bulletin of the institute of classical studies volume 10 issue 1 1963 [doi...

7/24/2019 Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Volume 10 Issue 1 1963 [Doi 10.1111%2Fj.2041-5370.1963.Tb00296.x

1/18

PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION IN THE A N T I G O N E

bY J. H

Kells

In this paper1 I would like

to

consi der not m erely specific problems, but also the different kinds

of problems, the different kin ds of meaning, th at may be involved in a work su ch a s the Antigone.

In

how mmy ways can w e use the word meaning

in

connexion with a Greek play? Obviously

we should

start

with the meaning of the words in th e most lite ral sens e. How are

we

to

trans-

la te a given sentence?

For

the answer

w e

rely on ru les of grammar, and our knowledge in

gene ral of Greek. Our knowledge of Greek de pe nd s mostl y on our remembrance of verbal

parallels. If, even with th is equipment, w e cannot translate

a

passage, we consult, I imagine,

the nea rest commentary.

tant

s ingle

tool

for finding out the literal mmning of a

piece

of Greek. Usually th es e methods

are enough.

parallel (presumably this

will

sometimes happen, because an original writer will sometimes

say something original), or such parallels as exist may point in opposite directions, so tha t

as far as they a re concerned the Greek might be taken to mean qui te different things. When

this happens

w e

m u s t look for some other constituent, or determinant, of meaning.

const i tuent is context. Context is almost alw ays to some extent or other a part of meaning.

We know what is being said, because we know what has been said, what is l ikely

to

be said.

When what is being said is in i tsel f ambiguous (as happens more frequently in the classical

langu ages than in modern ones , be cause of their more varied word-order), it may be the context

which determines

its

meaning. Ta ke for example Aesch. Eum. 742 @hhEe &c &XLo-ca

TEIJX~WV

d xou c .

go together

-

TEUX&V

d h o u ~ .

Indeed

I

have se en them

so

taken in an

article

in

a

learned

journal.

from which the line is taken, who has a valid picture of what is being transacted in the play

at th is moment, it is clear tha t

TCUX&;V goes

with

M h h E e

,throw

-

empty

-

he ballots out

of theurns .

There

we

sha ll find verbal para llels used a s possibl y the most impor-

But not always. Th ere may

be

no parallel in a particular instance,

or

no

exact

Such

a

Considering thi s verse in isolation, the two last words might well seem t o

But to a reader who is submitting himself to the atmosphere and context of the passage

To take the words in any other way would be absurd.

Scho lars on the whole tend t o pay

too

little attention to context

as

a constituent of meaning.

They do not, because they me brought

up,

so to speak, on the technique of the parallel. Th is

technique encourages the

implicit

assumption that the words themselves (in themselves), th e

words plus grammatical rule s and th e li ke, convey the m eaning.

This belief encourages

an

47


2/18

automatic,

a

static view of interpretation, not a dynamic one. And

it may

become

a

substitute

for thought

-

constan t,active thought. Without it ,

or

without enough of it, the m eaning gets

lost.

I

should

like

to i llustr ate the point from the

first

ten lines of the Antigone.

We

al l know

the scene - Antigone and Ismene alone together in the early morning, Antigone complaining

of

the misfortunes of the house of Oedipus, which are being accomplished within the lifetime

of

herself and Ismene . And

now

what means th is proclamation which they

say

the commander

has ju st made to the

city at

large? Do you know

at

al l - have you heard?

The meaning of the

last

words is, I suggest, clear and unequivocal:

1

e

you

unaware

that there are advancing upon our friends evil s su ch a s should belong to [that

is, be

inflicted

only upon] enemies.

To paraphrase: thos e whom w e hold nearest and deares t (that is,

Polyneices) are to

be

treated, not merely indifferently, but in su ch a way as w e should wish

our

bitterest enemies to

be

treated.

Nevertheless the words are in themselves, w e may say, ambiguous.

For the genitive, TGV

&epGv m& is by common knowledge

grammatically

ambiguous. It can

be

objective, (as I

have taken

it), or

it can

be

subjective

-

evils coming

from

enemies(or the enemies),

as

the

German editors Schneidewin-Nauck-Radermacher take

it.

Again, the article -

TGV &OpC;;v

-

is

in its elf ambiguous.

It can be deictic, particularizing: so Schneidewin-Nauck make the

phrase mean the enemies of Polyneices, that is, in this ca se , Creon; while Jebb, who takes

the genitive as objective, makes the phrase refer to the bodies of the defeated Argive army

lying dead on the battlefield. (In staging that would obviously require gesture.) Or i t can

be generic, classificatory - enemies, any enemies

(as

I have taken it). Why then do

I

say

that the words are unambiguous? Because their meaning is effectively delimited by a number

of contributing factors, among which context

plays

a

very large part.

If

w e

pay attention

to

the context, w e shall

see

the meaning of the w ords perfectly ea sily; if we ignore the context,

our minds may go wandering along al l sorts of fals e grammatical scen ts. Consider the context.

What ha s Antigone been talking about? What ha s sh e been concerned about? Is

it

the fact

that Thebes has lately been besieged by

a

hostile army

( s o

that Antigone has enemies

-

outside

enemies - to be aware of)? Is it the fact that t his army has jus t dispersed,

so

bringing kudos

to Creon and strengthening his position within Thebes, strengthening, that is, the position of

a faction that sh e has reason t o dread as hostile to herself and her family? No, it is none of

th es e things. It has been altogether

ab ou t her family, about the misfortunes that hav e befallen

it

and are likely to befall it.

All

the other objects mentioned are mentioned as having subsidiary importance,

as

being important

only in relation to th e grand fact th at they affe ct Antigones

(pihot,,

er family,

as

represented

in this

case

by Polyneices.

A

proclamation has been made, affecting Polyne ices,

m v S { ( u t ,

n6k

L

-

therefore

it

is an im portant proclamation, one th at

will

necessarily affect him because

everyone wi l l necessarily have to obey it.

It has been made by

6

c r rpa~qy6~ he word is

interesting. It is colourless.

A t

l ea s t

it

cannot have a hostile colour

-

unless it were thought

to be ironic: Antigone hiss ing the word

-

d v

r - o - a - o r p a ~ ~ y 6 v

implying that he

was

not fit

to be one.

worth noting, while we are on the point, that the play assumes Creon to have been

a

pretty

good general, cf. 1161f:

Her conversation has not been about outside things.

One has only to envisage this to

see

that i t is absurd.

Though it

is

perhaps

48


3/18

Kp&v y p

0;0ac ~v 6 v t j E ktjwCav

xebvc?


4/18

the words could

be

determined in one se nse or another by voice-punctuation and intonation

6

(the Greek actorb methods of doing

this

would be differen t from the modern actors, owing to

the different way of accenting ancient Greek); secondly , the em ~ t i o n , ~r, it might be, the

intention or mental attitude supposedly underlying the words could be conveyed, partly at

lea st, by the actors delivery.

The same sequen ce of words could be made, by the actor,

into a statement,

a

questio n, an exclamation. They could be spoken calmly, or angrily,

haughtily, ironically, and so on. And

all

these vocal effects might be enhanced by gestures,

.bodily movement.8 All th es e constituen ts of meaning were under the

poets

control, since he

was

the producer

-

the

6

b h h o g of the actors

and

c h o r ~ s . ~ince he composed his play

for theatrical production (not in order to produce a written text on w hich scholars might medi-

tate)

he

must

have counted on using all

these

constituents of meaning. So

he

could write

lines which, taken by themselves, out of context, would be ambiguous, such as & c + h ~ 0

&g T X L ~EUX&V ~ X O U C .

We

neednt be surprised tha t these lines may appear to be

ambiguous as w e read them.

The author would

have explained

at

rehearsa l how they w ere to be delivered.

They wouldnt have been in performance.

But the actors delivery of his l ines upon the

stage

would convey not merely literal meaning,

not merely the characters momentary intellectual or feeling tone, but also 6806

-

the character

of

a

person, in so far as that is involved in hi s

acts or

sayings. {805 introduces us to another

kind of meaning - the implication of a persons worde or acts, the sort of person they make

him

out to be. In order to act a part in such a way that such implications are properly conveyed,

the good actor must understand the character he

is

trying to portray. He

must

conceive him

as

a

whole.

(I cannot imagine that the ancient actor was in any way essentially different

from the modern actor in this respect.)

This grasp of the character allows

the

actor to inter-

pret the details of his role, the significant lines, a cts and gestures consistently with his total

conception.I1 When the good actor deliv ers a line w hich is deeply significan t for the character

of the person he is representing, he is aware of it; and he will try to deliver his line in such

a

way that the effect

is

consistent with the character

as

he imagines

it,

tha t it reinforces the

total effect created, and that it supports or prepares the

way

for the ef fects which are to come

later. Eve n more so, of course, one

must

imagine the poet thinking ahead to the effects which

b s to produce later in the play. Here again, within th is sphere of meaning,

we

shall find

serious objection

to

the version of d v

+pGv

XCL& which I have criticized. For there are

two ways in which it flagrantly contradicts th e effec ts which we see being created later in

the play, and which are presuma bly being prepared now. Th e

fist

concerns th e character of

Antigone.

There is a marked tendency among modem comm entators

to

romanticize Antigone.

She is

treated like the heroine of

a

romantic novel.

reveals the bias of these commentators for this kind of character. This

is

what they think

a

heroine should be.

It is not objectively based on Sophocles text.

To judge by that, Antigone

is, true enough, an attra ctiv e young woman.

But mentally and sp iritually she is exceedingly

tough. Moreover, s h e belon gs to an exceedingly tough class of personage, one which we no

longer

meet

in our society and are therefore liable to misunderstand. She

is a

woman for whom

the family is everything, who lives, both personally and vicariously, through the family, who

is prepared

to

regard herself, in the last resort (like Eugene

ONeills

Electra), as the personi-

fication of the family. Antigone is, we have no reason to doubt, loving and capable of love:

but her love is bound up with, and inseparable from,

an

idea. When Ismene transgres ses thi s

It seems

to me that

th is kind of interpretation

50


5/18

idea, then Antigone will cu t her

off like

a lopped bough.

She

is

not malleably affectionate,

like Ismene. Th is is

the

character,

I

believe, that Sophocles

has

conceived and that he will

unfold a s the play proceeds. In the meantime he has laid a foundation for

it

by g iving us

straightaway, in a few skilful w ords, an Antigone anguishedly absorbed in the f at e of her family.

If w e disturb tha t preoccupation,

so

a s to

make

her a s much interested

in

the enemies who

threaten her dear ones

as

in

those

dear ones themselves, we distur b her concen tration,

we

lessen her single-mindedness, w e weaken the i nitia l characterization of the person who is to

be able

to

say, at her greatest moment, O ~ O L

uv&x8eLv, ? o u p q ~ ~ b T vu v .

Surely

the poet who conceived

that

magnificent manifesto, making her supremely

reject

preoccupation

with

t$@poc is

not likely to have made the

same

character, in the first lines of his play,

stoop

to divide her attention equally between her friends and her enemies

Then there

is

an

effect

of dramatic situation, rather

than

of character as such, which Sophocles

is preparing for u s later, against which this version offends. It is one with which we are fami-

li ar tom th e

Oedipus Tyrmnus:

that

of

a

character

growing away

from

reality:

Oed ipus more

and more mis-reading hi s situ ation so that he believes all opposition to himself is inspired by

political

motives

-

d o r g .

Creon in

Antigone

does the

same;

and

the

dramatic

tension in

the

Antigone

is largely provided by the contr ast between a Creon

more

and more developing his

compulsive illusion that

he

is the objec t of

m t b ~ g ,

hat

is,

that he has

@poi

who are plotking

against him in Thebes, and the real situation, nam ely tha t he has to do with a peculiarly obsti-

nate

and

dedicated example of family-feeling

and

devotion in the shape of Antigone. Now,

if,

in the first

lines of the play, Antigone

has

already

shown

herself

to be

active ly concerned, not

merely with those she loves, but also with her h @ p o i that

is

in this case, by definition,

Creon himself), then she has in fact confirmed Creons suspicion that he h as to reckon with a

faction in Thebes which opposes him, and she has

made

his reading of the situatio n not illusion

but reality When he dec lare s

& A &

T a k a

mt

h ~ r b d x ~ w g

&vGpec

&LS G p o n e g

kp@ouv

k ~ o ~ ,

?&ov ~LMXW

ELXOV,

& crc6pyeLv k ,

% p ~

&pa

TEiOVTE6,

o h *

k o u*

7

(289ff.l

instead of

his words

creating dramatic

irony,

hey

are

merely

a

realistic appraisal of the situ-

ation. So Sophocles manifest dramatic intention is perverted by this misreading of our line.

Perhaps enough

has

now been said

to

show

that

the version

I

have criticize d of

6 v &e@v

m&ie wrong.

Yet there remains one other cogent reason why

it

is wrong. And th is is worth

adding, because

it

illustrates another source

of

meaning in Greek dramatic

poetry.

This

source

is form, as employed in Greek sentenceconstruction.

formally

than

ours because Greek writers use

-

far more

than

we do

-

figures,

q i a ~ a

attitudes,

gestures, postures of words).

Some

of the Greek figures we have inherited, some w e have not.

Since the climate of modern literary taste is against formalism w e tend, on the whole,

to

under-

estim ate Greek formalism, and in particular

the

use of

figures,

either, if the figure is one with

which

w e

are familiar,

taking it too

much for

granted, or, if it is

not familiar, ignoring

it alto-

gether. I n h e

10

w e have an instance of the former ca se , where a figure with which w e are

familiar

-

antithesis

-

is involved.

alone, thi s suggests

to u s that TGV &xeP;;v is

objective genitive. For, taking

TGV kx8P;;v

obj ect i vel y, A a t i gone w i l l v i r t d y be sayin g evils are coming to friends which ought

Greek sentences are constructed more

Now,

if

we follow the pm mpting of the figure of antithe sis

51


6/18

to come to

enemies

-

and that

is

antit hesis , Rut on th e other interpretation Antigone will

be saying evi ls are coming

to

friends which are coming from enem ies - and that

is

not anti-

t h e s i s at all.

Jebb , who took TGV &epGv object ively , was aware of this point. He says :

&3poI being the natural persons to hurt

cpiho~,

he ant i thes is loses point

(sc.

on t he a s s u m p

t ion tha t TGV AxE)pGv

is

subject ive,

as

in the Schneidewin version, taken over by Radermacher).

I should like now

to

p a s s o n to a case in th is opening scene, where I believe a figure to be

involved which, being relatively unfamiliar to

u s ,

has been overlooked.

is

71:

Ismenes refusal to join her in burying Poly neices.

two reaso ns for her refusal , 1) TOCCO pZv yuvaix & L

/

&pup,~v, &

T

&v6pac

06

pxo6pwa

( t h a t

is,

that it is a fact of nature that s he and Antigone are women, with a ll the p hysical and

moral inferiority that that - in her assumption - implies), 2) &rsLTa ~ o ~ ; v E x

.px d

c

Y)ELOU~V(IW, /

xal

Tab' &xoG

E L V

& T L TGvR

&hyIovcc

( that

is,

thRt they are subjects , bound

to obey

the

law of the state).

TY)&UUE

L V , &OF

y2v

T &S 8 p h s p6~cc

I wont urge you any more

-

indeed I wouldnt accept

you now a s an ally).

myself.

tightly bound on to it.

t rnns lates ,

be

suc h a s thou wilt, show what character thou wilt; and hc quotes verbal parallele

for E % V C L L with TOLO%O(;, meaning be of such-and-such a character. This is obviously relevant

enough in matter; but there is still a lack of formal connexion of the em phatic be^ with the

foregoing.

We

feel tha t Ismene should have sa id something about being such-and-such, in order

to provoke Antigones i&L as a response. It

is

perhaps thi s fee ling which has 1o.d some people

to take ioeL as

from

aka,

and

& O L ~ as

its object in the neuter plural

-

writing

&oC& UOL

6 0 ~ s ;

judge,

come to

what conclus ions you

please.

Ismene has been doing in her speech - she has been weighing-up, judging.

The l ine concerned

XESVO V 6 & / &llor,where Antigone is replying to

XI id

ou UOL 8omC-

Ismene has, in the preceding speech, given

Antigone repli es, o h SV X E X E ~ L ~ ,h

Ecv, E [ 86hoLg & T L

/

Xh toe &nola OOL GomZ

But iue

L

-

be

such-and-such

-

doesnt

seem to

connect with

it.

J e b b

m C v o v

66y / po

-

Ill

do the job

Everything else

is

acutely per t inent to what has been said,

u t L o ~ L pulls u s up.

Then

i&

would

be a

response

to

what

Well, of course, Ismene has said something about being such-and-such

-

~ o k o E v

uvazx

& L

&p\lpFV; but we dont make the connexiori bec ause sh e has expressed herself with

a

diffe-

rent verb from

E ~ V C C L ,

En gli sh, be-by-nature whatever you choose ( whrrcns 1 shal l be concerned H t11 doing), using

the imperative of cpGvaL.

difficulty in

Cseek,

because

it

is poss ible t o su bs t i tu te for the not ional imperat ive of

cpGvai

the

synonymous word Z O H L . In doing so one

is

not speaking in the natural way, but us ing an

arti-

f ic ial i ty

-

a figure - which

is

reasonab ly familiar in Greek, but not in English,

uariutio, replacing a word

with

its synonym,

as

in O.T. 54, dc ~ ; m p@E,ELS T ~ U ~ Gi d h p

~ C Z ~ C ~ ~r i n t h e i n s t a n c e w hich w have ju s t had: ok

& v ,

E

e6xoLc

& c L /~ (P & E L v ~

E ~ O U

ccv

& ~ ~_

ip(;lqs p&a.

bridge) allowing Antigones words

to

connect on t o Ismeneb.

otherwise a eturnbling-block to understanding is removed; and what was inelega nt becomes

elegant and

stylish.

The natural reply to tha t remark of Ismenes would

he,

in Greek as in

There

i

s howver no imperative of cpFvaL in use . T h is

is

not a

T he

figure

is

ere uariatio i s t h e s t y li s ti c bridge

(as

there must

be some

When th is

is

real ized, what was

It may

swni t h a t

the point involved i R

a

small one, which affects the se ns e very little. I

agree, but would p o i n t out that there

is

also involved

a

technique of express ion which, if it is

not observed

in

su ch sma ll, more or

less

obvious example s, will not be avai lable

to

explain

matters

in

more difficult ones. I shal1 now turn to w hat I bel ieve

to

be such a

case,

la ter in

52


7/18

the play, in which failure to observe

this

very

same

technique has poduced, I think, a major

misunderstanding. The lines are 550-1:

In

this dialogue Ismene has offered

to

share the guilt of (and the punishment for) Polyneicee

burial, with Antigone.

doesnt want Ismene to die along with her. Her own death w ill be enough. Ismene rep lies

6rL

.ris pwg poi

uo

? ~ . s L ~ ~ ~ v I J

AOS;

What good

is

life to

me

without you?

Ant igone:

I c pd :ov t &pha - TOGBE y6+ du

~ F E C ~ ~ V

that is, you dont belong to me any more; you belon g

to him; so that your hopes for the future are bound up with

him).

This is

a

taunt; so Ismene

replies, Why o you hurt

me

like this,when it does you no good?

Then comes line 551,

giving Antigones answer.

But Antigone has repulsed her, harshly and contemptuously.

She

In

my discussion of this line I sh all not spend

time

trying to prove tha t the manuscript

tex t of the line -

chyoiba

k\Ev

6%

E { y h m & v 001

YE?G

which Pearson, Schneidewin-

Nauck-Raderrnacher,

and

now, of course, Mazon-Dain retain, is

corrupt,12

and that the elegant

emendation of Heath

-

h X y o h k3v

6%,

E; YEG

,

& v

001 YE%

- which has the closest

possible confirmation in the tell-tale circumflexwhich is to be found over the wof Y Gn

L , is right.

the lin e mean? How was

it

intended to

be

spoken?

Rut

what I do wish to discuss

is,

assuming this reading to

be

right, what does

Jebbs rendering

is as

b l l o ws. Ismene ha s s ai d, Why do you hurt

me,

when it does you

no good?

( 01% &eXoup&vq).

6.Fi.C

-

indeed

it

is

to

my pain that I hurt you, if I do hurt you (tha t is, if I mean

to

hurt you) -

only YEG mock - is substituted foi & v G j sinc e in f act th e hurting that Ism ene complains

of is mockery (the taunt Kp6ov-t

Antigone, in this line, expre sses tenderness, concern, anguish for Ismene. She

is

sorry

to

hurt her, sorry for Ismene: and th is feeling

is

particularly expressed

by

&lyociOa Events

have placed her in

a

position where she is forced, in order to defend herself,

to say

things

which hurt her sister.

But she

is sorry,

in

the

midst of all

this,

for that sist er: she

is sorry

th at the words hurt. Jebb comments that

the

line shows thatfthe taunt sprang from anguish,

not from

a

wish to pain. 0t h er sl 3 have not deduced any softenin g of the earli er words from

this line. They regard those as unsympathetic towards Ismene. But r31e.y agree with Jeb b

that

551

exp resse s tender feeling fop Ismene. Therefore they think

that

in thi s line there

is

a

change of tone on Antigones part. If one reads through the various attempts which have

been made

to

interpret the play generally, one finds th at thi s line h as enormous importance

placed upon it. In

a

recent study, for instance, by

the

American scholar Ivan

M.

L h f o ~ t h , ~ ~

Linforths view of Antigone as

a

tender, w istfully loving person is very largely based, in so

far

as it is

based upon anything objective

in the

play, on this one line. There

is a

good

reason why this line tends to have this large importance put upon

it.

It

is

the only single

line in which Antigone is thought certainly

to

exp ress tend erness for any person other than

herself (and that in the kommos in which sh e takes her leave). (I a m assuming that line 572

6:

cpiXTae Azpov, 6s

ua--cc&eL m~5p,

s spoken by 1~ m en e . l~ ) ut

is this

interpretation

right? The question is worth considering very c arefully,

because,

if it were not right, then

a whole face t of the ch aracter of Antigone ae

it

exists in the mind of comm entators, might

disappear.

Antigone

picks up

this last participle w ith

&lyo&a $v

E ~ K U *

TOGEE

&

0 x~$E$v).

According to this version

53


8/18

And straightaway w e notice that this interpretation

is at

variance with context.

Antigone

changes her tone - j u s t here,

j u s t

for th is one line.

And there

is

no good reason

why

she should

change her tone here. The context is forcing u s to believe in another Antigone, an Antigone

keyed to

qu i te a

differen t mood. Her earli er remarks in thi s piece of altercation w ith Ismene

(conveyed

first

in balancing distichs, then,

as

the argument between them quickens to

a

climax,

in stichomythia) have been barbed, combative. Every single thing she has s aid has been in

contradiction of her s ist er , throwing back a t her

what

sh e has said.16

Here, at

this only point

in the stichomythia,

wil l

there be

a

slackening of

pace

and of tension,

as

well

as

a change of

mood.

It is

of the very ess en ce of stichomythia that it should

be

sharp, concise, and

to the

point.

In stichomythia each speaker has doled out to him a single l ine of dialogue, rather as the Greek

litigant had allotted to him a certain

t ime

in which to plead his case. In that short

space

of

a

line he has to make his point, and

make it

tell. There

is

something artificial, unsympathetic

to us about stichomythia. We haven't got anything quite like it in our own literature, anything,

that

is

to say, which can be at once passionate altercation, and at the

same

t i me formalized,

pedantically balanced dialogue.

I

think that the analogy of the lawcourts helps one

to

under-

stand how the Greeks

came to

cherish such

a

feature in drama. And

w e

should remember too

that the art of pleading in the courts was in fa ct-t he other

great

popular art be sides drama which

was being developed and consolidated a t the very same

t ime

as drama. The

same

audience

which saw the tragedies could listen to the speakers

in

the courts, whether

as

bystanders or

as actual

judges. In the

courts

they would

be

already used to hearing an art of pleading which

specialized in the rapid presentation of

subtle

and damaging arguments

-

damaging to the oppo-

nent's point of view

-

sometimes presented through the medium of cross-examination by the

prosecutor of the defendan t, sometimes even taking th e form of an altercation between them

(as in the exchanges between Socrates and Meletus in Plato's

Apology). It

follows that

we

should expect dramatic stichomythia, fostered as

it

w a s in this ugonistic environment, to be

normally concis e, in telligible, and making,

to

the

limits

of the speaker's ability, telling points.

When we so interpret a line of stichomythia as

to

render it flabby, obscure, aimless or inconse-

quent, then this is a sure sign that either the original writing

is

bad (which is presumably the

last assumption we should make),

or

that the words are corrupt, or that

we

have somehow failed

to construe them or take their m eaning, and have m issed some element in them w hich is important,

and which the author-producer would have made his a ctor bring out in his prese ntation. Li ne s

of stichomythia

mu s t

stand or fall by their point and relevance.

On the se principles, the old text of line

551 is

ruled out, because

it

is on any interpretation

flabby .and obscure. And the emended version , a s interpreted above, is still peculiar and unsatis-

factory, because it introduces inconsistency, and slackens the pace of an altercation when it is

growing

to

a

pitch of intensity.

My conclusion

is

that 551

is

being misinterpreted. There

is

another possible interpretation

which is not open to the above objection s, and which I believe to be the co rrect one.

The

mistake the editors make is

to

connect c h y o h with o h b v & ~ E ~ o u & ? .

They do

this

partly

because both are participles, but mainly because they do not think of connecting

bXyoZ;aa

with

& v & ,

because it

is a

different

verb,

different, they assume, in m eaning from

b h y o k .

They

have forgotten, or ignored

uariutio.

not

O & ~ V

&p~XoupLdvq.

It is a mere accide nt that both &?~yyo laOlnd

o h b v

&pcXoupdvq happen

In my view h y o k onnects with, and is

a

reply

to,

&v & ,

54


9/18

to

be participles. & k p h

tands for

h v ~ q d v q ,

y

variutio.

Ismene has said, Why do you

hurt me when it does you no good?

Antigone ignores the ineseen tial

o&&v

& E ~ o u ~ & w , , and

replies to the main proposition: Hurt ou?

Nay,

t

is

to

my

hurt

- it is I

who

am

hurt

-

when

I mock

at

you, if I do mock

at

you

(On

his rendering $,v

S%a

is corrective, not C O R O ~

rative,

as

Jebb takes

it.17)

Nor does Antigone, I think, mean hurt to her feelings of affection

for Ismene. Tha t

is

inconsis tent with the Antigone created for us in this play.

She means

hurt to the pride, to the family ideal. Iemene

has

let the family down

-

she is not worthy to

belong

to

it. She is a Cre ons woman, a disgrace.

She

is

not hurt,

because

she

is

not

capable of being hurt, becau se sh e doesnt count. She

is

not a real person any more for

Antigone. She has been expelled into the outer pale.

Not even does Antigones hesitation

over the mockery betray ten derness for Ismene.

We

must

remember that mock

at

is not

necessarily

an

accurate tEanslation

of

YE%.

The word means frequently (and

I think

it

means here) not merely mock at, laugh at, but al so triumph over in mockery, sco re of f

(cf. Ajax 79

o h o u v

y h r , I ; ~ ~LWCOC &~epouc yeGv;). Antigones sarcasm I i pEovr

p cx*

TOGEE

y6.p ou

xqis&v,

which is unanswerable (nor does Iemene tTy to answer

it

-

sh e merely rejo ins Why do you hurt me?) is for her a triumph

in

argument over Ismene, if

she

c h s e s

to

regard it

as a

triumph. She means then, It

is

to

my

hurt that I score off you,

triumph over you - if I do triumph over you - tha t i s ,

if

bother

to

To

Antigone, as we said,

only the circle of her cpiXo~ as importance. Ismene she has already, from the very

first

moment of her refusal to help bury Po lyneices, put beyond the pale. Ismene therefore ha s

become for her

an

+6~, or a potential 6 , a &son over whom Antigone might fee l

entitled Y Vo triumph over, to rejoice at her discomfiture. But Antigone does not feel

disposed to enjoy this triumph over Ismene since, as a member of the family who has let the

family down, she is more properly

a

source of pain and shame than of pleasure and triumph:

sh e has proved herself, on Antigones high standards,

b G v mx (71~(puxuCia)

cf.

38) - a

weakling product of a noble stock. A t the same

t ime

it is characteristic of Antigone

to

feel

contempt rather than a ctive h ostility towards her enemies

-

o k o ~

u v & k

L V , I?

o u p c p ~ k i v

& p v. She may therefore, even regarding Ismene as an 6 , not bother to triumph o ver

her.

18

In th is way, and on this rendering, Antigone maintains the incisiv e, reproachful tone of

her earlier remarks at th is crucial point of the stichomythia. The line is made to fit properly

into its context - not merely the preceding part of the context, but also what follows.

For

all Antigones following remarks are ,

if w e

study them closely, jus t as harsh, j u s t a s barbed.

What she says in 559-60,

&POEL*

ou v Gfic, 4

66,;

yux

& k x ~ / ~ 6 6 v q m v TE Toic

B c t v o k ~ v

p ~ b i v ,

which it is natural to take - in

its

beginning - as a sarcasm,

is

only taken

in any other sense by Jebb because of his rendering of

55L

He says:

pm L is

not said

with bitterness (tha t could hardly

be,

after 551): rather

it

means, Take heart to live, as

Whitelaw renders it.

I

should

like

to add

a

more genera l remark on

this

scene

as a

whole.

I get the impression

that many commentators do not re ally understand w hat is being transacted in it.

that it is aimed at Creon.

the picture again until 577.

It seems to

me

very dramatic that Creon

is

thus th rust ou t of the

debate and that, despite the fac t that he is physically the arbiter of the fate of both the siste rs,

desp ite the danger from him, the si st er s resume their personal dispute where they

left it

off

at

the conclusion of the prologue of the play, j u s t as

if

he were not there.

They think

But in fac t he is thrust aside at line 536, and does not come into

The point of their

55


10/18

argument is that Ismene wanta to break back into Antigone's love and affection, to override

b an of exc lusion pronounced upon her by Antigone. Th at is why

she

expresses herself

as she does in 536 i&ipaxa

~ o t p y o v , &'imp

5s' &cOppoesi -

& ' imp

5 8 ' &opp&e~is d ,

as some suppose,

a

fla tpi lly remark, indicating that Ismene

is

lukewarm in her support of

Antigone, and weakly leaves the initiative to her. It means that she is not thinking of Creon,

tha t her ey es are fixed now upon Antigone. Antigone, not Creon,

is,

as

a

simple matter of

fact, her judge. She cannot bear

to

be separated from Antigone, and she quite literally

wishes,

to

di e with her. Th is doe s not mean that s he has changed her mind about

the

burying of

Polyn eices. She thought before that Antigone's decision to do that herself in defiance of

constitution al authority

was

wrong because it was unpracticable, and she

still

thinke

so -

thie

is shown by 555-6:

She is true to herself jus t as Antigone is, and she cannot (as

a

Greek would sa y) yv&qv

6 i a r p e ~ i p ~ t . v : ~ ~he cannot go back on her reasons.

English somewhat

as

follows:

The s cene might be rendered in prose

CREON

Will

you affirm that you were a partner in the deed, or will you forswear

all

knowledge

of it?

I SM N I have done it - if she agrees.

I share - and I bear - the blame along with her.

ANTIGONE Ah

that Justice

will

not accept from you; sin ce,

in

the fist place, you would

Is.

Ahl

IS.

AN.

IS.

AN.

IS.

AN.

IS.

AN.

IS.

not agree to do

it,

and in the second, I did not acc ept you as a partner

Yet I feel no shame, when you are

in

this extremity,

to

put myself in the

same

boat

of su ffering alon g with you.

R o

d id th e deed, Hades and the dead are witnesses. As for words

-

I

cannot

etand a friend whose friendship expresses itself only in those.

Do not,

I

pray you, my sist er, degrade me from the right to die along with you, and

to consecrate our brother along with you.

Don't you dare di e with me Don't make your own what you never laid hand to.

I

shal l do

very

well dying myself

And

what

is there for me

in

life bereft of you?

Ask Creonl He is your connexion now1

Why do you wound

me?

What good can it do you?

Wound you? It

ie

I that am wounded when

I

jeer at you

-

if

I

do jeer

What then can I - still - do

to

help you?

Save yourself. I don't begrudge your escape

Alas Am I then to be left out of yow death tool

56


11/18

AN.

Yes1

Because you chose life,

I

death.

IS.

AN.

IS.

AN.

Rut

I

would have saved you, if words could have saved you.

Your opinions were addressed to one audience, mine to another

And yet we stand both equally guilty before the law.

20

Keep your heart up You are s ti ll alive

And

- as

for me

- I

died long ago

-

in

helping the dead

M y

aim

in this paper has been to try to

get

some of the details right, and to suggest that

we are still far from having reached the end of our resources in the mere interpretation of

the

Greek of th is play, a s of others. However, the meaning of the

parts

cannot be separated

ultimately from the m eaning of the whole,

and I

am bound, before I end, to say something

about th is other kind of meaning: tha t

is,

the g eneral meaning

of

the play as

a

work

of

art,

into which these parts m ight be expected to fit. This is what most books about Sophocles

are taken up with -

what

the plays, as plays, mean.

Here meaning include s value, particularly moral value. The issues which are raised in

and by the

Antigone

are of such a nature, and are expresse d in such a way, as

to

challenge

the percipient (whether audience or reader) to

make

moral judgments about them. Unfortuna tely,

different percipients

make

different moral judgments about the issues raised,

see

different

meaning s in the play. Some think Antigone was abs olutely right, Creon absolu tely wrong.

Some have thought that both were right - though th is view ha s not now much vogue. Some

think that, though Creon

was

wrong, Antigone

was

wrong too. She should not have broken the

law.

She shows a reckl ess, arrogant daring - py, if you like - in defying the acknowledged

ruler of the s ta te , in however good

a

cause.

I

occupy what

may

seem

a

peculiar position in

th i s

argument. Fbr while

I

have tried

to

bring out points in my detailed interpretations, which are usually emphasized only by those

who criticize Antigone and

see

fit to detract from her, and who correspondingly see more than

a tittle

of right in Creon, yet

I

do not, on the whole, agree with these judgments.

I

agree

that

Antigone is harsh to Ismene, but

I

do not draw from thi s the consequence tha t the dram atist

is

in some way aginAntigone.

A s

far as it

is

possible for

a

work of

art

to declare

in

favour

of one of its characte rs Sophocles play seems

to

me to declare clearly enough in

favour of Antigone. For, apart from the fact that it shows her action to have been undertaken

in defence of a principle which the Greeks of the historic period (Sophocles

of

course

assumes

an imaginary prehistoric background) came to regard as international law - respect for the

bodies of dead enemies21

- it

also shows it

to be

underwritten, as

it

were, by the gods, who

intervene to punish Creon, not merely for not burying Polyneices, but for interfering with

Antigone when sh e undertook

to

bury him.

At

1068-9 Teiresias warns a e o n that he will pay

w ith a de athof his ownoffspring: A V O

Z v

~ X E L S . 5 ~ TGV

g v w P a h v

&TW, yu p T

& T ~ W v T* m-cpCimc

& z i ~ere means degrading Antigone from civil privileges.

The implication

must

be th at the gods (speaking through Teire sias) do not regard Antigone as

% c i ~ o c ,

i.e.

that she has not forfeited her rights. What the gods and religion sa y

at

this

late

juncture in the play

must

be a final judgment.

according to the plays final tenor, Antigone has done no wrong.

There could not be a clearer indication that,

57


12/18

Further, there is a more general point, other than the burial of Polyneices ,

at

issue between

Antigone and

the

opposition characters (by which

I

mean Creon, the chorus, and

to

some extent

Ismene). The opposition believe that the state is supreme,

and

that religion and all other

values should be subordinate, ancillary to it. This

is

the moral of the famous second stashon.

The chorus ther e, g iving their memorable descrip tion of mans growth towards civilization,

pointedly

put

at the pinnacle of this development mans

& U V & O L

+pi.

The polis

is

the

end and culmination of civilizatio n. Only the failure

to

conquer death, now that the

law

of

the polis has been lear nt, sepa rat es man from perfection. Significantly

for

the choruss

scale

of values, excellence is defined by them in terms of the polis. Man

is

capable of

good

and

evil. Good is when he obeys the

l a w

of the n6& andthat justice which men invok e the gods

to

maintain 22 Then he

is ~nohy -

high in

the

citys regard. For them obvioualy th is is

the supreme honour

~ T L P O S .23

master-atroke of characterization. It crys tallize s the whole attitude of the chorus: that the

6 lxq

of the gods is not a force independent of the state-law, but an appendage d

t.

The

chorus have never envisaged

a

situa tion in which the &ate-law might contravene divin e just ice.

Pi th such implicit revere me do they regard the former.

A s

the

state-law

cannot contradict

the divine

law,

and a s the state is the supreme value, then the best formula for living is to

obey the state-law implicitly.

Piety and goo dcitiz ensh ip are merged; obedience to

state-

authority

becomes E& E wZ4

virtue becomes law-abidingness. Th at

is

why the chorus

offer from first to la st no effective opposition to Creon.

opposed to A n t i g ~ n e . ~ ~n clear contrast, on the other hand, to this attitude of the chorus,

stan ds Antigone. She believes that religion and law-abidingness are separab le; that there

are certain natural laws, such

as

the

law

of family-pietas, which are protected by religion,

independently of the

state,

and which override the citizens normal duty of obedience to state-

law. This

is a

great issue between her and the opposition; and

we

have no alternative,

because

of the exp erience of the centuries of civilized history which

lie

behind us , but to

pronounce upon Antigones side.

practical consequences

of

applying the opposite principle, al so pronounces for Sophocles

day and age, as

well

as for ours, on her side.

Otherwise he

will

be

& C O ~ L C , cast out

from the city,

a

fugitive, a

reject,

Ihe subor di na t in g TE linking 8&v

~ v o p x o v

6

I m v

to

V ~ ~ O U C1 is a

That is why the y remain unalterably

Furthermore, the

Antigone,

by showing

the

disastrous

It

seems

then that the issues are cle ar enough , and the plays imp licit judgment upon

them clear enough. Why has it ever appeared otherwise, why can

it still

appear otherwise

to some? The answer

is

surely that the play is a tragedy, not a melodrama. And the essence

of tragedy is conflict, an

& y & v .

(Aristotle has om itted, in the Poetics, o

say so.

But there

are indeed many things tha t Aristotle has omitted to say.) In order to make it an &@v, Sophocles

has made out the best possible c as e for the opposition

-

for Creon and those who share his

belief in the over-riding authority of state law, and he has done it so wel l as to make it almost

appear that he wanted us

to

think Creon right. The view was well expressed by Goethe in

one of his conversations w ith Eckermann (anno1827)during which they d iscu ssed Hinrichs

book on the

Antigone.

Goethe insisted that Antigone

was

absolutely right, and that there

could

be

no que stion of a conflict of equally valid rights, such

as

the Hegelian Hinrichs had

postulated.

das s er einiges Recht habe.

Und

doch, put

in

Eckermann, wenn man ihn reden

hiirt, so

so llt e man glauben,

Das

ists eben , replied Go ethe, worin SophoMes ein Meister

ist

und worin iiberhaupt

d as Leben dea Dramatischen besteht. Seine Charaktere besitzen

alle

eine solche Redegabe

58


13/18

und wissen die Motive ihrer Handlungsweise

so

iiberzeugend darzulegen, da ss der Zuhhr

fast immer auf der

Seite

dessen ist, der zuletzt gespochen hat.

Assuming, however, that this general position

is

unassa ilable, assuming that Antigone

is

right and that

t he

main point of the play is that, contrary

to

the expectation of respecta ble

and responsible persons in the play, and contrary, one may guess,

to

the expectation of a

great many people in Sophocles audience, she i s right, w e are st i l l , it seems t o me, left with

two

acute

problems of interpretation. The firs t

is,

how are

we to

explain the harsh attitude

of Antigone

to

Ismene?

If we

agree th at Antigone is right, we cannot very

well

at the

same

time accuse her of py, and regard this harshness as a man ifestation of

it. W h a t

then is its

point? And the secon d problem -

a

problem, I think, la rgely of production as well a s of the

plays meaning -

is,

what

to do with a main character, Creon, who

is

unsympathetic. In most

productions of the play, and in most interpretations (which are, after

all,

sketc hes for produc-

tions) it tends

to

fall away towards the end.

as

the

central figure - Creon, whom we have seen discredited, humiliated in

a

very devastating

way.

After his early assertiveness he gives in - we might think almost too eas i ly - to T eiresias.

He seems

curiously weak and childish when he turns to ask the chorus what he

should do (1099)

he who had been

so

self-confident,

so

dictatorial. It is noticeable too that Creon never, during

the long closing scene, offers to take his own life, although Haemon and Eurydice do so without

hesitation.

Yet

Creon, who has not merely lo st his wife. and only son but has also ,

by

his own

confessio n, been the ca us e of their de aths, h as even more reason, one would think,

to

kill

himself than they had.

type of character from the Antigones, the Haemons, and the Eurydices.

chorus and the guard, who all cling t o life.26

such a character holding the stage , after Antigones dismissal? It may be added that this

kind of problem arises

to some extent with

all

the diptych

may appear

to

fall away at the end, from the standards of the earlier parts.

This is surely because

we

are

left

with Creon

It would seem, w e may remark here, that Creon belongs to a different

He is mare like the

But

was it

not an artistic weakness to leave

27 plays of Sophocles - that they

In

order

to

try

to

answer these questions

it

is

necessary to

ask

oneself, narrowly, what

the play is about. Some think that it is about the heroism of Antigone; most would add tha t

it

is al so about the burying of Poly neic es, and the rights or wrongs of that. And some would

see in and through all this a religious issue. In my belief the Antigone, in so far as it bans-

cends

all

the se other iss ue s (and transcend them

it

does)

is

a play about

politics.

In this

it

resembles the Ajax , a play with which it has often been compared.

The

Ajax ,

l ike Antigone, is a diptych play.

The f irs t part describes the heroism of Ajax.

Ajax dies nobly.

below hi s own (heroic) standards .

of the man, also shows his weakness, his limitation.

mad over

a

su pp se d in just ice .

He

is

a

man of blood, ungentle

to

his infant child whom he

wishes

to

inure immediately to sc en es of bloodshed.28

He

is

harsh

to

women. H e cherishes

bitter enmities, unforgiving and unrelenting. Above

all

he is an individualist, a man whom

we cannot ea sil y think of as taking the large, imaginative, statesm anlike view of a situation

in which he

is

personally concerned.

That requires another type of man, more ordinary, less

heroically brave, but yet with his own kind of endurance, and far broader than Ajax

because

he has more imaginative sympathy.

It

is typical of this Odysseus that he puts himself in the

shoes of other men - when Agamemon says

to

him 8wyag

o z v

p s TOV

V E X ~ ~ V

L V &v;

h e r e d i e s d y w y ~ *

Ha

asoc ; k v & 8

h j q u t b

4 . 1365).

o c l x p p ~ 6 v q , he very essen ce of that deeply

humble

philosophy of life which is Sophocles

Like Antigone, like Ele ctra, he can not face life without honour, life lived

But this fir st part of the Ajux, while depicting

the

greatness

He

is a

man of unstable nature, who goes

?his i s

true wisdom, true

59


14/18

message to us. It is altogether wrong, it seems to me, to suppose that Sophocles sympathy

is primarily with the heroically great. Come to think of it, Sophocles

is

likely to have been

himself a man much more like the Odysseus of the Ajax than

like

Ajax. The compliment

which he pays to his Ajaxes and Antigones

is the

en er ou s compliment which

a

man of one

type pays to another

quite

different type

-

who perhaps would not thank him for

it, as the

spirit

of

Ajax

is

presumed not

to be willing to

allow Odysseus

to

attend

at

his

funeral.

( A j .

1393

ff.

The irony of the Ajux is that the individualist hero Ajax cannot

do

without the statesman-

like

wisdom of

Odysseus.

Had it not been for Odysseus, the A treidai wodd have applied to

Ajaxs corpse the same vendetta-like law of reprisal for which Ajax himel f stood. Ajax

would have been dishonoured

and his

family ruined.

But the proposed treatment of Ajax by

the Atreidai is not

j us t

an

act

of private vengeance.

It

is also a calculated po litical act.

To act otherwise would be soft, a signal to their enemies to revolt against them: 4 p E ~du

6~

LXO\UC

T$E

84pi+q p c ~ v ~ i 6 ,ays Agamemuon

(1362

and the point

is

explained by Menelaus

at length earlier,

at 1079 ff.).

Nor

is it

the mere burying or not of

Ajax

that is

at

issu e here.

Even more important

is

the spirit of vendetta which the denial of burial symbolizes, vendetta

carried

so

far

that

it

will

not leav e the enemy alone even when he

is

dead (what Teiresias

ca l l s TOV

~ a v 6 v c

Cn~mav~ i v ,ntig. 1030).

vive

to

us, the Ajux is an attack upon the spirit of vendetta both in private life and in political

-

that, and

its

natural ally, Muchtpolitik.

Like some two-thirds of the tragedies t hat sur-

If my analysis of the Ajux is right, similar principles may apply to the Antgone.

Here

again is a diptych play of which the first part contains a heroic

act.

Rut in this case

the

heroic

act is

not husbanded and turned to account by wise Statesmanship.

The

statesman here

who believes in Muchtpolitik has no Odysseus to restrain him, only the Erastian, yes-men

chorus.

The play is the obverse of Ajux. The Ajux represents the triumph of statesmanship,

the Antigone its failure. For while Odysseus is the extraordinary ordinary man

-the

man who

transcends ordinariness by his power

to

sympathize with

&ve+

LO;

Creon is the ordinary

d i n a r y man, thrust into a position of responsibility which calls for qualit ies above the ordinary.

He

is

filled with the commonplace ideas of his day - that the state is above everything, tha t

military virtue

is

the

supreme

virtue, that women

are

inferiors, that sons owe unquestioning

obedience to their fathers; above all, that

a

man

-

a gentleman - should see fie nd s and enemies

everywhere, and devote

a

consid erable portion of his energy

to

the discomfiture of the latter.

Hear him talking to Haemon:-

He significantly leaves no middle-term between joining your father in his feuds and not joining

him.

Surely this whole doctrine of Friends-Enemies is being attacked here,

Surely we

can

rightly see

in

Greek Tragedy here

a

criticism of life,

a

criticism which expres sed itself, after

the manner of art, symbolically and allusively long before the point

was

made overtly by Plato

in the ~ ~ ~ ~ b l i ~ . 2 9

60


15/18

If we take this view of the play, that it is aimed, consciously or unconsciously (and we

need not suppose that the

artists

motivations

are

always fully conscious) at

a

certain kind

of social and political unwisdom (and

we

must remember the remarkable accum ulation of value-

words of inevitably political connotation - in this context - F@ouXta, ebpouXu,

w

( P P O V E ~ V ,

and

so

on - in the latter

part

of the play) then we can

see

how

it

is possible for Creon, though

in the wrong, to hold the stage as the plays most central, if not

its

main character,

to

the end.

For

Creon

is

no mad Greek

(as

many of his interp reters tre at him) and no villain: he

is

simply

an ordinary Greek, applying to statecraft ideas that were by no means disreputable in the

political climate of his day. And, though the se ide as are shown by the play

to

be b a n h p t ,

we

ought perhaps

to

sympathize with him (as his audience no doubt sympathized with him) in

the personal tragedy in which they involve him.

And now, lastly, for Antigone.

She is,

to a

certain degree, a sort of female Ajax. That

is

the reason for her harshne ss, her lack of sympathy for the comm onsense, the

less

than heroic.

This is not

Gflp

LG, not condemnation, but characterdrawing. The limitations of the character

are exposed along with its magnificence.

Antigone and Ajax part company. They differ partly becau se Antigone is a woman, but partly

a l s o

because the situation which Sophocles conceived for dramatization is

so

different (within

its

liken ess) from that in the

Ajax. For

in the

Antigone

there

is

no statesman, no Odysseus,

to bear the message of liberal clemency in politics.

All we

have is Creon, the doctrinaire

exponent of

Machtpolitik

and vendetta in statecraft, and the subm issive chorus.

It

may

well

be,

as

Whitman suggests, that th is difference of situation is the measure of subtle changes

in Athenian society taking place between the da tes of the Ajax and the Antigone (Sophocles

p. 88) . Artistically, at

any

rate, the only possible solution to Sophocles problem was that

Antigone should bear the message herself

So

the m onolithic, Ajax-like char acte r

was

weaned,

for the no nce, from the doctrin e of love your friends and hate-and-harm your enem ies and made

to

champion the doctrine of liberal clemency and reconciliation. I

end where

I

began:

o ho i

Ou V h e E

L V , OUWLL~E~V

puv

-

~ \ 0 6

OUC

c p d ~ o u ~

mEixo\yta

TGV

&epdv

mki

-

not

evils coming from our enemies (whom w e know and can identify), but evils su ch as belong

to our enemies (if there

be

any such )

Rut there is a point at which the characters of

University College London

NOTES

1

Thie

paper

was

read

to the

M o n

Classical

Society on

14

November,

1962.

I

am

pateful

to

hoee

who

c d u t e d

to he

lively discussion that followed. While I waa

writing the

paper I f d hat I

w88

li.4

quently

reminded

d

SpecialU n i m i t y

Lectwe deliveredupon the

Antigone

by Messor D.

L.

Page, t

UnivereityCollege M o n , on

19 octobea1959,

which poduced a very considerable effect u p e, s I

imagine it must have

upon

a lot of

people.

I refer to

this

lecture latar.

2

The messenger epeaka ae ifCreonhad been tbe responsible leader duringthe ate batt l e

though

ofcomse

the leaderehip

really

belongedto Eteoclee, end though inhie

fvet

speechto the chcnre

Chon

emphas,ized

his owtl

newness

to leadership.

similarly

~eireeiaa

aye

to

aeon

( 9 9 ~ ) Z O ~ W 6

tp%

T

k w x M ~ $ ? e

C

d h v . I do

not

thi nk

WB

are meant to

educe these

t b g a to a logical ccneisbncy

in

our

minds.

It

suited

Sophocles dramatic

purpose,

perticularly towards

the

cloee of

he

play,

to

regard

Crem

ae

tbe

established ruler,

the

man who

bas waved hirnself by

success,

who can yet be tumbled

to

61


16/18

dieamk

through

S@cUn~aand

the c ~ p a g e a mmg girl withnothing but justice m er side.

3

~ur inghe discmeion, some b e w i ~ m n t BB exgreased about the effect ive meaning oi mpixqy6~mm,

and ite implication for

Crecms

cavltitutioaalpositica.

I

do not

th nk

that

q y t h i n g mue is m a d han

that,

Meoclee being dead,

on

is now the conrmender-ipchief.

As

such, however,

he would bave f

Thebed

vd&po&tion

(her

mn

of military

age.)

under hie

command and

this

would

make

it the easierfor

bimto

step

intothe shoes of

Eteoclee

in

civil rule

aa

well

as

military,

aided aa be w88 by his

canetitutionalclaim

tothe

b c m e

of Thebee

(cf.

1734).

Still,

the

playia doIllinated

by

a w a r a t m o s h .

It

is

the war

ahm-

&re which explains,

if

it does

not

excuse,

the

savagery ofthe measures F n

gainat

Polyneicee. It is

r i g h t t h a t ~ s h o u l d t h i n k o f C r e o n ~ t h e v e r y b e g I r m i n g a s ~ O T ~ ~ .

4 Schaefer, fm

instance,

explains clearly andbeautifully:

TO & w p v 6

xpefivcc~

rat i nteP. T& &V

nter

?la

q p h t h ab

te

perpetiebatm.

id

nunc

OTE [XE L w\oc;T&C &OK,

i nferkr

d o i s :

qua mlla

mia

cog~tar~oteet mfelicitaa,

nulla foedior

cmt\lmelh.

11

C p i s p y n the characws(ation is

discussed

by

Ariatotle Poet. chap. l

(1454

a 22

f.).

He cycludee

~p;p p a+?+ T L S

6

o

T;)v

p . l p . q ~ ~ v6(p wv wri. TOLO%OV ?leg LOSICjlw6 qy9

a-bv

SET

ELW,

and

that it

is

necesaay

fcr

the poet


17/18

16 Indeed, Antigcmen tone &omthe beginning of the play hae been severe, uktender towardsIemene.

This

was demonstrated in a masterly way byD.L.

Page

n his lecture at university College (see

note

1 ern).

Thus

it is not merely the immediate context of

this

mgumnt which creates this impasion of

harshness:

it has been built up,

skilfully

and deliberately, throughout

the

play. It is idle, in

such

circumetencee, to

Ireat

individual lines selectively, reading into

them

the sentimentswe assume any good sister should

cherish

towards another.

We should humbly submit ourselves to the imessions

and

atmosphere

the

poet

is

striving to

create. Thus dramatic

meaning is

created - meaning which

may

seem

to

som

to

be subjec-

tive, but

is

nevertheless objective in that it p.oceeds

from

the shape

and

fmmewcrk

of the

actual

play.

17

The collocation

$ V S h s not

otherwise atks ted. Most,

but not

all editors

(see, cr i netance,

Schneidewin-Nauck-Radeamecher)

take

it here as ccrrobcdive.

Actually

Denniston (Particles) ives

sulEcient examples to show hat bcth S+ and $v can contradict cc comct s pev iws assertion.

Further,

$v 64

ie found, and

is

corrective,

at O.T.

294 and

SB.

18 I have tried in the above

to

give a faithful account of how I read line 551,

how imgine it

to

have been

But,

having delivered

rqy

paper, I

happened o

look at Beyfields

Red

hlacmillan

edition,

which

poken.

I had,

am

sary

o

say,

not

consultedbefm.

Though Bayfield takes

$V 6 h a

omdmitive, he

manages to wring the same kind of sense from the line

that

I do.

His

excellent ncte (thebest, I thi nk,

by

any commentator)

deserves

quotins: The point

of the

difficult

line

551

ies,

I th nk,

in the double

meaning of

p ,

ock and

laugh

which tranelation

cannot

convey.

who mock -

as

I confess I did - do indeed usually get the @Xv;s of pleasure out of their

mockery

(laughtewnockery);

in

mocking

at

you

I get

no

such

~ r p ~ c , aXyoGxz

~ E G

anoxymcmn .

assents,a d ould

rather have had 6.l- T O L . Antigone does not softan

cr

apologize; thoughshe ceases

to

m k ,

she

remains cold

and

impassive to the end of

the

dialogue.

Rofesscp

T.

B. L Webetar

has

also drawn

my attention to Cocteaus tranelation (Antigone, n vol.

i

of Theatre,Paris,Gallimard, 1948): Je r i s

un rire contre toi qui nest pas drBle.

Je

ne

raille

pes

sans

me

faire dud

he

m t

mpCrtant

PO&

which ar ises fromall

this

is that Antigone should

not be thought

to change her tone o become bder

towanl s Ismene.

That

is the

fallacy which

many

comme- commit,

and

it

is one

which I

hope I shall

have helped

to overcome in

moet

peoples

minds,

even

if

I shall not have persuaded

them o

take the

Qeek exactly

as

I do.

The

meaning

seems to be,

ThoBe

G p

suit the

meaningw

ockery

springs 5 v m

m y anguish; fcp that

we

should

19

cf. Aesch. Agn m

932.

20 Her

guilt befm

the

law would

be

as

mat

as

Antigones

because

C ~ O G ~ E W L C-

planuing, cc

aiding and

abetting

thedeed

(of

which her confession, 536-7,would

be

evidence)

- was

equivalent

to

doing

it: cf.

Andoc. Myst. 94,

Upeius Attische Recht

613. Antigones

reply

means

Dont

wary, hey havent exeaikd

you yet &e.

hmene

may

get

). She

doesnt believe Creon will execute

Ismene

fcr a lUgterical

outbumt.

21 D.L Page argued

that

Creons treatment of Polyneices w a s in accord with normal Athenian p t i c e , citing

a number of

well-knm paseams

to

show that

the

Athenians denied bmial in

Athenian

soil

to

traitcra

(Thm.,

i 138. Vita Antiphovrtis 24; . Leocr. 113). But to deny burialwth n a specified,ama is one

9

WCL npg

xu&

&MKOV aLxLa8Evr

ed. (1959)

. 140.

Ch he other hand I

do

not see the need to add

to Creone

crimes

that

he

left

the

other

ccrp3es of the Seven unburied. This idea seems

to

me

to nest

upon a m i s h t e r p ~ Won of 10803,which

I

take

to

refer only

to

the pollution of

the

citys a l h y tba cauying thither of the

remaha

of Polymices

corpee.

pscribe yztionfs

her;

,Chon commands$V F&&mov, WC?, np\os OWGV

i p 4 /

~ 8 e i v

(205-6). Cf.D.W.

Lucaa

The Creek

Ttagic

Poets, 2nd

22

G v ~ v c p x o v

Imv

,

whatever

may

be

the

pecise

meaning

of

that

curious

*se.

23

Aa will be seen I do Mt subscribe to the view that b + f h h g s havinghie city

on

high, 6hdy loehg

(i.e. destroying)hie city.

4

he

mminga of E ~ J E ~ ~ ~ C - S I X X X S ~ ~ S

m of

coume

divalent.

~ b ~ p f i ~an mean

lpiouein

9

stfct4religious a p e , cp it can me) sinply dutiful

a,

law-abkbg,

cf.

F , P h o e n .

W ,

E p

Antiph. 6.93

etc. Sophocles seeme

to me

9 play o n , y

bjlguity throughout the

p y , especiallyin

tbe ladessnees of vhich she h e been convicted by Creon and

the

chorus. By E W E B O G she

refera

to tbe

natural piety with which she buried Polynaicee.

The

same conflict

- almost

PUrming

-

ie

YPY,

~ ~ L X G C V

p q ,

~ p a t v v / 6 0 5

T L / A ~ ~ O V~ L x s ~ v , a h

6 EUJE~E~V

X ~ W V ,

W g m e S

famoUe

Cry 6 V

d @ L C L V EUOEpOb EqV (924). @6wrrCpfLcc Sh,

63


18/18

expeesed by the chcrue at 872 I$ELV $V e&$skx TK: h e enough your respect - i.e. your dutiful-

ness

to

your brother's

body - is

a

kind of

respectfulness'

(the

&her

kind

is their

own

ense of respect to

the

tempmid

power).

25 ~kue,hey say h e , d q l TOL, pfi T L wc'L BE

bulletin of the institute of classical studies volume 10 issue 1 1963 [doi...

Documents