After unintentionally finding that Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes formed a logical continuation of Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, I was pleased to discover the latter’s Antigone completed a trilogy of sorts, dealing with the same themes – the curse of Oedipus and his descendents. Of course, it isn’t a proper trilogy, it’s not even by the same playwright. What’s more, Antigone – although in the mythological chronology last – was written prior to Oedipus Rex. That’s the advantage with dealing with well-known mythological themes. It’s like writing about the death of Christ, and then about the nativity.
The plays aren’t intended to go together, and it’s no real disadvantage not to have seen/read Oedipus Rex first (specially as most people know the basics), but they do naturally complement each other and will probably be better approached in order.
For those that don’t know, the story so far is:
[Oedipus Rex] Oedipus is cursed to kill his father and marry his mother (Jocasta), which he unknowingly does. He sires four children by his mother – daughters Antigone and Ismene, and sons Polynices and
Eteocles, who he curses to divide his kingdom by violence.
True to Oedipus’ prophecy, Polynices tries to seize Thebes from his brother by force [this is the part of the myth told in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes]. The brothers kill each other in the fighting, and Jocasta’s brother Creon takes charge of the state. He forbids Antigone to bury her brother Polynices as a traitor to the city.
The plot of Antigone isn’t particularly interesting. It opens with Antigone telling Ismene she plans to defy her uncle’s law, and bury her brother. Funeral rites were very important to the Greeks, so burial or mistreatment of dead bodies was a common theme in literature (e.g. the significance of Achilles’ mistreatment of Hector in the Iliad)
*Spoiler* This paragraph will give away the rest of the plot. Greeks traditionally went to plays/readings for the telling, knowing what was going to happen anyway. In case you don’t want to know though, look away now. Basically, Antigone buries her brother and Creon condemns her to death (despite the fact she’s betrothed to his son, Haemon). He later repents, but is to late to save her. His son kills himself on learning that his lover is dead, and then on hearing this Creon’s wife Eurydice kills herself too. Thus we have the typical fall of the tragic hero, brought about by a kind of divine vengeance/poetic justice/karma (delete as appropriate, though the Greeks obviously went for the first).
For me, this key tragic pattern didn’t work very effectively. Whereas the audience can sympathise with flawed heroes, such as Oedipus or (to go to a more modern Shakespearean example) Othello, Creon simply isn’t very likeable. Maybe that’s because there isn’t much in the way of character development. The impression I get though is that he simply isn’t leadership material. He’s a decent enough, but rather average, officer suddenly thrown in at the deep end. Despite good intentions, his rule proves disastrous.
As I said, however, plot wasn’t regarded as the most important aspect of Greek tragedy. (At least, not always – Aristotle took it to be the most important characteristic of tragedy, but his account was largely revisionary).
What rescues the story is the timeless confrontation between the secular/state law and an individual’s private morality/conscience, playing out the common Greek opposition of ‘nomos’ (law/convention) and ‘phusis’ (nature). Great figures of history – Socrates, Jesus and Thomas More among them – met their deaths for loyalty to their convictions over the state, and here is another powerful, albeit fictional/dramatic, example, and a woman too.
I wouldn’t say the play makes any strong or original philosophical points about where our higher loyalties/obligations lay (although it’s sympathetic to Antigone’s conscience), but it provides a fine example of such conflict, expressed in particularly poetic language. Antigone accuses Creaon of tyranny, while he in turn claims “Obedience is due/ To the state’s officer in small and great,/ Just and unjust commandments” (p26).
The language will, of course, depend on the translation you use. I can’t really say how much what I read was due to Sophocles, and how much the result of Sir George Dent’s 1888 translation. Certainly the language was more archaic than the slightly more modern rendering I’m used to, but I thought it suited the play well. Although I sometimes had to read twice to follow, the speeches were powerful, and the language just felt right. (Anyone that’s read Shakespeare or Chaucer in modern English knows what I mean – it’s easier, but loses some of the artistry).
My translation is the ‘bare bones’ of the Dover Thrift Edition (RRP £1.50) but as always a variety of editions are available.
Pictures of Antigone - Sophocles
cover (my edition)
How helpful would this review be to a person making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
Advantages: It's fairly easy to follow, interesting themes to be explored, based on well-known Oedipus Disadvantages: Not a lot of action, religious/mythology references may pass you by
exceptional by (5%):
very helpful by (95%):
