Antigone Essay

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Antigone Essay
Creon knew that if he permitted his own family to rebel against the laws set, then how could he possibly expect the world to uphold it these laws? It is true that once those looked upon by many abide by the laws of the state, then the people will follow their example. This is, in fact, the message which Creon tries to put across throughout the play regarding his decision to not grant Polynices a proper burial since he had committed a dishonourable and criminal act by attacking his state. The law in place is to deny such a person burial rites in the event they are dead. However, as Antigone says, the laws of man do not transcend the laws of heaven. She sticks this stance and does not care at any point in the play for compromises. She believes that she is on the right track and hence fears no consequences, but then again so does Creon. Creon feels that he cannot be judged for doing what should be done to uphold law and order. This is the beginning of Antigone’s tragedy long before she even knew it. This is the very first insight into the collision of right against right as Hegel puts it (Roche, 12). According to Hegel, tragedy is the clash between two sides with significant grounds and justification, yet both being wrong on account of failure to see the truth and validity of each other’s stand.
Hegel’s theory of good vs. good destroying each other follows Antigone as she arrives in Thebes to find that both her brothers are dead and that her uncle Creon has taken over the throne and had chosen a side to the conflict of the brothers.

There is a considerable struggle for justice between the two that cannot be looked at in the light of good vs. bad. From Creon’s point of view, Polynices was a traitor to Thebes and his blood. He marched against his city and his brother and eventually succeeded in assassinating him to his peril also. This is right in the way of course. This is an injustice to Thebes and its people, and the course of justice that followed is practically justifiable. On the other hand, the course of action taken by Polynices against his brother was also justifiable and clearly cannot be denied. The throne was his right too, and it was his right to claim it, to fight for it. His brother Eteocles had denied him his right, and it was up to him to seek justice in a manner that he deemed best.
The concept and focus of tragedy between Aristotle and Hegel differ significantly, with Aristotle and such many others focusing on the impacts of the disaster, Hegel is undoubtedly one of the few who view tragedy in a new light. He seems to concentrate on the heart of the tragedy. Hegel lets the audience understand that they should not be afraid of the physical fate but the moral content of it all, of which violation will ruin the hero. Hegel replaces pity with sympathy for the hero, unlike Aristotle. In as much as suffering cannot be avoided, Hegel lets the hero be viewed not from her struggling alone but the sense of justification despite her downfall. (Roche, 14). Following this concept, we see that Antigone and Creon are both justified in their different moral interpretations as to what justice truly entails. After the deaths of the brothers, Creon orders Polynices be left unburied and buries Eteocles with the honor of a martyr.
According to him, Polynices was not worth the honor of burial since he had disgraced his people and the laws which govern them. To him, justice went on par with the laws set in place and it was on him to uphold those laws for the good of everyone. Antigone, on the other hand, presents her notion of justice as transcending laws. To her, it is certainly not justice to dishonor the dead by refusing to bury them in spite of whether they died honorably or not. To her such matters were beyond the mere human laws and as such should not be interfered with. Therefore, Antigone goes ahead to bury her brother even though she is aware of Creon’s ultimatum and the repercussions that may stem from her actions. To say that both these characters show exemplary stubbornness is an understatement, they are both right and probably not willing to recognize the point of view of each other.
The stubborn stance of both heroes, according to Hegel, does not only destroy one another but also results in each other’s self-destruction. Antigone is both family and citizen of the state. Creon is both a ruler and a family man. They both fail to see the legitimacy behind each other’s standpoint conflict, and each is steadfast and single-minded (Roche, 15). There could have been a middle point in this battle between Creon and Antigone if they both were able to realize that the stand the other so tenaciously held was also their stand although subsequently suppressed in favor of another. They both shared in their agonies considering they were family. If only both were able to recognize their similarities, then there will be no reason for the conflict of interest. They both practically inherited the misfortunes of Oedipus which came to haunt them in no time and failing to understand this brought upon them both a tragedy that was too familiar. Antigone, despite the loss of her father and her brothers all too consistent eventually killed herself. But her death, even though initially decided upon or foreseen by Creon, the butterfly effect of it caught him off guard.
Haemon, Antigone’s betrothed and Creon’s son, realizes he cannot bare his lover’s death and commits suicide beside her. Creon’s wife, who had preoccupied herself with knitting all this while finally stops, enters her chambers and commits suicide as well by slicing her throat. It all boils down too fast to a climax that was pretty much avoidable. For this reason, it becomes easier to say that the tragedy of this family is that they failed to recognize the misfortunes that haunted them. According to Hegel, tragic fate is certainly not irrational. That reason does not pose much significance in one-sided stances individuals take because each position is represented through its relation to another and therefore the eradication of one stance results in the ruin of the other (Roche, 17). Death is the human outcome, but the definite conclusion is the restoration of moral substance.
The concept of the play Antigone, therefore, poses the question of supremacy between basic morals that keep our humanity in check and practical laws that serve to instill order among us. One may outweigh the other depending on an individual’s values or perspective. This is where Hegel comes in with his theory of collision between two rights that both sides are equally justified. And by considering the two in his perspective, it is almost impossible not to agree with him.
Works Cited
Mark W. Roche. “Introduction to Hegel’s theory of tragedy.” PhaenEx, 20, 11, 2006