I read this in freshman English, and it grabbed me and never let go of me. How can one not love Antigone's integrity?

القدر و الحب و الكبرياء
كانوا مفاتيح مصير انتيجون؛ صاحبة التراجيديا المأساوية الاغريقية المتكاملة

و انتيجون ابنة اوديبوس ملك طيبة ذو المصير المأساوي فلقد قتل اباه و تزوج امه و انجب منها اربع أبناءً!! ا وعندما صدمته معرفة تلك الحقايق؛ فقأ عينيه و هام علي وجهه
و تمت الوقيعة بين ابناؤه قتلا بعض؛ فقرر الحاكم دفن احدهما و ترك الاخر للطيور هنا اصرت انتيجون على دفنه و لو علي موتها

مأساة انتيجون مركبة؛ فقد ورثت عن والدها قدره المظلم و مصيره المأساوي
و حبها الكبير لاخيها جعلها تفضل فقدان حياتها في سبيل تكريم جثمانه
و كبريائها جعلها تحجم عن رجاء الحاكم. لتغيير قراره
كبرياء حماها الحاكم هو الذي اودي بها للمصير الحتمي

لا تخجل من أخطائك فانت بشر*
ولكن اخجل اذا كررتها و ادعيت انها من فعل القدر*ا
انتيجون من اقوى الشخصيات النسائية ادبيا علي الاطلاق؛ هي ليست في قمة الفضل بسبب اصلها و مأستها العائلية ؛ و لكنها ايضا اميرة سابقة؛ و لا تتردي  في هوة اللؤم و الخسة

اسبغ عليها سوفوكليس من الاف السنين؛   صفات رفيعة فجعلها مثال للشجاعة؛ التدين؛ الصرامة؛ و الصمود كإسمها؛ و معناه الصامدة
رغم الوضع المتدني الذي كانت تغرق فيه النساء في هذا العصر المنصرم؛ منذ الفين و خمسمائة سنة

دوافع  انتيجون انسانية دينية؛
فوقفت امام قوانين وضعية ظالمة؛ طمعا في اخرة افضل؛ لتعبر عن المدي الذي قد تتطرف اليه المرأة في سبيل اقامة العدل

Jedina tragedija koju sam u gimnaziji čitao kao lektiru. Slabo sam šta zapamtio, osim da je tada 15-godišnjem meni zvučala... tragično.

Antigona, rođena iz incestuozne veze svog brata/oca Edipa i majke/babe Jokaste, nastavlja jadan život, pored kog čoveku jednostavno dođe da sedne i plače. U ovom nastavku tebanskog ciklusa je srećemo u njenim dvadesetim, nakon što joj se braća pobiju u međusobnom dvoboju. Ujak Kreont, tebanski kralj, odbija da sahrani jednog od njih, pošto je Polinik bio državni neprijatelj. Antigona odbija da ispoštuje zabranu, vrši pogrebni obred, i - biva kažnjenja smrću.

Antigona nastupa puna samopouzdanja, kao da je ona zakon. U svakom trenutku joj je jasno šta je ispravno, ali se ne trudi da druge uveri u to. Divlja je i nepopustljiva, a ipak se ne brani preterano, nije joj svejedno ali razume da mora umreti. Antigona brani porodicu, ali imaš osećaj da to nije iz ljubavi do brata, kao da je više vezana za samu ideju porodice, a ne konkretno za brata. Potreban joj je osećaj povezanosti s nečim, a to je porodica.

Antigonine nezaboravne reči. Nisu baš potpuno logične, ovde zvuči kao da bratu spašava život, ali dobro:
"... da muž mi umre, lako drugoga je naći
i dijete mogu rodit' s novim mužem tim,
no kad mi oca mog i majku krije grob,
od koga će se meni drugi rodit brat?"

I Kreont želi povezanost, ali kod njega je to povezanost sa polisom. Patriotizam mu je ispred svega, ispred porodice. Utilitaran je, siguran je da Kreonti ovog sveta kontrolišu dešavanja u njemu, ali se pomalo čudno protivi zakonitostima bez kojih polis ne može postojati (vidi njegove reči). Svoje odluke brani zakonima države, ali njegovi govori su puni porodice. Na kraju, i kažnjen je, možda još surovije od Antigone, ne politički već preko porodice. Gledajući njegovu nesreću, kao i broj izgovorenih stihova, ispada da je on ustvari glavna ličnost ove tragedije?

Kreontove nezaboravne reči, čudne za jednog kralja polisa:
"Goreg zla od novca čitav nema svet,
on gradove će srušit i razorit svud."

Festival grčke tragedije (za jednog gledaoca)
Ovo je šesti takmičar na mom antičkom prvenstvu grčke tragedije. Priznajem, Antigona je bila favorit za preuzimanje prvog mesta, ali sport je to, ne pobeđuje uvek ime.

1. Car Edip (Sofokle)
2. Agamemnon (Eshil)
3. Antigona (Sofokle)
4. Eumenides (Eshil)
5. The Libation Bearers (Pokajnice - Eshil)
6. Oedipus at Colonus (Sofokle)

greek tragedy has this element that is truly lacking in most contemporary works, and it's simply dimensionality. this manicheean idea of a "right" and a "wrong" that oppose each other completely without intersecting is flawed in a multitude of ways and is never applicable to the human psyche and the way we act, so finding it, even in fiction, is incredibly frustrating by its inaccuracy

یک تراژدی فوق العاده زیبا و خواندنی

I am not well-schooled in tragedies--the Greek tragedies, that is--but when I learned that one of the books I intended to read for the Man Booker award this year was based on the story of Antigone, I thought now was a good time to have a look.

This is the first I have encountered of the play, I loved it. It is filled with terrific emotion and common responses to tragedy, as well as wisdom unbound. The personalities are strong and salty...and act on their promises.

Those of you who know the story will still be thrilled by the Chorus at the end saying "Grand words of proud men are punished with great blows, and this, in old age, teaches wisdom." And "Wisdom is by far the foremost part of happiness..."

Oedipus's two sons kill one another, as decreed by fate, and his two daughters are forbidden by King Creon to bury the body of one of the sons because Creon thought him a traitor. Antigone decides she will bury him anyway because this is the custom of the city and is a courtesy to the gods. Terrible events ensue.

We never learn here why the two sons are unequally loved. Perhaps that backstory is given in another play.

This edition is printed left side with the Greek, right side with English. It has a detailed introduction in which the story and all the characters mentioned are described in their relationship to the main actors in this story. That was helpful. At the end are extensive notes and discussion about word choices and inferred meanings. I thought this was impressive.

The family or the state
6 May 2012

tThis is probably the closest of all of the Greek tragedies to a Shakespearian tragedy. This is due to the end of the play having a huge bodycount and the action of the play is driven by one person's fatal flaw (not that I actually believe in the fatal flaw argument, but that is beside the point). However it is not Antigone who has the fatal flaw in this play but rather Creon, the king of Thebes. Unfortunately we cannot really look to Oedipus at Colonus to see the beginning of Creon's downfall because this play is not the final part of a trilogy, at least in the Aeschylan sense of a trilogy, though it is noticeable that when the copyists chose seven plays of Sophocles to preserve for posterity three of the Theban plays were kept which in a sense formed a trilogy, and in this trilogy we see Creon go from being a loyal servant of Oedipus to a ruthless tyrant that believes that he is the state and that his words are not to be disobeyed.

tFirst I will discuss the term Harmatia, which is Aristotelian in origin, at least from his text on drama (The Poetics). I shall also look at the action of the play and finish off by discussing the main theme, which is the struggle between loyalty to one's family and loyalty to one's state. Well, no, I will finish off by looking at Creon's character, and how his actions bring about such a sticky end.

tThe concept of Harmatia is regularly found in the Bible where it has been translated into our word sin. Now, as I think about the concept of Harmatia I am somewhat torn between suggesting that Harmatia and sin are two different ideas, or that our modern understanding of sin does not exactly weigh with how the modern church translates and preaches it. The modern church preaches sin as being rebellion against God (of which we are all guilty), and then goes on to bombard us with what constitutes sin. However, to the Greeks, or at least to Aristotle, Harmatia is a fatal character flaw. Now that concept does not alienate sin because sin, in an of itself, is a fatal character flaw that we have inherited from Adam and Eve. This fatal character flaw of ours is our desire to live independently, and we see this more and more as we meet with people and associate with them. I also see it rampant throughout the church as people try to push God into a box and tell him what sin is rather than letting him demonstrate sin to them.

tI say this because the list of sins seems to get longer and longer and we, as humans and those of us who call ourselves Christian, seem to think that sin is made up of our actions as opposed to our desire to rule ourselves. I guess the best explanation is that our actions, especially our selfish actions, are merely a symptom of this character flaw of ours. The Bible is correct when it says that the wages of sin is death, because as we see, especially in Antigone, that Creon's Harmatia leaves him desolate and alone, and as he says from his own lips, it is as if he were dead. Now, the Greek concept of death, the absence of life, and the removal of ourselves from this world, is somewhat different to the Biblical concept of death. In fact our modern understanding of death is more in line with the Grecian view. However the biblical view is that death is more to do with the break down of our relationships, particularly our relationship with God, than it is with the absence of life. To the Bible life is defined by relationships, and when we drive our relationships apart we are little more than dead. In fact it has been suggested that higher suicide rates occur among truly lonely people than it does among people who are surrounded by friends. That, though, is only speculation. However, consider this: even when we are surrounded by friends we can still be alone, especially if these so called friends of ours only seek us out for company and, in their self centred view of the world, seek to only have us by their side to make them feel good and important than really doing anything that is remotely friendly.

tNow, the play itself is set after the Theban war, where Etocles and Polyneices killed each other after Polyneices attacked Thebes with his army to remove his brother and set himself up as king. Creon, by default, becomes king and his first order of business is to give Etocles a state funeral while leaving the body of Polyneices exposed. To be exposed was the worst thing that you could do to a corpse in the Ancient Greek world. A proper burial meant that you would at least have a half decent afterlife, while being exposed suggests that you would be left wondering the earth as a ghost, and a tormented one at that. Antigone, the sister of Polyneices, is horrified at this and seeks to bury him, much to Creon's displeasure, so he orders her executed. However the play is not as simple as that because Creon's son is in love with Antigone, and when he finds her dead, he kills himself, and in a fit of grief over the death of her son, Creon's wife also kills herself.

tNow one of the main themes that comes out of this play is the struggle between one's loyalty to the state and one's loyalty to one's family and the dilemma that one will face when the state passes a law of which you do not approve. The question that is raised is: do you dishonour the state by breaking the law and honouring your family, or do you dishonour your family by upholding the law even when the law is unjust. In a way, there was nothing wrong with Creon's law, since Polyneices was a traitor, and treachery is seen as one of the worst crimes to commit (even today, though the definition of treason has become very ambiguous in the globalised, interconnected world). However, he was still family, and not only that, Etocles' ascension to the throne was dubious at best. The entire war was not so much about a deposed monarch seeking reinstatement, but rather a family quarrel between two brothers.

tWe still face these dilemmas today, though not to the same extent. The question of whether the drug laws are just is one of them (and I do believe that they are, even though they can be considered to be an outworking of the Nanny State). While it is true that people should be left to make their own decisions, we demonstrate time and time again that we are actually not capable of doing so, therefore the state actually does need to step in to protect us from ourselves. Then there is the war that the state embarks on that many members of the state disapprove of, and as a loyal soldier to the state, do you obey the state by embarking on a quasi-legal adventure, or do you uphold your morals by refusing, and face punishment or even gaol.

tCreon mentions a number of times that he, as the king, is the state, and thus his laws are to be obeyed. However, ironically enough, the Chorus objects to this. Now the Chorus does play an important role in Greek tragedy, and usually represents what the Greeks call the 'Oklos', or the crowd. Crowd is actually a rather bad translation as my understanding of the Oklos is that it is a crowd that acts as a single entity and has a single mindset. Now, this is not always the case in Greek tragedy as at times the Chorus will split and then argue with itself, in a way representing division amongst the people. It is a shame that we do not actually see Choruses in plays any more (or not playing a major role as they did in Greek drama).

tNow Creon, having become king, has pretty much become corrupted by power. Yet I am not entirely convinced that it is corruption at such an early stage of his reign. In a way, he is the new king, and he wants to stamp his authority on the city, or, as the Greeks called it, the Polis (I won't go into details of the meaning of this word as I have already spent too much time translating Oklos). For him to be disobeyed will suggest that he does not actually have the character to be a king. A king that is not obeyed and not respected is not actually a king because he has no authority. As such Creon wants to make sure that his authority sticks so when this law is broken he is forced to act. However, he is not caught in a dilemma deciding whether it is right to punish Antigone or not - he has already made up his mind, set the path that he wants to travel, and travels down it. However, it ends very, very badly for him, and this is emphasised at the conclusion when the prophet Tiresieus arrives and passes on the message from the gods. He has acted against the proper way and is now to be punished and there is no way to escape from it.

I recently watch a production of this play and have written blog post on some of the ideas that came out of this production.

Wir sind von Anfang an durchkreuzt. Vor der Einheit, gibt es die Zweiheit. Ein System funktioniert immer auf seine antagonistische Weise.
Sophokles führt den Kampf der Mächte auf: menschliches vs. göttliches Gesetz.

Hegel, aus der Phänomenologie:

„Das Selbst des Bewusstseins ist im geistigen Wesen gesetzt - als aufgehobenes, Einheit, worin nur die Momente sind. Das geistige Wesen ist hiermit für das Selbstbewusstsein an sich seiendes Gesetz. Es ist ein ewiges Gesetz, welches nicht in dem Willen des Individuums seinen Grund hat, sondern der reine Willen aller. Dadurch sind die Unterschiede an dem Wesen selbst nicht zufällige Bestimmtheiten, sie sind Massen ihrer von ihrem Leben durchdrungenen Gliederung, sich selbst klare unentzweite Geister - sie sind und weiter nichts. So gelten sie der Antigone des Sophokles als der Götter ungeschriebenes und untrügliches Recht.“

„Substanz spaltet sich in menschliches und göttliches Gesetz.
Das Selbstbewusstsein teilt sich einem der Mächte zu - es erfährt in der Tat den Widerspruch der Mächte.
Gegenseitige Zerstörung - Widerspruch findet und findet seinen eigenen Untergang.
Indem die Sittlichkeit zugrunde geht ist es zum wirklichen Selbstbewusstsein geworden.“

„Die sittliche Substanz als negative Macht, welche beide Seiten verschlingt, oder das allmächtige und gerechte Schicksal aufgetreten.“

Sehr schön eingefangen die zusätzliche Spaltung der Individuen.
Kreon scheitert in doppelter Hinsicht am Göttlichen Gesetz, indem er den Willen der Götter nicht ehrt und sie keine Opfer mehr annehmen und zum anderen missachtet er das Gesetz der Familie – der Liebe- und damit der Vermittlerinstanz, das tote Ich, in den lebendigen Stand des Allgemeinen zu erheben.
Antigone schiebt zwar das göttliche Gesetz vor. Damit ihr Bruder es im Reich der Toten schick hat, muss er beerdigt werden. Gesetze der Götter. Gleichzeitig ist es für sie das Gesetz der Familie- der Liebe. Und hier ist sie ambivalent unterwegs. Für diesen Bruch feiere ich Sophokles ungemein.

Zitat Antigone:

„Denn nie, wär ich von Kindern Mutter auch gewesen, noch wär ein Gatte mir im Tod dahingeschwunden, hätt ich den Bürgern trotzend diese Müh mir auferlegt. Im Sinne welcher Satzung sage ich dies nun? Stürb mir der Gatte, könnt ich einen andern finden, 910 bekäm von ihm ein Kind auch, hätt ich eins verloren. Da aber Mutter mir und Vater ruhn in Hades’ Reich geborgen, gibt’s keinen Bruder mehr, der je mir wüchs heran. Doch da ich nun nach solcher Satzung dich vor allen hab geehrt, fand Kreon, dass darin ich hätt gefehlt und zu Fürchterlichem mich erkühnt, o brüderliches Haupt!“

Ohhh, auf einmal doch nicht mehr göttliches Gesetz, sondern Gesetz des Herzens, das zufällig mit Gesetz des Menschen konform ginge, wenn es denn so erlassen würde.

Bei Sophokles endet es mit dem physischen Tod für einige und natürlich mit dieser Erkenntnis, die nur eine Seite zulässt:
„Weitaus erste Bedingung des Glücks ist das vernünftige Denken; man darf die Sphäre der Götter niemals entheiligen; doch große Worte der über die Maßen Stolzen lehren, haben sie unter großen Schlägen gebüßt, im Alter vernünftiges Denken“

Anhand von Hegels Zitaten kann man einen anderen Schluss ziehen:
Beide Seiten haben Recht und Unrecht zugleich- oder um es mit Zizek zu zitieren: "Gott begegnet sich als sein größter Verbrecher"- solange sie sich nur auf sich selbst beziehen.
Beide müssen zugrunde gehen um in einer Synthese die Stufen zur Erkenntnis zu erklimmen.

How did I not know this existed until now? Also, I love how they had strong female leads back then.

Este libro lo leí en la secundaria, junto con Edipo Rey, claro. Aunque ésta última es más conocida, recuerdo que me gustó más Antígona. Una mujer, a pesar de las restricciones sufridas -propias de la época-, cuya fuerza de espíritu y sentido de lealtad, le permitieron no doblegarse con respecto a lo que ella creía era correcto, desafiando a la autoridad que a veces, se ciega de orgullo.
Desde ya, todo terminó como bien lo refleja la frase hecha "como tragedia griega".
Queda pendiente una relectura, para sacar conclusiones más detalladas. Aunque no sé cuando, mi to-read está cobrando vida propia.

Was wiegt schwerer? Das irdische oder das göttliche Recht? Oder vielleicht auch der eigene Moralische Kompass?

Antigone, Tochter des Ödipus verstößt gegen König Kreons Anweisung ihren verstorbenen Bruder nicht ordnungsgemäß zu beerdigen. Sie tut es, da sie das göttliche Recht über das irdische stellt und sich, trotz Androhung der Todesstrafe an ihrem moralischen Kompass orientiert.

Einer Regel der griechischen Tragödie folgend, sterben alle involvierten. Jedoch nicht ohne das es vorher durch einen Seher angekündigt wurde.

Ich fande es sehr anstrengend zu lesen und empfehle interessierten eher die Arte Dokumentation zu Antigone in der Reihe die größten Mythen, als sich durch diese Verse zu quälen. Der Punkt abzug ist für mich wegen des anstrengenden Schreibstils.

تنها چیزی که‌ منو از مرز reading slump نجات میده نمایشنامه‌هاست و چه نمایشنامه خوبی!!!