[I]n composing Ant. S. appears to have made substantial innovations of his own to both action and characters, to the point that in some respects the myth is virtually reinvented: (i) the issue of the Argive dead [i.e. the dead troops of Polyneices' defeated army: in previous versions of the myth there was a dispute over the return of their bodies] is suppressed, with the focus shifting instead onto the burial of Pol. and (ii) the condemnation and suicide of Ant.; (iii) Kreon's son is betrothed to Ant.; (iv) Kreon's wife is introduced into the story; (v) Ismene is made into a significant  factor, as companion and foil to Ant.: (vi) the gods are assigned a crucial and distinctive role. Each of these innovations brings with it significant dramatic consequences. (p. 8)


[In relation to (ii) in the opening quotation:] Gender, youthful desire, parental authority, and the mysterious will of hidden gods are thus made into key issues, while the lonely immurement and death of Ant. add further layers of pathos and lead directly to Kreon's personal ruin. (pp. 8-9)


[In relation to (iii) in the opening quotation:] Haimon [...] provides the crucial link between the fates of Ant. and Kreon, for it is his passionate rage and suicide that deal his father the most crushing blow of all. (p. 9)


[In relation to (v) in the opening quotation:] [T]he inclusion of this timid and 'normal' sister to serve as a foil to the abnormally bold and intransigent heroine - and to some degree as a channel for the audience's own responses [...] - is likely to have been S.'s own idea. (p. 10)


[On the concentration of events in the plot:] The unnatural speed and neatness of this sequence of events [...] works unobtrusively and effectively in the theatre: for it does not depend on improbable coincidences or arbitrary interventions, but merely the removal of (or disregard for) 'dead' time and cluttering details. (p. 16)


[On the Chorus:]  In general, it may be said that this Chorus is remarkable for its combination of obtuseness and insight, its ability to miss the nearest target completely - and thereby score a bull's-eye on another target they are not even aiming at; and much in our interpretation of the play may hinge on our response to their shifting point of view and our assessment of their value as commentators and assistants to the action. (p. 19)


[On performance:]  S.'s original cast of performers was entirely male: fifteen chorus members, three speaking actors, and a number of silent 'extras'. Masks would immediately identify gender, age, and status of each character, and would facilitate quick changes from one character to another. The most likely distribution of parts would  seem to be the following:

  1. Kreon (much the longest role, including lyrics at 1257-1346 [these line references are to Griffith's own edition of the Greek text - they aren't relevant to the version we study]);
  2. Ant. (including lyrics at 806-82), Haimon, Teiresias and Eurydike;
  3. Ismene, Guard, and Messenger.

The four opponents of Kreon would thus all be heard speaking with one voice, as it were (that of actor no. 2 [...]), while no. 3's characters present themselves (without song) as representatives of a more sober and mundane mentality. (pp. 23-24)


[On Antigone's cause:] Was she right all along, and Kreon simply wrong? Perhaps so - and yet, even as the action reaches its denouement, and the gods reveal their absolute disapproval of Kreon's policy, it remains unclear to what degree Ant. personally has been justified […]: nothing is said by Teiresias or anyone else to indicate that the gods approved of her actions; and it is debatable whether in fact she helped to correct the situation in any way. (p. 32)

 

[On the rights and wrongs of the protagonists:] That Kreon's edict was wrong is made blindingly clear by mid-play. But it is clear too that the catastrophe is brought about, not just by his mistake, but by a particular combination of circumstances and decisions (by Ant. and Haimon, as well as Kreon himself) which raise further moral questions of considerable complexity. In Kreon's case, not only does he offend against the sacred laws of family and the underworld gods, but his increasingly 'tyrannical' conduct (esp. his identification of the city with himself; his obsession with his own authority; his harsh and high-handed threats; his unreasonable suspicion of others) contributes directly to his downfall - though opinions may differ as to whether these traits are to be detected right from the start […] or become apparent only in the scene with the Guard […], or later still […]. As for Ant., whether or not her extraordinary (even faintly incestuous? […]) devotion to her brother and parents is to be interpreted as evidence of an inherited taint which may itself be a 'cause' of the continuing disasters […], she clearly contributes, through her unreasonable, impatient, and intransigent behaviour, to the catastrophe that finally wipes out her family, as is repeatedly pointed out by both the Chorus and Ismene. (p. 33)

 

[On the gods:] The gods (as often) appear more concerned with punishment than with reward or comfort. (p. 46)


[On the principles that the protagonists seem to represent:] For all Kreon's political (and specifically democratic-sounding) language, he shows increasingly, in his confrontations with both Ant. and Haimon, that he is more concerned about his own personal authority, as a man and a father, than about his citizens' opinions [...]. Indeed, he displays not only disrespect for family obligations, but also political incompetence in his insensitivity and mistrust of his fellow-citizens; and he ends up not only destroying his own family, but also jeopardizing the whole community of Thebes, by tainting its public altars and its relations with other cities [...]. Conversely, Ant. is by no means unconcerned about her public reputation among the citizens [...]. Public and private, political and familial, cannot be wholly separated in the case of royalty: so, while the play certainly asserts the inviolable claims of kinship and points up the oppressive potential of civic authority in the wrong hands, it does so in such a way as to remind us of the inherent dangers posed to the stability of the polis by its leading dynastic families. If 'family' is the solution, it is also the problem. (pp. 48-49)


[On Hegel's interpretation of the play:] The biggest problem with it lies perhaps in its idea of a final 'synthesis' or elevated level of awareness (which is directly linked to Hegel's insistently evolutionist and progressive view of history); for, although the ending of Ant. does provide reassurances of a less troubled future, and of lessons that have been 'learned' by the survivors, neither the Chorus nor Kreon comes close to articulating a world-view that synthesizes the insights gained through the course of the tragedy, and it must remain questionable how much of this the members of the audience are able to achieve for themselves. (p. 49)


[Concluding a set of reflections on gender in the play:] The choices for a female subject in this play are thus limited indeed: speak out, take action - and die in isolation; or keep your place indoors, in silence, in subjection, so that men may continue their misrule. How far are these choices felt to reflect the tragic peculiarities of the family of Oidipous and fictional Thebes, how far the norms of contemporary Athenian life? Did S.'s audience even notice the absence of Ismene, or the silence about Ant., in the closing scenes of the play? (p. 54)



Last modified: Monday, 3 March 2025, 7:20 PM