On Hegel’s Interpretation of the Conflict in Antigone

【Abstract】This essay will argue that Hegels balanced interpretation of the Antigone is the correct one on the grounds that any interpretation that favors either Creon or Antigone or reduces the conflict to one of personalities and not values would render Antigone a weaker tragedy.

【Key Words】Antigone；conflict；tragedy；Hegel

Do you agree with Hegel that Sophocles Antigone presents a conflict between right and right？

First the specific way in which this question is to be addressed in this essay must be made clear. The essay interprets the question as regarding Hegels theory of tragedy， not his ethics as such. The question is not what the moral truth of the matter is but how is the conflict presented， how are Creon and Antigone， and their respective values portrayed？ It is in this sense that the essay will agree with Hegel.

Hegels Interpretation

It should be made clear that Hegel only claims that Antigone presents a conflict between right and right in a very qualified sense. That is， only in terms of the crisis of the ethical world of Ancient Greece. Actually Hegels radical， dialectical opinion is that， insofar as both Antigone and Creon are right， they must also be wrong： "In the view of the Eternal Justice both （Antigone and Creon） were wrong because they were one-sided； but at the same time both were right." （Jebb， 1888， p132） This is necessarily so because Creon and Antigones values are in conflict so if Creon is right then Antigone must be wrong and vice versa. When Hegel says they are both right， they must also both be wrong by the same token.

Hegels first detailed treatment of Sophocles Antigone is in the Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel takes the Antigone to be a dramatic presentation of the crisis of Ancient Greeces ethical world. In Hegels interpretation， the ethical world of Ancient Greece was highly regimented： the citizens were assigned ethical roles according to class status and sex from birth. A major division of the ethical world was between； public life， the domain of men and private life， the primary concern of women. These divisions had their primary moral expression in Human law and Divine law， the polis and the family， politics and religion respectively.

Harmony was maintained in the ethical world in that it was so structured that the gender specific roles of men and women complimented each other. ‘The divine receives its honour through the respect paid to the human， and the human in virtue of the honour paid to the divine. （Hegel， year， p239）. This ethical division of labor was essential because within the private sphere of family life the boy was meant to be morally and religiously educated to make him ready for public life and with death the man was to be ritually returned to the family through the ceremony of burial. The individual households had a religious significance in their association with births and deaths and the state had its human significance， as the universal expression of the social will of the citizens. Neither could function without the other. The state was the protector and organizer of the households， without which they could not interact as a united community； the households were the manpower of the state who legitimized its rule.

For Hegel， in this ethical world the relationship between brothers and sisters was especially significant. This bond had a private and public significance， which unlike the husband–wife or parent–child relationship could be breached by the contingencies of love or law. To summarise： ‘Hegel argues that brother and sister fully recognize each other and what the stand for as equals， where the sister represents the family and divine law， and the brother represents the polis and the human law （Stern， 2002， p138） thus there is an awareness of each other as representatives of their respective ethical roles and as they both move into different households there is no locus of conflict between them.

Hegel argues that this apparently harmonious society has the seeds of conflict in it because the divided loyalties within society can set households against each other and the state. The tragic consequences of this conflict are explored by Sophocles. In Antigone Sophocles dramatically counterpoises the two sides in an exceptional circumstance meant to depict this conflict of loyalties at its most acute. Hegels plot-summary from the Lectures on Aesthetics makes this point with uncharacteristic clarity：

Everything in this tragedy is logical； the public law of the state is set in conflict over against inner family love and duty to a brother； the woman， Antigone， has the family interest as her ‘pathos， Creon， the man， has the welfare of the community as his. Polynices [Antigones brother]， at war with his native city， had fallen before the gates of Thebes， and Creon， the ruler， in a publicly proclaimed law threatened with death anyone who gave this enemy of the city the honour of burial. But this command， which concerned only the public weal， Antigone could not accept； as sister， in the piety of her love for her brother， she fulfils the holy duty of burial. In doing so she appeals to the law of the gods； but the gods whom she worships are the underworld gods of Hades . . .， the inner gods of feeling， love， and kinship， not the daylight gods of free self-conscious national and political life. （Hegel， 1993， p464）

In Hegels interpretation Creon is doing his duty as a statesman when he forbids the burial of Polynices. Conversely， Antigone is also doing her duty as a sister when she defies Creon. The result is that both are doomed. Creon violates divine law， symbolized by Antigone， Antigone violates human law， symbolized by Creon. The harmony is broken. Stern （2002） argues： ‘Hegel shows that， in the Greek world， each side （Antigone and Creon） has fixed allegiances to one sphere， so that when these spheres came into conflict， this conflict could not be resolved Both are destroyed by their transgressions， but they are punished by the contradiction of the laws they follow， not by any personal evil. It is precisely through one-sided obedience to laws on a collision course that the two are destroyed.

General Criteria for Ancient Greek Tragedy

The question： “what is tragedy in the Ancient Greek world？” is too big for this essay. However， we can give some general criteria without much controversy：

1.Tragedy is a depiction of human suffering.

2.Like all drama it centers around some kind of conflict.

3.At the end of a tragedy the principle character， usually the titular character， dies an unnatural and unhappy death or suffers a great loss.

4.The emotions of dread for the anticipated denouement of the play and pity for the unfortunate principle characters are elicited from the audience.

5.A common theme is the moral dilemma.

6.The suffering of the principle character is predestined by fate， a force beyond the control of the principle characters.

7.While the humanity of the characters is important， they are also depicted as moral paradigms of certain ethical standpoints.

From this point onwards， ‘tragedy is being referred to in the specifically Ancient Greek sense. Apart from possibly 5， 6 and 7 none of these criteria are controversial. So we can say as a general rule of thumb that the better a play meets these criteria， the more tragic it is. A crude formulation of this idea is that the more tragic the tragedy， the better it is qua tragedy. A natural development of this idea would be that the best playwrights of Ancient Greece wrote the most tragic tragedies. Sophocles is quite widely regarded as the best Ancient Greek playwright so we should expect his tragedies to meet the criteria to an especially high degree.

A crude， but not obviously erroneous argument follows from an assessment of the criteria that if we took a side in the conflict then Antigone would be a less tragic tragedy than if we didnt. For， if we pay particular attention to 3 and 4 it seems that tragedy in the Ancient Greek sense only works if the viewers sympathize with the principle characters who suffer in the play. Only when suffering is accompanied by pity is it tragic. It is not so easy to pity someone who suffers when we have no sympathy for them； it is much easier to sympathize with the misfortunes of a person who we like than who we dont like. Furthermore， for the audience it is much easier to like a hero than a villain. It seems obvious that in ancient Greek plays misfortune for some characters is not always supposed to be a cause for pity. Indeed there are times in Greek plays when it seems the doom of a villain is to be relished rather than dreaded for example Sophocles Elektra. It is only a tragedy when misfortune is visited upon a hero or otherwise innocent person. Now， if Antigone is our heroine and Creon our villain or vise versa then it follows that when the villain suffers there is no opportunity for dread and pity for him/her. As the running time of the play is shared fairly evenly between Antigone and Creon it would seem that qua tragedy， all the time dwelt on the suffering of the villain， roughly half if we take a side， is time wasted. Essentially， any interpretation of the play which sees either Antigone or Creon as villains is 50% less tragic then any interpretation of the play which sympathizes with them both.

The argument above can be criticized for putting a work of art， which must have many nuances， into quantitative terms. It is wrong to reduce tragedy to the simple criteria above. However， there is some truth in the argument above that should not be overlooked. If we are to favor one side of the conflict over the other then the many attempts to elicit sympathy for both of the conflicting parties equally seem meaningless. If Creon is taken to be right and Antigone wrong， then there seems to be little point in his being told his decision is unpopular with the citizens， being told he has offended the Gods and regretting his decision to execute Antigone. His moral righteousness is only diminished by pointing out that he has offended both Antigones priority and his own. If Antigone is to be interpreted as right and Creon wrong then there seems to be little point in her apparent regret before her suicide ‘she dies recanting nothing； but still she is torn by conflict （Nussbaum， 2001， 68）. Moreover， the fact that the play continues for some time dealing with Creons problems seems to serve no purpose for the tragic element. If Creon is not an object of sympathy there is no reason to dwell on his suffering in a tragedy.

There remains the issue of an interpretation as not being about a conflict of values but being a conflict of personalities. This is an interpretation which blatantly denies the 7th criterion for tragedy. It was conceded that 7 was a controversial criterion because not all Greek tragedies have principle characters that embody ethical standpoints for example its not obvious what moral standpoint Oedipus stands for. However， in the case of Antigone the 7th criterion is essential for meeting the uncontroversial 4th criterion. This is because Antigone and Creon have one-tracked minds； Sophocles emphatically ensures that apart from the values they stand for， neither Antigone nor Creon seem to have any redeemable features. Nussbaum talks at length about this. They both seem to shirk and admonish everyone around them. Both characters do not have warm relations with anyone： ‘neither Creon nor Antigone is a loving or passionate being in anything like the usual sense （Nussbaum， 2001， p64）. In this context， if we are to ignore the content of the moral argument they are having in the play， which takes up most of the script， and instead concentrate on character the tragedy is weaker because the characters of the protagonists， divorced from their ethical standpoint， do not lend themselves readily for the audiences sympathy， they are blinded by their dedication to Human Law and Divine Law.

To conclude， this essay has demonstrated Hegels argument that， Sophocles Antigone presents a conflict between right and right to be correct because devoid of this ethical consideration， the play would lack a conflict at all and thus become a weaker， pointless piece of tragic literature. It is because each individual identifies him or herself wholly with one overriding ethical imperative that Hegel characterizes the conflict between Creon and Antigone as tragic， without this clash between right and right， the play would not be a tragedy.

Bibliography：

[1]Jebb， R.C， （1888）， Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. Part III. The Antigone， in Tyrell， R， Y， （1888） The Classical Review， Vol. 2， No. 5， pp. 138-141 Cambridge： Cambridge University Press

[2]Hegel， G，W，F， （1993） Lectures on Aesthetics， London： Penguin Books

[3]Hegel， G，W，F， （year）， Philosophy of History， （online） Avilable at： http：//socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/～econ/ugcm/3ll3/hegel/history.pdf[Accessed on 29/04/2015]

[4]Nussbaum， M （2001） The Fragility of Goodness， Cambridge： Cambridge

[5]Stern， R， （2002）， Hegel and the Phenomenology of Spirit， London： Routledge

作者簡介：

孫淑婷，女，河北保定人，華北電力大學英語系，講師，碩士。