Great Books Ep 81. Euripides - The Suppliants. The Power of the Written Law
Great Books Ep 81. Euripides - The Suppliants. The Power of the Written Law
Written laws are the great equalizer in society. They provide a common standard that applies to all, regardless of wealth or status.
“But when the laws are written down, rich and poor alike have equal justice, and it is open to the weaker to use the same language to the prosperous when he is reviled by him, and the weaker prevails over the stronger if he have justice on his side.”
~ ‘The Suppliants’ by Euripides (Edward P. Coleridge translation. GB5 - p. 262)
Brief Summary
The play begins with a group of suppliants seeking help from Aethra, Theseus’ mother, at the temple of Demeter. The suppliants are Adrastus, the king of Argos and a group of women who are mothers of warriors who were killed in the battle with Thebes. They are requesting Theseus’ help to get the bodies of their sons so that they could be buried with proper rites. Thebans, especially King Creon, refuse to give the bodies out of spite since these warriors wanted to sack the city of Thebes if they won.
This war was talked about at length in Aeschylus’ “The Seven Against Thebes” and Sophocles’s “Antigone”. Links to previous posts are below:
Theseus initially refuses to help, criticizing Adrastus for his poor judgment in starting the war. However, after being persuaded by his mother Aethra, he agrees to help. As he prepares to send a herald to Creon, Creon’s herald arrives, asking for the ‘despot’ who rules the land. They get into a lengthy argument regarding democracy vs autocracy.
Theseus tries diplomacy a few times, asking the Thebans to return the dead bodies, but they refuse, and a battle ensues, which the Athenians, under Theseus’ leadership, win. Despite winning, Theseus restrains his army from sacking Thebes, reminding them of their original purpose.
After the battle, the bodies of the fallen Argive leaders are recovered and brought back for burial. Theseus asks Adrastus about the fallen heroes and gives details about each of them. (Was surprised to learn that one of the warriors was named Eteocles and they were fighting against Eteocles, Oedipus’ son). Polynices’ had come to Argos as a guest after he was exiled by his brother and had married Adrastus’ daughter. Though Polynices was the lead, special mention is given to Capaneus, who is described as wealthy but very humble and respected by all. Adrastus plans to have a separate sepulcher (tomb) near the temple for him. Through a dramatic turn of events, Evadne, Capaneus’s wife, comes in and commits suicide by throwing herself onto her husband’s funeral pyre despite her father Iphis’s attempts to stop her.
The sons of the fallen Argive leaders arrive with urns containing their fathers' ashes, leading to an emotional scene of sorrow from the mothers. The goddess Athena appears and instructs Theseus to make Adrastus swear an oath of alliance between Argos and Athens before returning the remains. She also prophesies that the sons of the fallen warriors will one day avenge their fathers by attacking Thebes.
My Thoughts
The play is not just a story or a description of a series of events (I guess fictional), but through its dialogues, it is a lecture on democracy and the power of the written law. It does explore other themes like the devastation of war, the importance of proper burial rites, the importance of diplomatic solutions, obligations towards others to plead for help, the role of women, children or others who didn’t fight the war, consequences of short-sighted actions, and the power of great leadership that leads from the front. It is a tragedy in the sense that they talk about death and burial throughout and one feels sorry for the Argive mothers, but unlike other tragedies, none of the main characters - Theseus, Aethra, Adrastus, etc., meet with tragedies.
People are always exploring ways to extend human lifespan or build machines and buildings that last for centuries. But what really lasts across centuries and even millennia are ideas. The idea of democracy written down in Greece 2,500 years ago, the idea of written law creating a level playing field for everyone, has sustained till the modern age. Many systems have come and gone, and many are being tried. But this has remained since it is core to humanity, it feels natural, it feels good. No one instinctively wants a world where the strong dominate the weak, where the rich hold sway over the poor. People seek a world where justice, not might, determines the outcome of disputes.
Just yesterday, I was listening to Elon Musk at All-In summit where he talks about free speech and says “there's a lot of places in the world right now if you if you're critical of the government you get imprisoned or killed” and I immediately thought about Theseus’ dialogues in the play. If justice and freedom of speech are so important for people, why is the whole world not trending towards this? Why do we still have places where the rich and powerful oppress the poor? A passage from Verizon’s 2024 DBIR comes to mind - “Much like Sisyphus with his never-ending task, it seems that the hardworking people in IT must continue to contend with the evolving threat of Ransomware”. It seems like experts have accepted the ill-fatedness of a dystopian world where there will always be bad actors, they will always try to destroy the system, and the fight for democracy and free speech is a never-ending task.
Gemini (AI Chatbot) Response
Expansion on Your Thoughts about Written Laws
You've beautifully captured the essence of written laws as the great equalizer. I'd like to add that they not only level the playing field but also act as a bulwark against tyranny and arbitrary rule. The very existence of a codified set of rules, accessible to all, ensures a degree of transparency and predictability. This curtails the whims and caprices of those in power, making them accountable to a higher standard.
Furthermore, written laws foster a sense of civic participation and collective responsibility. When people know the rules, they are more likely to engage with the system, question injustices, and demand their rights. This active citizenry is crucial for a healthy democracy, as it keeps the rulers in check and prevents the concentration of power.
Deeper Analysis of the Play's Themes and Symbolism
Themes:
Democracy vs Autocracy: The play showcases a powerful contrast between Theseus' democratic Athens and Creon's autocratic Thebes. This is not merely a political debate; it is a clash of ideologies, with profound implications for governance, justice, and human dignity.
The Rule of Law: The play emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law, even in times of war. Theseus' insistence on burying the dead, despite the Thebans' refusal, underscores the sanctity of this principle.
The Cost of War: The play doesn't shy away from depicting the devastating consequences of war. The grieving mothers, the fallen heroes, and the ravaged landscapes serve as poignant reminders of the human cost of conflict.
The Power of Persuasion: The play highlights the importance of reasoned discourse and persuasion in resolving disputes. Theseus' ability to sway others, both through his words and actions, demonstrates the efficacy of diplomacy.
Symbolism:
The Suppliants: The suppliant women represent the vulnerable and marginalized in society, seeking justice and protection from those in power.
The Burial Rites: The proper burial of the dead symbolizes respect for human dignity, even in death. It is a sacred duty that transcends political differences and the exigencies of war.
The Oath of Alliance: The oath sworn by Adrastus represents the possibility of reconciliation and cooperation between former adversaries. It is a hopeful gesture towards a future free from conflict.
Thought-Provoking Questions for Modern Readers
Does democracy truly guarantee justice and equality? Or are there inherent flaws in the system that allow for the oppression of the marginalized?
In an era of global conflict and terrorism, how can we uphold the rule of law and human rights while still ensuring national security?
Is war ever justifiable? Or are there always alternatives, such as diplomacy and negotiation, that should be exhausted first?
How can we, as individuals and societies, prevent the cycle of violence and revenge that often follows conflict?