59: Antigone

with insight literature. These words sum up classical stuff. You should know. Guys, I'm on my quest.

I'm trying to change it up. We need it. I'm trying to change the window. The intro, because you guys have been making fun.

Changing the windows. Changing the windows. Anyway, high listeners. This is classical stuff you should know.

A podcast put on by classical educators. We are three men who are part of the classical education movement for any new listeners. Classical education basically means trying to teach in the old ways, trying to teach using an old pedagogy of questions, of logic, of dialectic, of socratic dialogue, of the great books, and having a healthy dose of skepticism to new and modern methodologies of instruction. That was a good summary.

Thanks. And also, it's very exciting because it's been a methodology of teaching that has been dead, or has been not taught for three generations, post-war we had this new progressive education, which we were all taught in. And we are kind of rediscovering the old ways of teaching. It's like that scene in Wizard Isaiah, or has it kind of when they discover they discover the Renaissance?

Oh man, we've been totally screwing this up. When they're doing renovations on the temple, and they find the old book of the law that no one's read for a long time, and they're like, oh crap, we're totally not supposed to be doing this. I feel that way when I read about just different ways of teaching, I'm like, oh man, no wonder personality tests aren't working or whatever. No, I didn't mind if I did talk on that.

No, I still listen to it. Yeah, I don't want to. Anyway, I was not. But I got to say I got the gist.

It's not fair, but people were talking about it, and it sounded very interesting. I think I was giving a talk at the same time. I recorded it too. I can just think.

Anyway, but this is a long intro just to say that we are three guys who are part of a school, which is part of a series of schools that are trying to do school in a new way by doing it in an old way. And so we're doing this podcast to usher you and welcome you guys into the classical education. We have been doing a series on old Greek tragedies. And today, are we getting a happy one?

No. Oh, no. Not a chance. No.

So Thomas, take it away. Yes, strangely enough, the one we did last time was kind of the happy one, even though it's still involved in the main character dying. But that's tragedy. And just before someone emails us, I think that's just that I discovered the law.

Did I say Hezekiah? Yeah. It doesn't mean it's a real big deal. I'm preempting emails.

So yeah, today we are talking about Hezekiah is a guy that had the Babylonians come to us cast. I was like, hey, man, check out my gold room. It's a room full of gold. And the Babylonians were like duly noted.

And then invaded 20 years later. All right. So yes, today we're going to talk about Antigone, which is the third in the Theban cycle. So these are three plays by Sophocles.

If you have not listened to the episodes on Ettipus Rex or Ettipus Eccolones. I'd recommend going back to those because this kind of wraps up that cycle. We talked about this before. But Antigone is not actually so normally the tragedies are written in a set of three, all three represented at the Grand Dainesia at the Big Festival every year.

These three plays were not a part of one set. They're part of three different sets. But we don't have all of the plays from the other two sets. So we combine the three of them and then call it Theban cycle.

So these are three plays of Sophocles that make it to us today. I personally think Antigone is the best known of the three. I might be wrong. You all, I think I thought Antipus Rex is the best known.

Mainly just because of the Sphinx and then poking your eyes out. And then there's the whole. I've never heard of it at Episic Colonis. It's the same.

I've heard of the other two. I think that probably Colonis is the least known. So I think that Antigone is the best known because I did high school theater. And every year you'd have multiple when I play competitions, multiple schools doing Antigone as their play.

So I wonder why does that have a good balance of male and female characters? Is that the deal? Yes, I guess. It's filled with heartbreaking pathos.

It has lots of great monologues. Cool costumes? Good set. Easy costume.

Easy set. Easy set. There you go. I'm not thinking of director.

Yeah. You're going to have real reason for both guys and girls. You've got to have an easy set and easy costumes. So I tried looking into it, but Antigone is not actually one of the most dumb plays.

But anyway, I thought it didn't. The importance of being earnest? No. I think I'm going to play.

I was in it back in high school also. I think I've not done that one. I look at the top 10 plays. In high school, I was in I think four or five of them.

So clearly, you know, if any of my old theater teachers are listening, you chose well, I guess. What would be like the hardest play to put on for high school or middle school or universities? Yeah. I was thinking like apocalypse now.

The new Spider-Man play. I think the tech involved in that one would be unbelievable. I mean, in the dark, whatever the Broadway play was. Anyway, they're Spider-Man actor would keep getting injured from all the sounds that they would have to do.

So what's going to be in the running at least? What about the Phantom? Sure. It's just dropping into the leer.

That's going to take a pretty pain. It's true. Henry V is just like major battles. Hey, speaking of Henry V.

So we will go into the plot of the plane a second, but the Antigone is dealing with a few central questions and I think we will start with those questions themselves. Gentlemen, you're going to think this is a very simple question and it will kind of expand the show. It's not a quiz show. It's a conversation.

It's a conversation show. No, watch is that. Well, they are not watching. That's the news.

And talk shows are a thing. Talk shows are a thing. Talk shows are a thing. They're stream shows.

It's not really a discussion. What is it? The view. There's a lot of people who have to show for moms.

Ladies and gentlemen, ours is not that because we're not moms but we are around a table. Okay, so our very simple question that we will start this discussion with on is, gentlemen, should we follow the law? Who's law? Only insofar as the law is just.

Really? Yeah. Do you disagree with a piece of law you can just ignore? No.

Not if I disagree with it. I think the biblical stipulation is you follow the law and I should express commands you to do something. You follow the law and I say it commands you to blaspheme. And then- So all laws other than requiring blasphemy.

Or requiring, you know, I'm not allowed to pray or something, where it would require me to do something that God has expressly committed. Wherever it conflicts with God's law is something I don't do. And then in all other cases, you know, wretched to see or what it sees. Okay, so there are a few categories where there are unjust laws, but broadly laws should be followed.

Yeah, yeah. But tell me, I don't understand how can a law be unjust? So you're giving me this one example of your Christian faith means that there are certain things that you can't do, but so take any city, take Austin or take a country in the United States. There are going to be different groups of people with many different religions.

Does anyone basically get to say I have a religious conviction that is contrary to whatever law is and that makes it okay and not do that thing? Well, we've got the freedom of religion. So we have the freedom to congregate and to worship as we as we want. So if any of that sort of changed, where if it was illegal to go to church, if it was legal to hold communion, if it was illegal to stand up and say the body broke in view and that Christians were not allowed to take that and the government would come and cease, then I would say that I would break that law by doing underground communion and feel no and feel like I was not well, I am breaking the law, but I am doing it because of my Christian conviction.

So I would not see it. I would see it as like a tragedy and a shame that my nation was such that was had enshrined laws that were against God's commands, but but I would not stop remembering Christ, that communion. I think I see what you're aiming at, maybe, that this is a slippery slope that should I claim my religion is face punching, right? Then how about face punching that I could walk around punching faces and therefore would be justified my own right?

And I think this is possibly it's called faith punching. That's our religion. I'm a faith punching. I feel like it's putting up against the crime and punishment, Rastman O'Kav's big theory that he said where if the great man has a great purpose that he needs to accomplish, he is allowed to break the law.

He's duty bound to break the law, but the people who follow the law and the law itself is duty bound to essentially catch him if they can, right? And I think in certain cases that's true, right? If my religion requires me to break the law, I can't be mad when the law actually comes down on me, right? I can't be like, well, you guys, I know I'm breaking the law, but it's what my conviction compels me to do.

That consequence is still okay, even if it's in the service of enforcing what you're saying is an unjust law. Well, I would probably even take it further and talk about the idea that the laws of a nation should be reflecting or corresponding to the laws of nature, that there is such a thing as justice out there. It's not that justice is whatever a nation says is going to happen. It's that there is a thing called justice.

Otherwise, rebellions don't make sense. And if we are not, and so if a law is unjust, we would say that it is a law that is not conforming to justice. Whereas I think a lot of people would say all laws are just are the will of the powerful arbitrary arbitrary will of the powerful. And so whoever's in power can make whatever laws they want.

But I think you can feel it wrinkles in your soul when you feel a law that is actually unjust, whereas there are laws that we all think are great because they are just like don't steal. Right? That's not something just put there by the powerful. So when I think about it, there's so I remember when I was a kid, my dad was talking with the story of that there are three different kinds of baseball umpires.

So there's one baseball umpire, he says, it's either a ball or it's a strike. And all I need to do is say what it is. And there's one baseball umpires that says it's either a ball or a strike. And I do my best to try to discern what it is.

And then there's a third baseball umpire who says it's nothing until I say what it is. And I feel like I am much more the first umpire that there are balls and there are strikes and we just need to call them like we see them or maybe more like the second umpire where we try our best to call them like we see them. I'm umpires. But I think the third there's a lot of people who are the third umpire that say nothing isn't anything until we say what it is.

So how do we know in the case of baseball? How do we know we teach Aristotle? I'm not talking about with the correct answer. My sweet leadership class has come to learn that the answer to all of my questions is either Thomas Aquinas or Aaron Paul.

Yes, Mark, 100% but let's say more. How do we age it was getting at this question. So what's keeping all of us from having our own private religious convictions that we then say, well, I can't actually follow that law. I'm a certified speed demon.

Therefore, I must actually break traffic law or else I'm not satisfied in my religious belief or that's obviously a goofy example. But we might. I mean, there are people who following their religious convictions kill or do various things you're not supposed to do and those things conflict with national law. Less than that's supposed to.

So when you say supposed to, what do you mean supposed to do? Because they would say I'm supposed to do this thing. I'm supposed to do kill. So like honor killing.

The one that I mean, that's come up in Canada a couple times where you have these families who have come from a culture where there are honor killings where you can kill a member of your family if they have dishonored or if they've gone outside the bounds of religious or cultural norms. It is your duty to kill a member of your family. If she usually the daughter, she has brought shame to your family and that and you know, Canadian law has said, regardless of this being your religious conviction, it is murder. So I guess laws end up having to take stands on.

I have to draw lines saying religious conviction can go here and can go no further. And then for the person for whom hold that religious conviction, they probably can't, they can complain that they are living in a country that doesn't believe in their religious laws, but they're going to have to pick which side they want to be on. I mean, for me, I would say I would pick the side of Christianity regardless of if Veritas becomes illegal or if going to church and taking community becomes illegal, then I'm going to be a criminal. Yeah, well, laws as they are designed are ideally for the preservation of a nation and a people and not necessarily for the preservation of the elite.

Sometimes that is the case where the elite want to stay in power and they make laws to make that happen. When it is designed to be for the preservation of a nation, I think they will occasionally butt up against religious conviction when religious conviction threatens the well-being of the nation. For example, if I give religion completely free rein, then I leave myself open to the abuse that someone says my religion is to be in charge of everyone else in town. And if my laws have given that completely free rein, then that person all of a sudden has usurped a town in my mayor doesn't matter anymore.

And there are a number of abuses that can come from claiming religious convictions or actually having religious convictions that threaten the well-being of the nation. So where your religion might butt up against the well-being of the nation, I think those two things are in conflict and you have to do what you think is right. And in that case it might be to go against the nation, then the nation has to go against you, right? You're coming into conflict with the group of people.

I mean, this is like where the pastor-farians get tax exemptions. You have tax exemptions. You know, pastor-farians right, Hanburg? Yeah, they believe in this, getting on, sir?

Yeah, so the big, big, big monster in the sky. They're basically a religion. They've, they've, they're, they're a satire or a mockery of religion. And then they are setting themselves up as a religion in order to get the things that, like, for example, tax exemptions or the kind of the special privileges that religious bodies or religious organizations get in this country.

That's a sweet name. Positive variance. Yeah. That's great.

So that's something we just have to be okay with. I think it is. I think it's just the messiness of, I mean, the alternative is either, like, a theocracy where you just got to pick a religion and then just like organize your society around that. You're leaning into it.

Yeah. Or it's to completely ban all religious expression from having any enshrined political rights. We are, and then take a stand on the, on the atheist. We are a nation of no religion and any outward sign of religion is going to be seen as a threat to the state.

And you see that happening in country some time and time again. France taking kind of steps to say, we don't want to see crucifixes and we don't want to see he jobs because it is in conflict with our sort of our French national identity. And so in the United States, we have said, we want to have freedom of religion and we are also going to draw boundary lines around acceptable human behavior for our nation. Right.

You're going to be in conflict. They're going to allow for a range of religion. They're going to be coming somewhere and you have to draw the line at some place. I think a smelty tour, the exclusions we've raised so far are for religious conviction.

Is that the only category where one could break the law in good faith? I think as a Christian perhaps yes. Okay. What God is that what Jesus has asked us to do is follow the laws of our nation.

If I wasn't a Christian and I didn't hold to you know, Redditor's Caesar or what it sees or is, I might rail against any law. I thought was not beneficial to me or I didn't think was fair or any, I mean, depending on what I believed in this scenario, I could go up against the law depending on what sort of allowances I give myself. I'm just trying to think, is there could there be a category of irrational laws that are believed to be passed, laws that are believed to be logical in their past, but I guess are not well thought. Like prohibition?

Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. But I think in good faith Christians are to follow those laws unless they violate religious convictions.

And if you don't like them, you can always work towards their abolishment as I mean, didn't William Wilberforce do this, right? So he didn't necessarily rail against everything. He worked within Parliament to get rid of slavery in the UK. He didn't lead a rebellion.

He didn't blow up slave ships. He lobbied to have slavery illegal by showing, you know, and his religious conviction was pertinent by showing the unjustness of it. And I think on the far end, I can't help it think of Bonhoeffer and the assassination plot on Hitler. I think that is real crazy territory that I hope I never have to deal with.

I think Bonhoeffer was in a really unique position where there's a tyrant that was killing millions of people. And he felt as though he needed to attempt to do that. He needed to do something about it. I think there are a lot of Christians who are strict pacifists and never would do that and would pray instead or some that would try to work within Germany and try to get him taken out of power.

Right? There's different avenues to do this. That gets to a scary place of whether murder is justified for political reasons. Like I said, there I hope I never have to deal with that scenario where I could possibly save millions by killing one man.

That's not a decision I want to make. I prefer to violating the religious conviction to achieve a political end, which is kind of the opposite of the question we started with. I prefer the Corey Ten Boom option to the Bonhoeffer option. What's the same boom option?

I mean, she worked to free Jews in occupied Holland during the war and was thrown into Raven's Brook, women's concentration camp and her sister died there. But yeah, I mean, there are, yeah, when does the free man or when does the rational man go against the state and when is the rational man submit to the state, I think is a very interesting question and one that high schoolers need to think about. I think it's one we need to think about. Yeah, I'm not really even in preparing for this.

I'm not sure I have great answers to a lot of these questions. I always think about if you ever seen a man for all seasons, here's a man for all seasons. It's a story of Sir Thomas Moore when King Henry VIII wanted him to pass the law so he could divorce his wife and Thomas Moore's like, I'm not doing that. I end up losing his head for it.

There's this scene where I can't remember all the details, but someone basically Thomas Moore is a chancellor of England. Isn't his daughter trying to talk about this? Yeah, he's trying to talk about it. He's trying to use your power to arrest that man because he's dangerous.

He's a bad man and Thomas Moore says, well, there's not a law against being bad. And there's a and Cranmer, I think, says, would you give the devil the benefit of the law? And Thomas Moore says, yes, I would. And Cranmer says, I would not.

I would tear down every law to get to the devil. And Thomas Moore says, all right. And once you've torn down every law and the devil turns around and looks you in the face and there was no law to protect you. Who's going to protect you then?

How are you going to stand in those wins that blow? He said, Thomas Moore says, I would give the devil the benefit of the law only if only for my benefit. Like if you tear down every law and then to get at a certain problem, then what are you going to do when new problems arise and you've torn down the laws of England? Oh, this is the very question that comes up.

Are we I hope we're on topic here? This is the very topic that comes up when our student last year wanted to do the one on cell phone privacy. When you give the government a backdoor into cell phones, what happens when the government wants to do your cell phone? Right?

It's you've torn down every law to get at something you don't like terrorism. And now all of a sudden that law is no longer there to protect you. Yeah, the freedom and security balance is one that needs to be balanced back and forth. If you have total freedom, well, you're a lot of unsafe, you're a lot of unsafe people.

If you have total security, we're going to have a lot of unfree people. And the advent of our technology has been speeding up faster than our institutions have been able to figure out how to deal with it. So maybe this agency example is helpful in getting at my question earlier of let's say a law is passed saying that there must be a backdoor to all cell phones. Well, can I then go have a communication system that is separate from the cellular network?

Anyway, is it you're getting to a logical problem with that access to cell phones can be used for not great purposes and that we'd be opening up ourselves up to that. They're not necessarily a religious right to privacy. Maybe you would would you all disagree with that? I don't think there's a religious right to privacy.

Not that I can think of the top of my head. No, we eventually get to it through the bill of rights. But that's an interpretation that's later case law. Anyway, so let's dive into the play itself, which will also get at some of these questions that we're talking about here.

So in taking any, in taking these the name that we have discussed before because she's been in the two previous plays. So in Epis Wrex the first of the cycle, and taking shows up at the very end with her sister Ismyne or sometimes you'll hear it said Ismyne but I think it's me and something better. So I'm saying that you don't want me to mean so and taking this show at the end to say goodbye to their father before he wanders into the desert in leaves leaves. In Epis, that's Epis.

Father brother? Yes. So before Epis leaves leaves, he says goodbye to Intekny and Ismyne. It's this he asks Kreon, the one favor he asks from Kreon is that he would have the privilege of saying goodbye to his daughters before he leaves.

Kreon grants that it's this noble moment for Kreon. The only noble moment for Kreon because we see a decline in Kreon which then is we see more decline of Kreon in this in taking me as well. Anyway, that's the end of Epis Rax in Epis at Klonus, the second play. Intekny is the one who has stayed, again, it's changed the details of the first play.

Intekny goes with Epis in eventually two Klonus which is near Athens. This is where Epis dies. It's what happened in the last episode where we talk about the Stephen cycle. So spoiler, I guess I don't know if it's a spoiler, it's a spoiler if this is your first time reverse spoiler.

Yeah, I guess. Anyway, go back and listen to that episode because this one will make more sense with that. That's just a reminder. That's a reminder.

That's a reminder. You heard me talk about it's all of this. Anyway, then today is intekny. So again, this is after the death of Epis.

This is also after an event that is discussed at the end of Epis at Klonus but has happened before intekny starts and that is the battle between Epis's two sons. The two sons are at Teokles and Polynices and we discussed this last time but this conflict comes from a change in details from Epis Rax again. So when Epis leaves the city in the first play, Kreon takes control. Well, those details are changed in play by Escalist called Seven Against Thebes and in that play, the two brothers decide to trade off control of the city every year.

How long do you all think that lasted? One year. One year in one year. It lasted one year and zero changeovers.

So, Teokles was the first one put in charge. He was king. He was supposed to hand over control of Polynices and at a take, he said no. Polynices said hey, give it back and at a take, he said no.

So Polynices raises an army. I'm shocked. I can't believe that a king would not want to really push power. He's probably brothers.

I'm so shocked. I'm so shocked. I'm shocked. Up and down.

And so then Polynices gets three captains. I'm sorry, seven captains to head up his army. Those are the seven who are against Thebes. So the seven are the seven commanders.

That's close as play. And that's his own play, right? Yes, seven. So I'm waiting for our students to put together a play where it's seven students that want to change all of the rules about marks and they call it seven against Thebes.

Oh, I would read that play. Oh, I would read that play. I would read that play. We have more than seven who are proposing changes to our.

Anyway, I would have a lot of speed that would make me laugh. So that, all of that happens. Make a right of play. Is that our new appeal system?

I'm having to write a play. I think I'll act it out. Oh, man. Yeah, if you want to change a rule, you have to put together a play about it.

And then if the play is compelling enough, we'll consider changing the rules. We'll stand up to each year and yeah, I'd be down for that. I love it. We're gonna change it all immediately.

So that all happens before Antigone starts. So, in the course of seven against Thebes, a take leaves does not give up power. Play Niceies raises an army attacks Thebes. The two brothers kill each other.

So both of them are dead. Hey, problem solved. Well, kind of. This creates a new problem, which the play has been taking us about.

So they kill each other. Creon then takes control of Thebes again and institutes martial law. So he is running the city essentially on his own. And Creon needs to make a decision about these two brothers of what is gonna happen with them.

But dead because they're dead. But what needs to happen with that body is they'd be buried. And so he immediately takes control in one of his first, as the play presents is the first thing that he presents is that probably Niceies cannot be buried. And at a time, please can be buried.

And this is because Polynices is viewed as a traitor to the city because instead of allowing his brother to stay king, he raised an army and attacked the city that he claimed to care about. So in that sense, he's a traitor to the city, doesn't deserve a burial, should instead stay laid out in the battlefield for the birds to pick at him, to for his body to decompose in public, which is a great shame to him. And doesn't it condemn him to a horrible afterlife? Exactly.

And they're condemning him to an eternity of disfigurement. Yes. I get this wrong. You would know better because I think this is in the Odyssey.

But I believe he doesn't get to go to the afterlife, like a condemnation to stay on earth as a spirit, in like in a tortured existence. So it's a huge deal. It's real bad news. You don't want that.

It's a bad news. So this is the chief conflict of the play. And taking wants to bury her brother because he is her brother. And essentially everyone is telling her that she should not do this because it's a lot because it's against the law.

So they give a few reasons for why she shouldn't do it. You don't want to take a swing at what any of these reasons are because you get caught and punished because punishment is a big one that they go into because it make you a traitor. Make you a traitor. So Kreon has this whole thing where he talks about the duties that we owe to our city.

And one of them is that we are submitting our will to that city that we're a part of that we need order. We need justice. If we just disagree with every law that we don't like, we don't have a coherent society. We can't operate if we are all picking our own laws.

There's something compelling in that. That's Kreon's. And this is the two. This means the one who says don't do it because you'll be killed.

So the condemnation side of that. And then Kreon is appealing to her as a citizen that her duty is to follow the law. So that's the conflict. Does she give any sort of monologue or rationalist to why she decides to bury her or go off and bury her brother or is the whole play her decision making?

She is pretty set from the beginning that she's going to do this. And everyone gives their argument to her. But she is not convinced by any of them. She's like don't care.

Yeah. But well said don't care. But the question is why she disagrees or rather it's possible to disagree with the law but still follow it. But she feels like she needs to go the step beyond and not only disagree with it but then take action against it.

But it's not that like if she disagrees with the law, like it's a discretion to her family. So she has so in the order in her ordered affection she has put family above city. Yes. And so when city makes a claim on like it's not like it's telling you to do something and you don't want to do it but you do it anyway, gradually because you want to follow the law.

It's no if I don't do this or if I don't bury my brother then I am committing an evil against my family in order to do a good thing as a citizen. But in her internal ordered affection family is going to supersede city. So let me so the argument you made is basically what she says. So I'll read what so the way the plot goes is me and tries to talk her out of it.

Criannez tries to talk her out of it. It doesn't work. So in Dignyndy goes and it's not an actual burial. She puts dust over him and then pours libations out on him.

It's the ceremony of it without him actually being buried under the sand. Oh so she does like a technicality? Yes. Because what she cares about is the release of soul and not dishonoring his body.

So she does as much as she can trying not to get caught. That's pretty sweet of the ground. I know there. Yeah.

So do the gods reward her for it? Are they like nice tries? Not very. It's just this weird part.

It's somewhat controversial what is actually happening. So the bag and forth between Dignyndy and Isemina the beginning and then they all leave and the chorus is talking and then a messenger comes and says, hey, we found playing Ise's body and it was covered in dust. So it had the ceremony all burial, but we can't figure out what happened, where it came from. Who did it?

No one saw the person who did it. It just happened. And Digny's like, huh, weird, but was he was he you? But what they do is the guards disrupts the sand, the dust that's on top of him and then leave and then this kind of storm comes in and they can't see anything.

Well, the storm moves back and Dignyndy is there doing the sermon again. But the question is, why did she do it the second time other than the plot device that we needed to catch her? Because with that first ceremony, the soul's already been released according to the Greek worldview. So that part has already been accomplished.

And maybe she cares about the tradition side of it of just wants the body to be covered in sight. But I don't know, there's a line of argument that goes that gods actually were the ones who did the burial that at night they covered him with dust from the wind blowing on him. And they are the ones who actually accomplished the burial. And then it's Digny's pride and Digny's need to do something herself that motivates the second time.

Or some people think, it's the one who actually goes and does that. Or she's if the gods were the one that do the first burial and then the soldiers are like, no, no, no, no, and they dust it off, then it's kind of pied. It could be pied driving on Digny to go and redo the work because of the gods that were undone by men. Or if it was just a storm that blew sand over him, that might not count.

So maybe she's thinking, it was real careful. But so the soldiers, when they see the body, they recognize it as they see that this was intent. It looks like an intentional because there's libation to right? It's not just the dust on top.

So it looks like he's been buried overnight. So unless it was raining wine, yeah, it wouldn't work. But it happens overnight with guards watching. Yeah, yeah.

And they don't see it happen. So maybe they're just bad guards. Anyway, there's some kind of like question of what's happening there. But regardless, Antigne is caught going out a second time to do this burial, pouring libations.

She's caught, she doesn't deny any of it. She says, I did this. And I know that I was breaking the law and I know that there's punishment of death. She owns up to all of it.

She's taken into crreon and crreon asks her a few questions about it among them. And still you had the gall to break this law. Antigone, of course I did. It wasn't Zeus, not in the least who made this proclamation, not to me, nor did that justice, dwelling with the gods beneath the earth, ordained such laws for men.

Nor did I think your edict had such force that you, a mere mortal, could override the gods, the great, unwritten, unshakable traditions. They are alive, not just today or yesterday. They live forever from the first of time. And no one knows when they first saw the light.

So her argument is what you're saying is that there's a law, there's a deeper law that she is following that contradicts crreon's law, but she still has to follow the deeper law. Part of it is for piety's sake because she is honoring the gods. That's what she's saying. But it's even deeper than that.

It's that justice is in contradiction to what crreon has ordered. Yeah, that's what she's doing. But there's a deeper law. There is a, there is a city can either reflect law properly or it can be in disharmony with the way law ought to be.

And in this instance, the city is in disharmony and she is in harmony with natural law and is going to honor her family and is going to bear the consequences for it. So I, yeah, I think that gets complicated first because I think when the kings of Greece were declaring laws, many of them were appeals to the gods. Right. This I'm putting forward a law because this is what the gods.

We don't think he's being pious. Criano thinks he's doing the right thing. He's not intentionally saying, I hate the gods. Let's do this.

So there you go. When she appeals to the gods as higher powers, she's saying your law isn't what it's purporting to be. Right. Whereas I don't think a lot of the nations today would say we are putting forth God's law.

True. And on top of that, I mean, yes, Graham, you might claim that there's a deeper law, but in certain instances, and especially when it comes down to certain things, people disagree about that deeper law. Abortion is an example of one of those things where some people say that the deeper, the deeper law is that women have autonomy over their bodies. Whereas some say the deeper law is not to murder a fetus.

So there's, there is, while there is, I think deeper law there that both murder is wrong and women should have autonomy with their bodies, these two things kind of come in conflict and where exactly the line should be drawn is difficult. Let me, let me also, I'll take Criano's side for a second. So who wants to take Criano's side? I do because you feel bad for the guy for some stuff that will happen later.

And well, anyway, he gets him a pyramid scheme. It's a real good, you know, your original pyramid scheme? No, next to Egypt. I don't know.

Anyway, so I was trying to show you the original pyramid scheme. So what Crian would say and does say, I'm summarizing, is that Paul Nisse was a traitor to the city. He actually killed people in the city of Thebes. He's the reason that there was any conflict.

If he had, again, I understand him not wanting to submit and say, say, you can be king, but he could have done that. And he could have appealed wisely, Adrian, like you said earlier, he didn't have to start a rebellion. He could have appealed to the old men of the city. Exactly.

And have them affirm him as king. He could have done that and he didn't. And so what Antigone wants to do is honor a traitor to the city instead of giving him the just punishment that he earned from murdering people from his town. But he's already received the punishment.

He has died. He's died. But so then there's no, so the death is the natural consequence of entering the battle. There's a chance of death.

But there's a further condemnation that he started this battle in the first place. He is responsible for all deaths that occurred in the conflict between the two brothers. He initiated. And so here's an instance of where what we would appeal to as justice is coming into conflict.

She does not feel it is just for them to go so far and condemn him as a brother. And Creon, I think, feels that it is unjust to honor a traitor and say, wait, both appeal to justice. But the gods have put out and the gods have said, hey, if the body's left desecrated, it's going to wander the afterlife. And that's real bad for them.

Therefore, you should bury the dead. That's the reason for the law. And Creon's taking it and he's weaponizing it by saying, hey, we can dishonor, we can desecrate the bodies of the dead to give him a big FU in the afterlife. Let's do that.

Like, the reason for the law to exist was that gods are saying it is bad for souls to wander around in the afterlife. Therefore, bury your dead. And Creon's like, I want that to happen. I want souls to wander around.

I mean, I'm always leery of these sorts of discussions when they involve the Greek gods. It's not exactly like the Greek gods put a whole lot of thought in anything. I don't think they were thinking, this thing is bad. Therefore, we'll give this law.

I think the gods were just like, hey, this thing happens. Do what you want. And I'm going to go snog some ladies. Yeah, that's what Zeus was thinking.

He wasn't thinking I will do what is best for mankind. He's like, I'm going to be a swan and hang out with his lady and hopefully my wife don't find out. Like, that's what the god they never they never put. I mean, yes, in Greek tragedy, the gods are seen but there's not these like great legislators in order.

Yeah, but the funny thing is sometimes they are seen as they are these great, wonderful legislators and patrons of towns and then sometimes they're these horrible, petty people. I mean, maybe that's supposed to mirror or evoke the same thing that humanity can be. We can be the great highs and we can be those terrible lows. But typically the gods are leaning more towards the lows than they are the highs and they're certainly not infallible.

So appealing to them as a source of law always seems speechless to me. That's interesting. So Zeus has referenced in that quote I just gave you, but it's never said this god told us that this happens or this god says we need to bury our dead. It's almost Zeus is a derp, which is true.

It's assumed among everyone. Well, that's not even true. They're both appealing to justice that this person needs to be buried. No one is saying that there's a law that says all people should be buried or that justice says all people should be buried.

It's all focused on this one. Just one in Cisley's should probably nice to be buried. So we just said, so Antigone gets caught going back out there to do this burial for her brother. She's caught she runs up to it is in front of Creon.

There, Creon condemns Antigone to death and also condemns her sister, Ismene to death as well. Oh, that's just a little too far. It's mean was not involved. We didn't see any involvement of his mean, but Ismene tries to cover for Antigone when Antigone first shows up and so Creon's kind of met about that.

So it condemns both of them to death, sends them off. And they talk about this later. Ismene eventually will get will not actually be put to death. Creon will eventually relent on that because even he sees that that's ridiculous.

And Antigone's death is not actually to be headed or anything simple like that. It's to be buried underground and then the bricks will surround her and then she'll be alive in a tomb essentially. So you get this weird inverse of the live person that's put into the ground in a tomb and the dead person is above ground and they should be buried. And there's an unnaturalness to that split that Creon has done.

So Creon is clearly in the wrong with this. Like he's so he says he wants to honor the gods in not putting her to death the quick and easy way. And so instead of actually killing her, he's going to bury her underground, which is actually way worse. Way worse.

Actually just killing her. So that's where he is. And then this is not been talked about at all in the play. All of a sudden Creon's son, Heyman shows up.

And we find out that Heyman is engaged to Antigone. So the person that Creon had just put to death is the person that his son is supposed to marry. This person that his son is deeply in love with. And it's coming to no secret tragedy.

Yeah, seriously though. It's a pain I've been to imagine where this goes. But we had no idea that this was true. Heyman comes on and he is deferential to his father.

She was great respect to him. Says that he understands why he has to have these laws, understands why he has to condemn Antigone. But then starts pushing back and saying that Antigone is actually on the side of justice. So warning Creon that the real appeal that Heyman makes, which I'm not a huge fan of, Heyman says that the people are signing with Antigone and that Creon will have a popular revolt if he follows this path that he's going down.

I think refusing to bury your dead is such a maybe it's just a deep cultural more. It's totally taboo not to do. And so using that as a punishment, maybe you're right Donaldson, him realizing this is way far over the line. I also can't help but imagine Heyman as a frat boy because I just want to say, Heyman.

He's a frat boy love. He's a frat boy love. He's a frat boy love. He's a super honorable.

Yeah. Maybe he's just a super honorable and whatever one of his frat boats comes up. He's like, Heyman. Oh, hey man.

He's a little dude. So he stands up to his dad, but he doesn't really respect full way, which is Creon has this whole monologue where he talks about how like Heyman is the shining example of what his son is supposed to be and that father's around the world would be joyous to have a son like Heyman. And then Heyman disagrees with him and then Creon like curses him and says I hate you and it ends poorly. It ends with him and saying you will never see me again.

And then he leaves. Is he going to him? Is he going to hang out in the tomb within Tigney? So after the I'm gonna make sure I get all my scenes right.

So Heyman leaves, which is a bummer. The chorus also turns against Creon, which is a bummer because of course, it's just the old dudes of the city and they're not sold on it. Tyresias, the blind prophet from the first place. Oh, Tyresias.

Yeah. So Tyresias comes and says, hey, you need to listen to me. Yeah. And that's like rule number one in Greece is if Tyresias says something, you better listen.

So he warns that if Creon doesn't move doesn't change from his path, that there will be death in his family. And Tyresias says that Creon is in fact not honoring the gods. And this is a representative of the gods. He had been at a sacrificial, I don't know what it's called, he had been at the temple.

He attempted to do a sacrifice and the fire wouldn't go. No fire would start in the temple and he's like, oh no. And so he rushed to Creon to tell him that the omens are particularly bad and that Creon is bringing this on the city. And if he doesn't relent, then it's gonna lead to death in his family.

So wait, why do high school students do this? I bet this is completely incomprehensible without at least a little bit of what do I do? Like, why would you put on this as a play? Because I feel like modern audience audiences without knowing that the burial thing is a taboo and all like, it's got to be so hard to connect with.

I think that the fundamental conflict of the play is that girl and taking this particular conversation versus the state. And so the it's the perfect like 14 year old girl drama. No, no, I get you. But I get you.

No one gets me. How I feel like it would be hard to totally grok as an audience. It's normally when you're just happy to see your kid on stage delivering line. I'm also, mine was a tree.

What was yours? I was a lobster. I wasn't that picture of the kid who's grass in the school play. I'm just like curled up and he's covering greens.

No, that's awesome. But I normally say this cut down as a one-x play. So that means that a lot of these characters are cut out and we're going through like the full play. So I agree there's a lot to it.

But it's a simpler plot than Epis at Clonus for sure. And there are fewer characters than Epis Rex. But anyway, so yeah, it fundamentally is a conflict between Antignes convictions versus the state, which one of the famous productions of Antigone was put on in France during World War II. Yeah, so the whole conflict of a body being left out in the streets really resonated with World War II France, not the occupied France.

That would happen where people would be killed in the left in the streets. And it was like an additional punishment. You'd have to see that person dead in the streets whenever you were out. As we're moving toward the end of this, so Tiresias tells Crayon, hey, this is actually really a bad idea.

And then eventually Crayon's wife also will tell him, hey, this is actually really a bad idea. So everyone is coming out against Crayon. So whereas at the beginning of the play, you can reasonably think there's a back and forth, a discussion between the two that both sides have right aspects to them. At this point, you just see Crayon is moving headlong into something that everyone who's trusted advisors is telling him, you know, this is a bad idea.

This eventually leads to the death of his son, Haman. So Antigone is in this tomb. And there's this whole language about her being wed to death instead of wed to Haman that there's a sorrow she has that she'll never be a mother, that she wanted to honor her family. She did what she saw was right.

And now she's this important life of it is being torn away from her not by her choice. But she knew going in what her consequence was and she still did it, even giving up marriage to the man that she loved, giving up the opportunity for kids with him, knowing all this thing, she still did it. It's a beautiful monologue. And Haman then goes to the tomb with her that he still desires to be wed to her, even in her being wed to death.

So then he, I guess that's a transitive property, he then also weds himself to death. He steps himself. So they're both dead. I'm speeding through to the end of it, because it's a Greek tragedy and you can kind of see where this is going.

Kreon's wife, eventually finding out about the death of her son goes and kills herself as well. He's taking me to the left at this point and taking his dad and taking his first death. How'd you die? She just like, she's coming in the tomb.

She goes to the tomb and then he hangs herself because she doesn't want the torture of dying from starvation. Totally, I get it. So then Haman comes and then Haman's second death and then Kreon's wife is the death after that, finding out about the death of her son. But Kreon remains alive at the end.

Oh, and then fun fact, the wife curses her husband with her last words before dying. So it's a long way to go. So everything goes very poorly. I would say that broadly, it's to say that Antigua was right all along, that she was the one actually honoring the gods, even though she's breaking a law and doing what she's doing.

This we all, I would say this is a political loss for Kreon this week. Yes. He took the L on this one. Yeah.

So, but this is strange because he who says it to him. It's one of the messengers or the chorus says to him that he gets the order in the city that he wanted. He gets the law followed in the way that he wanted, but he takes a cost for it. Dead family.

Yes. But I mean, this is this is a theme. We've got this theme against like order, like state and family. Yes.

And she chose taking each of his family over state and Kreon, Kreon shows Kreon. She just colors all over everything, but she's using state over family and gets state and loses family. And Antigua, she doesn't, I guess she gets family because everyone joins her. And she talked to her last monologue before she goes is saying that she's now going to her father and going to her mother and that she will be reunited with them through this, which, I guess that's all a separate question, but there's no moral judgment on the suicide that she's committing, which is kind of, I mean, that's a very Greek thing.

But okay. So all that happens. And then the final, this is the end of the place is the chorus that gets the final word on this. So Kreon sees that he's made this horrible mistake.

He regrets these things that have happened, but still kind of stands by that he set a law and he got it to be followed and laws are important and need to be followed. But obviously, I mean, one of the lines is for mortal men, there's no escape from the doom we must endure. So it's not a cheery ending. He doesn't feel good about that.

Kreon also, whatever I touch goes wrong, once more crushing fates come down upon my head. So you know, the Greeks were exactly known for coloring their tragedies with attention folk. They didn't need to do a comedy on this play or on this podcast. They might kind of lift things up.

Well, you know that when they presented these, it was always three tragedies followed by a later play. So this is the very end for the chorus. Wisdom is by far the greatest part of joy. And reverence toward the gods must be safeguarded.

The mighty words of the proud are paid and full with mighty blows of fate. And at long last, those blows will teach us wisdom. So ouch, it isn't ouch, but this is weird hope those blows will teach us wisdom. Kreon has learned something.

Kreon will, if he continues to rule, will rule differently for having gone through all of this. Again, again, that's a very, very happy ending. Cue the ragtime rutchen for the last podcast. Whatever else I think of the musical ragtime, which maybe I'll have the one to fork on.

And we will roll on the wheels of the dream. Anyway, so it doesn't sound like ragtime. It doesn't sound like ragtime at all. I would have cheated if I paid for a musical called Ragtime and they're singing these big things.

There's another one. There's a song called Ragtime in there, I think. Anyway, it's a very good musical. I recommend it.

It's like a retelling of our themes to Antigone. Very, very good. And there's kind of some signs, anyway. So the moral at the end of the play, in the terms of the play, is we go through the suffering.

We can't avoid the suffering of life, but we can learn from that suffering and change things afterwards. And I think in a way, this is the theme of Oedipus' life. That the happy ending of the Theven cycle happens at the end of Oedipus' colonis. It only happens because Oedipus is not a horrible life.

And the choices he's made are not justified in any way. But he gets to have some sort of reconciliation because he submits himself to the gods. He realizes that pride in rushing forward were his Amartia, were his fatal flaws. He had some good years in there, though.

Like in the middle. He stabbed his eyes out. I guess before he found out about the whole Mary's mom and Gail's dead thing. Yeah.

Okay, great. Even though it's not really your fault. It's not true. That kind of colors your memory of it.