowcommonplace distinction between a public and a private sphere was neither so distinct nor so easily recognizable as it is today. For the sake of analysis and exposition we may, however, utilize the Greek terms oikos (οἶκος) and polis (πολις) to discuss two primary realms of classical Greek life that loosely correspond to modern conceptions of public and private spheres, respectively. In Sophocles’ Antigone and Oedipus Rex (Oedipus the King), the chief characters, Antigone, Creon, and Oedipus, become entangled in a complex web of events relating in important ways to both oikos and polis, and each character threatens the existence or stability of one of the other (or both) of these spheres, by neglecting or rejecting outright their respective claims, rules and duties. Each of the three main protagonists presents a different case, but the resolution to the two plays is similar, and evoke, in majestic fashion, the tragic essence of Greek tragedy at its highest. The complex power system of the Greek world creates complications, some of which are never fully resolved by Sophocles, but the New Order of the polis, despite its weaknesses, reigns supreme at the end of the drama. The final resolution is not, however, unmixed, as the continuance of the polis order necessitates the sacrifice, as it were, of the plays’ protagonists. It may be expedient at this point to clarify the senses in which the Greek terms oikos and polis will be employed in this essay. Oikos is, generally, a name for the Greek household, along with the sphere or relations and activities directly attaches to such, which moderns might call the domestic or private sphere. A classical Greek household was, however, much larger than a modern nuclear family, usually including three generation as well as slaves, livestock, and a host of deceased ancestors. The oikos is associated with a number of unwritten rules or customs that may be loosely termed “oikos morality.” The oikos is also in some sense tied up with the Heroic Code typical of the Homeric epics: honor and glory, for oneself and for one’s family (i.e., household) are of primary importance. Loyalty to member’s of one’s oikos, and the principles of revenge justice (lex talionis) also emerge as important aspects of the oikos sphere. Homer’s heroes appear to exist in a world of oikos-morality, in particular Achilles, the “sacker of cities.” Halverston, for one, argues that in Homer there are in fact no states, only estates (i.e., no poleis, only oikoi). The issue may not be that simple, however, as certain prefigurations of the polis can be seen in the Odyssey. The polis was, of course, much more than just a form of political organization—it involved an entire cultural and spiritual system as well. In a narrower, political sense, however, the polis refers to the emergent city-state, with its rules, customs, and attending morality. The notion of the polis as a civic community involved, above all else, the voluntary subordination of the individual and his needs and interests to the community and the (to use Rousseauian terms) “common good.” The polis in some sense became the new individual, of which citizens were necessary but ultimately subordinate parts. Polis morality is based upon the citizens’ unquestioning obedience to its laws, customs, and institutions, as well as its gods, while striving to uphold the four cardinal virtues of any polis: justice, piety, moderation, and courage. Oikos and polis must not be seen as isolated, independent sphere, however; rather, the oikos is the biological, social and economic basis of the polis. The oikos produces generations of citizens via reproduction, and generates the wealth of citizens via production. Thus, the oikos is the sphere of biological and economic sustenance, forming the natural and material foundation for the polis, and is some sense acting as mediator between raw nature and pure culture. This rosy picture of harmony was not always in evidence, however, as the tragedies of Sophocles reveal. The interdependent but sometimes conflicting spheres of oikos and polis can be examined historically with reference to the development of ancient Greek civilization. From the eighth century BCE, tribal Greece began a slow but steady transformation into the world of the city-state, ultimately reaching a peak in democratic Athens of the fifth century. The emergence of the polis was viewed by many Greeks, including Aristotle, as a progressive development by and for humankind—a civilizing force. Tribal Greece had been dominated by the oikos and oikos morality, in which the