Antigone
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
There are some disputed lines (995-1005) in Antigone that I found to be perfectly reasonable, and consistent with her character. Goethe, and ancient Greek scholars seem to think otherwise. Goethe wishes to reject them entirely.
>Never, I tell you.
>If I had been the mother of children
>Or if my husband died, exposed and rotting--
>I'd never have taken this deal upon myself,
>Never defied our people's will.
>Etc
I'm reading the introduction to the penguin edition translated by Fagles. Knox (who writes the introductions) seem to think Antigone is some pious girl devoted especially to the underworld. But to me this was never the case, she was entirely devoted to her family. The "unwritten laws" do not necessarily concern the gods but the family.
So is there any good justification for these lines? Because the introduction in this book seems to more -or- less denounce them though not as fervently as Goethe, who wished that these lines were interoperated rather genuine.
I agree.
>>8270490
What is the context? I don't have the book with me.
Anyway, she seems to say she is, or would be, devoted to her living family above all else, especially those who depend on her for their survival (children), and only then would she perform her duties to the dead. She is adamant in her resolve to bury her brother only because she doesn't have anything more important than her life to lose, like a nuclear family. She also mentions the will of the people whom she wouldn't break, had she had something really worth fighting for. But let's not forget who she is: she is a broken woman, the impure issue of an abominable marriage, her father and mother are dead, her brothers too, nobody would marry her and she knows her only living sibling is better off staying away from her. Her duty to the dead is the only meaningful act left to her.
It seems like Sophocles wants to nuance her apparent fanaticism in getting the proper burial done in spite of all odds and all sense.
If you ask me if it fits with the rest, yeah, why not? Why shouldn't Antigone be nuanced? I read this some time ago but I do remember that she expresses regret at some point for not being able to live a fulfilled life and marry Kreon's son. On the other hand, she barely acknowledges his infatuation, if at all. Still, I don't think one should view these contradictions as inconsistencies or worse, inauthentic passages. I choose to see it as the inner struggle of a complex character.
I read this quite a while ago, I don't remember it all that well and I've never read any critical studies of it, not even the intro, so if you think I'm way off the mark, I might be. I wouldn't even have chimed into your thread hadn't I seen you bumping it with no replies.
Take a look at the lines up to 1005 that are after what you greentexted, without the "etc.":
Never, I tell you.
if I had been the mother of children
or if my husband died, exposed and rotting--
I'd never have taken this ordeal upon myself,
never defied our people's will. What law,
you ask, do I satisfy with what I say?
A husband dead, there might have been another.
A child by another too, if I had lost the first.
But mother and father both lost in the halls of Death,
no brother could ever spring to light again.
For this law alone I held you first in honor.
She's especially devoted to the Underworld only insofar as she recognizes that to do her biological family honor, she must bury the dead and fulfill that divine law. If it had just been a husband or her children that were dead and out there rotting, she would not have transgressed Creon's laws, because she does not, as someone who would be in a position to acquire those things again, owe them that, but her relationship with her brother and parents is not something that can ever be replaced.
>>8271375
>>8271271
Like you both, I came to these conclusions readily. Maybe I'm not looking for a justification for these lines as much as I am looking to better understand such staunch opposition to them. But in the introduction Knox mentions how this passage is inconsistent with Antigone's character throughout the rest of the story.. This is supported by Gothe, Sir Richard Jebb, and Aristotle apparently, with Aristotle being the least opposed and prompting readers to try and understand this aspect of her character rather than try to suppress it.
Apparently this notion of the exceptional, irreplacable relationship is sourced from Herodotus' Histories. A family was condemned to death, the wife of the head of the family begged for the men's lives but was only offered one and chose her brother's for the same reason Antigone gave. But Knox suggests this reasoning doesn't make sense in the play because Antigone isn't saving anyone, though I would argue she is saving his honor -- having, more-or-less the same importance as his actual life, no?
>>8271375
>>8271989
To perform proper burial rites is second in importance only to, or perhaps just as important as, saving a loved one's life. This seems fucked up in this age, doesn't it? It is consistent with that Herodotus story though.
Now that I have a bit of context I see I was partly wrong before. She isn't saying she wouldn't attempt to bury Pokyneikes, and thus commit a sort of suicide-by-cop, if she had a LIVING husband and kids to live for; she is saying she wouldn't have done it for a DEAD husband or kid, since fate might have provided a new one in the future. Again, this sounds cynical to us nowadays. I, for one, see her as being lucid and pragmatic: she knows nobody's going to marry her anyway (she doesn't seem to take Haemon's fawning over her seriously). Burying her brother is the only gesture she can do to redeem a tiny bit of the honour of her horribly fated house.
I still see no grounds to dismiss the whole passage as inconsistent or fraudulent. Then again, I'm no classical scholar and I read this in translation.
