The Adherence To Principles Shown by Oedipus and Antigone - Literature review Example

To what extent does the adherence to principles shown by Oedipus and Antigone precipitate their downfall? Sophocles’s Oedipus the King and Anouilh’s Antigone are both tragedies in the Aristotelian sense; as such, the protagonists (Oedipus and Antigone, respectively) have character traits that precipitate their downfall: both demonstrate pride, and a certain stubbornness in their adherence to moral principles. Oedipus refuses to go back on the curse he issued at the start of the play, even though he discovers that he is the object of that curse; Antigone refuses to allow her brother to go unburied without putting up a fight, even though she is fully aware that this will result in her execution. Although this stubbornness is certainly an important factor in each character’s downfall, there is also a very definite sense in both plays that the events are preordained. In Oedipus the King, the oracles predict the events of the play with pinpoint accuracy: however much the characters strive to avoid their predictions, they nevertheless come true. In Antigone, the Prologue and Chorus on several occasions draw the attention of the audience to the fact that the events are inevitable: here there is also the sense that they are inevitable because they are written in the play. The moral principles of duty and honour are important both to Oedipus and to Antigone – this reflects the opinions of the societies in which the two plays were written: there were very strong notions of honour in the ancient Greek society which would have been the original audience for Oedipus the King; likewise, Antigone was written for a French audience in the grip of the second World War (it premiered in 1944), in which ideas of duty and honour towards one’s country and in particular the resistance movement were very important. Oedipus invokes the idea of honour and divine retribution for a dishonourable act when he curses the man who murdered Laius: I lay this curse upon him, that the wretch In wretchedness and misery may live. (lines 248-9) Oedipus then expresses great surprise that anyone should choose this dishonour rather than coming forward and accepting guilt: this shows the importance of the moral principle of honour for him. He also speaks of honour between man and man (as opposed to man and god), when he describes Creon’s ‘impudence’ (line 534) in coming to see him. So, it can be seen that the notion of honour is present in everything Oedipus does. Hence, when he discovers that he himself is to blame for the murder of Laius, he feels bound by honour to mete out his own curse upon himself: I, the most nobly born of any Theban Am bound for ever by my own decree. (lines 1380-1) Therefore, it can be seen that it is through Oedipus’s adherence to the principle of honour that he blinds himself and casts himself out. The same adherence to the ideas of honour, duty and justice can be seen in the character of Antigone. Antigone feels that she has a duty to bury her brother, even though she knows that it will result in her execution: when asked why she stole past the guards in the middle of the night to try and bury him, she declares, ‘I had to’ (p. 31), and describes her belief that ‘people who aren’t buried wander for ever in search of rest’ (p. 31). Thus, Antigone feels she must honour her brother by giving him a proper burial, even at the expense of her own life. In the compelling scene with Creon, Antigone declares, ‘one must do what one can’ (p. 35) – this shows that she feels adhering to codes of honour and justice is a moral imperative. In this respect, then, as Creon points out on p. 33, Antigone and Oedipus are very similar. Both Oedipus and Antigone show themselves to be moral idealists. Their idealism is brought out by contrast with realists: Jocasta and Creon, respectively. Jocasta tries to stop Oedipus finding out the truth about himself, on the grounds that he would be happier in ignorance, saying to him: ‘O, I beseech you, do not! Seek no more’ (line 1064); Oedipus on the other hand obeys the order of justice rather than utility – he says, I know not how I could have gone to Hades And with these eyes have looked upon my father Or my mother. (lines 1371-3) here, he shows his dedication to honour even when considering what will happen to him after he dies. A similar contrast is present in Antigone: Creon describes how ‘if some scruffy messenger comes down from the mountains tomorrow and tells me he’s none too sure about my parentage, I’ll just send him packing’ (p. 33), mocking Oedipus’s dedication to honour with his unsophisticated register – conversation words and phrases such as ‘scruffy’, ‘none too sure’, and ‘send him packing’ serve to lower the register and so ridicule Oedipus’s seriousness. However, Creon undeniably has a point: ‘kings have other things to do besides souping up their own woes’ (p. 33) – here, he shows his pragmatism in taking into account what is required of him as a king when deciding on a suitable course of action. Antigone, on the other hand, feels she is obliged to do her duties (‘one must do what one can’ (p. 35)), and so finds Creon’s harsh realism repulsive. Thus, the idealism of both Antigone and Oedipus is offset and emphasised by the realism of Creon and Jocasta. Both Oedipus the King and Antigone conform to Aristotle’s conception of tragedy (Aristotle 350 B.C.). Aristotle describes the idea of a ‘tragic hero’, who should have a ‘tragic flaw’, or hamartia, which leads to their downfall. At some point in the tragedy, there should be a moment of anagnorisis – that is, when the tragic hero realises his/her flaw and repents. With this in mind, it is possible to see both plays as tragedies in the Aristotelian sense: Oedipus’s moment of anagnorisis occurs when he realises that he is his father’s murderer and his mother’s husband; Antigone’s occurs when she is talking to Jonas the guard in her cell awaiting execution: ‘It’s only now I realise how easy it was to live’ (p. 57) – here, she shows regret for her stubbornness. In this light, then, both plays can be viewed as Aristotelian tragedies; hence, one could argue that the tragic flaw of both Oedipus and Antigone is their stubbornness in adhering to their moral principles. However, it is my opinion that such a simple interpretation will not suffice. In both plays there is a strong sense of the role destiny plays in determining the course of events. In Oedipus the King, two oracles foretell that Oedipus shall marry his mother and murder his father. The characters in the play take various measures to try to avoid the prophecy of the oracles: Laius and Jocasta order that their baby son be killed, Oedipus flees his homeland as a young man; however, the prophecy comes true. This suggests that the events in the play are preordained, and no matter what Oedipus was to do, he would be unable to avoid them. In Antigone, a similar idea is most strongly felt in the speeches made by the Prologue and the Chorus to the audience: an awareness of the artifice of the play is shown, and so it is known that events are foretold. For example, the Prologue introduces Antigone: ‘she’s going to have to play her part right through to the end’ (p. 3). In addition, the guards are described as being ‘the agents – eternally innocent, eternally complacent – of justice’ (p. 5): this metaphor describes the guards as being cogs in the system of justice – the rhythmic repetition of the word ‘justice’ here gives strength to this idea – and so enforces the notion that the events in the play are driven by an unstoppable force. Therefore, there is a sense in both plays that the events are preordained and inevitable. In conclusion, both Oedipus in Oedipus the King and Antigone in Antigone are shown at various points in each play to adhere stubbornly to their moral principles. In both cases, one reading of the play is that their stubbornness in this regard precipitates their downfall; in both plays, the characters’ stubbornness and idealism is contrasted with the pragmatism and realism of other significant characters. In spite of the significance of the protagonists’ stubbornness as a factor in their downfall, there is a sense in each play that the outcome is unavoidable: this seemingly refutes the idea that the stubbornness of Oedipus and Antigone is the Aristotelian tragic flaw which precipitates their ruin. However, Aristotle’s view of tragedy was that it should also be inevitable – in this inevitability lies the very tragedy – so perhaps there is no conflict between the idea that the protagonists’ stubbornness in adhering to their moral principles causes their downfall and the idea that the events of the two plays are preordained. The characters of Oedipus and Antigone, I would suggest, are unchangeable, and so their characteristics precipitate their downfall in an inevitable manner. References Anouilh, J. 2000, Antigone, trans. Bray, B. Methuen, London. Aristotle. 350 B.C., Poetics, trans. Heath, M. 1996, Penguin, London. Sophocles. Oedipus the King, in Antigone, Oedipus the King, Electra, trans. Kitto, H.D.F. 1962, OUP, Oxford. Read More