The Dichotomy of Religious and Secular Law in Ancient Greece
There is a dichotomy in ancient Greece between two forces of tradition, belief, and order.
One is that of religion and the gods where practices and demands of the gods supplant and define all other aspects of life.
The other is secular law, placed by man to govern and maintain order in the growing poleis.
We see this conflict in both the Medea and the Antigone.
In the Medea we see Euripides constructing a scenario of the direst consequences, where a woman completely destroys a household and escapes unpunished, as a commentary on the lawless nature of the gods, and the need for laws.
In the Antigone we see Sophocles character Creon disregarding all traditions of the gods and believing his concerns of maintaining his power and deter traitors and challengers to his throne as the most important maxim.
The contention in both of these plays comes from the conflicting views of the opposing parties, with each people doing what they believe they should be doing (with the likely exception of Jason, whose argument in defense reeks of self interest) (Medea 64.
522).
If Antigone did not violate Creon's decree she would be neglecting the will of the gods and dishonoring her brother (Antigone 85.
584), but in having attempted to bury her brother against Creon's will she is to be put to death as a traitor to the throne of Thebes (Antigone 90.
650).
Medea finds herself violated by Jason after doing so much for him, and she is left with nothing when she objects, even though Aegeus, ruler of Athens itself, declares Jason the doer of shameful acts upon Medea's recount of the events (Medea 69.
695), but not objecting or exacting some toll on Jason would be allowing another to do harm to herself, which in some poleis was a crime in secular law.
No matter the decisions of these women they are wrong under one of these systems when they remain conflicted.
One may demand inaction, and the other action.
In the Antigone violating the secular law in order to observe the gods will appears to be the greatest good, and so she must do so, but there is a gradual shift taking place at this time in Greece where secular law is slowly gaining more importance relative to religion so that in time religion may take the lesser role of the two in these matters.
The Medea is a potential example of this shift where Euripides comes up with the worst crime he can think of a woman capable of; that of destroying her husbands household.
Even though he wrongs her, the actions of Medea are unthinkable despite his breaking of oaths sworn to the gods that demands punishment (Medea 63.
492).
Along with all of Greece these women are caught between the two systems of law and religion.
Religion is a part of law, and likewise law a part of religion, but the power of traditions is decreasing.
With traditional religion everyone, including women, must act primarily for the gods, while with secular law it is the elite males who must be first obeyed.
In all cases it appears that a female disregarding or defying a male in her family would be a bad thing, even if she did so for what could be agreed upon as a good reason, but it still may be the best action for her to take.
A woman defying her family may be an unfortunate necessity when the gods demand it, or she must do so as subject of an important secular law.
So for a woman to defy the elite males of her family, it is more likely to be accepted, or even praised, for her to do so in an earlier traditional religious culture.
Despite both plays sharing a root cause of conflict, the average Greek audience would view Antigone and Medea in very different ways.
In the Medea her actions are viewed as the terrible consequences that may be the result of lawlessness where she is the evildoer, while Antigone is the victim of Creon's excessive abuse of power and neglect of the gods will.
Antigone is the self-sacrificing virtuous woman who takes death over the agony of shaming her family and disobeying the gods, while Medea commits the most heinous atrocity imaginable by the Greeks.
Likewise Creon and Jason are viewed in differing lights, though largely from a different ethical code of conduct than I have discussed this far.
In the Greek world there is a code of expected behavior, or at least a mode of behavior that is striven for.
The goal is a median of moderation.
To live in excess is to travel down the path of self-destruction.
To have too much was the first step, eventually leading to excessive pride, arrogance, and believing that they deserved what they had and were superior.
This was a bad state for any Greek to be in regardless of class or status, and was believed to ultimately lead in their utter demise, be it by the Gods, or more secular sources of justice and balance.
Both Jason and Creon are shinning examples of this excessive behavior, but are not necessarily the only ones who would be seen as carrying blame in classical Greece, such as Euripides Medea, who appears to be taking it too far, by design as a character.
Both Jason and Creon can claim some justification in their acts from the standards of secular law spoken on above, but they both remain guilty of excess and arrogance.
The average Greek would have recognized their behavior as foolish, and at times down right dangerous.
Creon abuses his power when he disregards the will and traditions of the gods by outlawing their will in the burying of the dead (Antigone 63.
91), and on top of Antigone calling him out on this and defying his law, the Leader of the Theban citizens (Antigone 72.
315), his son Haemon (Antigone 95.
764-816), and the prophet Tiresias (Antigone 111.
1101-1141, 115.
1181-1213) point out the errors of his behavior, and ultimately he is punished through the suicide of his son and wife (Antigone 127.
1461).
Jason likewise has his entire household destroyed through the murder of his wife to-be, his sons, and his own death because of his disloyalty to his wife, and breaking sword oaths to the gods (Medea 81.
1175, 84.
1309).
Regardless of how an audience may have viewed his disloyalty and oath-breaking his excess would still have been readily noticeable with his marrying a second wife to gain the status of such a royal marriage for himself and his household even though he recognizes he is already very fortunate and he harms Medea with his lust for more (Medea 65.
559-576).
With the two systems of secular law and traditional religion, as well as behavioral code of excess and moderation, and their change over time, these questions are not always to be answered in a straightforward way.
Euripedes, Medea.
Dover Publications (April 19, 1993) Sophocles, Antigone.
Prestwick House, Inc.
(December 1, 2005)
One is that of religion and the gods where practices and demands of the gods supplant and define all other aspects of life.
The other is secular law, placed by man to govern and maintain order in the growing poleis.
We see this conflict in both the Medea and the Antigone.
In the Medea we see Euripides constructing a scenario of the direst consequences, where a woman completely destroys a household and escapes unpunished, as a commentary on the lawless nature of the gods, and the need for laws.
In the Antigone we see Sophocles character Creon disregarding all traditions of the gods and believing his concerns of maintaining his power and deter traitors and challengers to his throne as the most important maxim.
The contention in both of these plays comes from the conflicting views of the opposing parties, with each people doing what they believe they should be doing (with the likely exception of Jason, whose argument in defense reeks of self interest) (Medea 64.
522).
If Antigone did not violate Creon's decree she would be neglecting the will of the gods and dishonoring her brother (Antigone 85.
584), but in having attempted to bury her brother against Creon's will she is to be put to death as a traitor to the throne of Thebes (Antigone 90.
650).
Medea finds herself violated by Jason after doing so much for him, and she is left with nothing when she objects, even though Aegeus, ruler of Athens itself, declares Jason the doer of shameful acts upon Medea's recount of the events (Medea 69.
695), but not objecting or exacting some toll on Jason would be allowing another to do harm to herself, which in some poleis was a crime in secular law.
No matter the decisions of these women they are wrong under one of these systems when they remain conflicted.
One may demand inaction, and the other action.
In the Antigone violating the secular law in order to observe the gods will appears to be the greatest good, and so she must do so, but there is a gradual shift taking place at this time in Greece where secular law is slowly gaining more importance relative to religion so that in time religion may take the lesser role of the two in these matters.
The Medea is a potential example of this shift where Euripides comes up with the worst crime he can think of a woman capable of; that of destroying her husbands household.
Even though he wrongs her, the actions of Medea are unthinkable despite his breaking of oaths sworn to the gods that demands punishment (Medea 63.
492).
Along with all of Greece these women are caught between the two systems of law and religion.
Religion is a part of law, and likewise law a part of religion, but the power of traditions is decreasing.
With traditional religion everyone, including women, must act primarily for the gods, while with secular law it is the elite males who must be first obeyed.
In all cases it appears that a female disregarding or defying a male in her family would be a bad thing, even if she did so for what could be agreed upon as a good reason, but it still may be the best action for her to take.
A woman defying her family may be an unfortunate necessity when the gods demand it, or she must do so as subject of an important secular law.
So for a woman to defy the elite males of her family, it is more likely to be accepted, or even praised, for her to do so in an earlier traditional religious culture.
Despite both plays sharing a root cause of conflict, the average Greek audience would view Antigone and Medea in very different ways.
In the Medea her actions are viewed as the terrible consequences that may be the result of lawlessness where she is the evildoer, while Antigone is the victim of Creon's excessive abuse of power and neglect of the gods will.
Antigone is the self-sacrificing virtuous woman who takes death over the agony of shaming her family and disobeying the gods, while Medea commits the most heinous atrocity imaginable by the Greeks.
Likewise Creon and Jason are viewed in differing lights, though largely from a different ethical code of conduct than I have discussed this far.
In the Greek world there is a code of expected behavior, or at least a mode of behavior that is striven for.
The goal is a median of moderation.
To live in excess is to travel down the path of self-destruction.
To have too much was the first step, eventually leading to excessive pride, arrogance, and believing that they deserved what they had and were superior.
This was a bad state for any Greek to be in regardless of class or status, and was believed to ultimately lead in their utter demise, be it by the Gods, or more secular sources of justice and balance.
Both Jason and Creon are shinning examples of this excessive behavior, but are not necessarily the only ones who would be seen as carrying blame in classical Greece, such as Euripides Medea, who appears to be taking it too far, by design as a character.
Both Jason and Creon can claim some justification in their acts from the standards of secular law spoken on above, but they both remain guilty of excess and arrogance.
The average Greek would have recognized their behavior as foolish, and at times down right dangerous.
Creon abuses his power when he disregards the will and traditions of the gods by outlawing their will in the burying of the dead (Antigone 63.
91), and on top of Antigone calling him out on this and defying his law, the Leader of the Theban citizens (Antigone 72.
315), his son Haemon (Antigone 95.
764-816), and the prophet Tiresias (Antigone 111.
1101-1141, 115.
1181-1213) point out the errors of his behavior, and ultimately he is punished through the suicide of his son and wife (Antigone 127.
1461).
Jason likewise has his entire household destroyed through the murder of his wife to-be, his sons, and his own death because of his disloyalty to his wife, and breaking sword oaths to the gods (Medea 81.
1175, 84.
1309).
Regardless of how an audience may have viewed his disloyalty and oath-breaking his excess would still have been readily noticeable with his marrying a second wife to gain the status of such a royal marriage for himself and his household even though he recognizes he is already very fortunate and he harms Medea with his lust for more (Medea 65.
559-576).
With the two systems of secular law and traditional religion, as well as behavioral code of excess and moderation, and their change over time, these questions are not always to be answered in a straightforward way.
Euripedes, Medea.
Dover Publications (April 19, 1993) Sophocles, Antigone.
Prestwick House, Inc.
(December 1, 2005)
Source...