Tragedy and Evolution of Polis: Re-creation of the Myth

In the historical review in the first part of this chapter, I have presented some key historical moments of Athens and the respective political changes that they signalled in the form of evolution of the institutions. This process that characterised Athenian democracy as progressive and self-re-creative can be said to have characterised tragedies themselves. A range of theorists (Green, 1994, p.16; Easterling, 1997, p.22), studying the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, note that “the myths of classical Greece were highly malleable and the job of the dramatist was not to reproduce myths but to re-create them” (Wiles, 2000, p.5). Re-creation does not only refer to the structural change of the myth but mainly, and more importantly, to the free, deliberate transformation of its profound meanings (Castoriadis, 1993, 2007, 2008; Wiles, 2000; Easterling, 1997). The changes were neither the indiscernible alterations which naturally occur in populations or cultures through the course of the years, nor transformations

74 provoked by the evolution of language (Castoriadis, 2007, 2008). We encounter myths that constitute part of the tradition of the polis being intentionally transformed in order to respond to, explore and discuss the above-mentioned evolution that preoccupied the Athenian polis. Indeed, the tragic plays were re-created according to the new political, ideological, religious and moral conditions of the polis (Wiles, 2000, p.20). These deliberate transformations which evaluate, approvingly or disapprovingly, the political transformations and, at the same time, reshape tradition (Easterling, 1997, p.22), reveal an exceptional, unprecedented relation with tradition, characteristic of the freedom to reflect and re-create afforded by the democratic regime (Castoriadis, 2007, Wiles, 2000, p.19).

I would like to adduce some characteristic examples that are useful in order to make better sense of the argument analysed above. Firstly, I would like to compare two versions of Oedipus. The Oidepodeia, the story of Oedipus that Homer narrated in epic form, presents significant differences in relation to Sophocles’ version of Oedipus Rex, reflecting major political changes between the archaic and the classical era. In the archaic period when Homer wrote his poems, Athenians were governed by kings, who, while not being grand rulers like the oriental monarchs, still ruled their poleis as chief aristocrats (Rhodes, 2006, p.2). Here, the hamartia of Oedipus is centred around the marriage to his mother. The hubris of the hero focuses exclusively on the incest which is, in the Homeric version, the “tragic” theme of the play. The impact of the facts stays between the members of the family, inside the palace. Hence, when Oedipus discovers the incest, he leaves Jocasta and marries a second time to another woman with whom he has his four children (Polynices, Eteocles, Antigone and Ismene) (Wiles, 2000, p.20). More importantly, Oedipus remains the king of the polis, as he makes amends for his hubris which was not directly related to the rest of the life of the polis, at any rate. The

75 Sophoclean version, on the other hand, bears a much more political dimension and the democratic context is made apparent. In Sophocles’ era, the concerns of the Athenians consisted of a range of issues related to human power and, therefore, to human self- limitation and even to the political self-limitation of the governors, namely the Generals. In this context, Oedipus’ hubris, although still based on the incest, is presented by Sophocles as more centred around Oedipus’ belief in his unlimited power and, hence, lies mostly in man’s desire and ambition for control and assertiveness. If we were to also take into account that Sophocles’ version was written in the period of Pericles (a charismatic General who, nevertheless, implemented centralised and sometimes arrogant political decisions), the wider, more political ramifications of the play can be easily observed (Tracy, 2009). As a result, in Sophocles’ version, the king cannot continue ruling after his hubris, because he is accountable to the citizens of the polis, which suffers the consequences of that hubris. The king cannot continue his kingship, as in Homer’s version, because, being responsible for his actions and accountable to the citizens, he is obliged to go into exile.

Another striking case is Oresteia. In Aeschylus’ final play of the trilogy, The Furies (458 BC), the crime of Orestes is judged by the Athenian juridical institution of

Areopagus. In this juridical procedure there are some elements that arguably deserve our attention. In the Homeric version, Orestes has the opportunity to apologise only before goddess Athena. In his apology, he explains the reasons for which he committed the crime. Finally, he declares to Athena that he will accept her final ruling regarding his guilt or innocence, any decision that will restore justice. At this point, in the Aeschylean version, Athena convenes Areopagus and provides Athenians with advice regarding the ways in which they should, in the future, treat issues of justice. Athenians vote and, as there is an equality in votes, Athena rules that Orestes should be acquitted. “Aeschylus’

76 play celebrates that new role which Areopagus performed on behalf of the people” (Wiles, 2000, p.58) and the initial steps of the democratic juridical procedures of the Athenian polis. Euripides’ Orestes (408 BC), one of the last tragedies to be performed in democratic Athens, also addresses the issue of Orestes’ guilt or innocence. But, this version of the play, performed 50 years later, gives a different perspective on the treatment of the issues of justice within the polis. In the first place, the juridical institution could be viewed as more democratised in the sense that every citizen, and not only the members of the Areopagus, has the opportunity to support his argument concerning the issue. In the speech of the Messenger (Euripides, verse: 866-957) we can observe that everyone speaks publicly in the juridical court in order to support his opinion. However, it can be argued that strong elements of sophism and frivolity are included in the speeches of orators, elements which are severely criticised by Euripides through the narration of the Messenger. It can also be argued that in this re-creation of the myth, one can observe a certain kind of development of democratic procedures of justice, such as the reforms in the function of Heliaia made by Ephialtes and Pericles. On the other hand, one can clearly observe the criticism that the tragedy addresses to the political ‘progression’ of Athens.

The Athens of Aeschylus is the city that defeated the Persians; the Argos of Euripides’ Orestes evokes an Athens that was losing its empire […]. Whilst Aeschylus’ play enacts the democratic processes of speaking and casting ballots, Euripides has a messenger describe the assembly, which seems part of an alien world over which individuals have little control – though Orestes does secure one small concession. Euripides’ chorus become sympathetic onlookers with no active involvement in the plot. The audience’s mode of viewing thus changes. In Euripides’ play only private life is visible to the spectator. There

77 is no sense of interaction between the individual and the

collective (Wiles, 2000, p.59).

In this context, we can observe not only the ways in which tradition is re-created in order to be meaningful for the Athenians of the fifth century, but also an additional function of Athenian tragedy, namely that of reflection and criticism.