AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By:
RR. LIRA DEWI CAHYANINGRUM
Student Number: 024214023
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS YOGYAKARTA
of uncertainty, stinging clear. And I can’t help but ask myself
How much I’ll let the fear take the wheel and steer.
It’s driven me before, And it seems to have a vague,
haunting mass appeal. But lately, I’m beginning to find that I should be the one behind the wheel.
Whatever tomorrow brings,
I’ll be there, with open arms and open eyes. So, if I decide to waiver my chance
to be the one of the hive Will I choose water over wine,
and hold my own and drive? It’s driven me before, and it seems to be the way that everyone else get around. But lately, I’m beginning to find that I drive myself, my light is found.
Whatever tomorrow brings, I’ll be there,
With open arms and open eyes.
Dedicated wholeheartedly to:
My beloved Mother and Father
My dearest Grandmother
My lovely Sister
vi
Letters, Sanata Dharma University. In times I have been spending there, many precious things I can gain: knowledge, skills, wonderful friends, lovely lecturers, experiences whether they make me happy or sad. However, the precious things motivate me to keep learning and they can make me a better person. And after all the years I have been studying in English Letters Sanata Dharma University, the time for me to finish the study has come, by doing this undergraduate thesis. Here, it is my chance to express my highest gratitude for those who has great influence to me, so that I can finish this thesis.
First of all, I would like to say my highest respect and gratitude to the Almighty, Allah S. W.T. I would like to thank You for the bless and the chances You give to me so that I can finish this thesis. Thank you so much!
vii
would like to thank Mrs. M. Luluk Artika W., S. S for her willingness and her time in correcting my thesis. My gratitude is also sent for Mr. Paulus Sarwoto S. S, M. A., for the suggestions to make my thesis better. Thank you so much.
I would like to send my great thank to the greatest friends. My special love and thanks are dedicated to my friends at English Letters Sanata Dharma University for their willingness to spend their days at English Letters with me. You are all wonderful friends for me. Thanks for the “Mad Seasons”! Last but not least, I would like to dedicate my deep thank and love for my lovely friends with whom I used to work together at Sanata Dharma University for their endless supports. You are all not only my partners at work but you have been my close friends. Thanks that was fun, don’t forget, no regret!
And for some special people I do not mention here, thanks for the beautiful moments and supports. I will carry you in my heart!
I also would like to thank to the officers in Secretariat of English Literature and Sanata Dharma University Library, who have contribution that make it possible for me to finish my thesis.
viii CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL REVIEW... 8
A. Review of Related Studies ... 8
B. Review of Related Theories ... 12
1. Theories on Character and Characterization ... 12
ix
a person with ‘high estate’ ... 61
3. Creon as a king with the qualities of a person with ‘high character’... 62
4. Creon as a person who is better than the ordinary people in rank and mind... 64
5. Creon as a person with significance and importance ... 66
6. Creon as a king with the qualities of a person with consistency ... 71
7. Creon as a king who is neither utterly villainous nor eminently virtuous ... 73
8. Creon as a king with ‘tragic flaws’ that lead him to his ‘death’ ... 75
C. The Depth Representation of Creon as a King... 89
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION ... 97
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 100
APPENDIX ... 102
x
The object of this study is Sophocles’ Antigone with humanity as its theme. The aim of this study is to find the hidden intentions of the text in making Creon an authoritarian king, which drives him to be an oppressor, and then bringing him to his downfall. In order to achieve the aim, the writer is going to find the surface and depth representation of Creon as a king. To define the surface representation of Creon as a king, the writer uses the different perspective from the common knowledge, which sees Antigone as the tragic hero of the play. The perspective of Creon as the tragic hero is used in this study. But, the discussion of this study does not stop in proving that Creon qualifies Aristotelian tragic hero. The writer is also going to define what Creon as a tragic hero is to represent as the depth representation of Creon as a king.
In order to guide the analysis, three questions are formulated in this study. The first question is to find the qualities of Creon as a king. The second question is to identify Creon’s significant characteristics or traits that make him tragic hero. Third question is to find what Creon as a tragic hero is to represent.
The writer uses library research to get the data and the theories. The writer applies structuralist approach in doing the research. Structuralist approach means that in analyzing the text, the writer must relate the text with the larger structure they are part of, since the text cannot be understood in isolation. The theories used in this study are theories on character and characterization, theories on tragedy, and theories on representation.
xi Universitas Sanata Dharma, Yogyakarta.
Karya sastra yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah sebuah drama tragedi, yaitu Antigone, yang ditulis oleh Sophocles. Drama tragedi ini bertema kemanusiaan, yang lebih berpihak pada orang-orang tertindas. Si penulis percaya bahwa teks drama tersebut mempunyai maksud-maksud tertentu dalam menjadikan Creon sebagai seorang raja yang otoriter, sehingga membuat dia melakukan penindasan. Dan kemudian, Creon harus mengalami kehancuran sebagai konsekuensi dari penindasan yang dia lakukan. Dalam penelitian ini, si penulis mencoba untuk mengetahui maksud-maksud tertentu tersebut. Untuk mencapai tujuan dari penelitian ini, si penulis harus menemukan representasi ‘permukaan’ dan representasi ‘dalaman’ dari Creon sebagai seorang raja. Untuk mendapatkan representasi ‘permukaan’ dari Creon sebagai seorang raja, penelitian ini menggunakan sudut pandang yang berbeda dari persepsi umum, yang mempercayai bahwa Antigone merupakan tragic hero atau pahlawan yang tragis dari drama tragedi ini. Penelitian ini menggunakan sudut pandang bahwa Creon merupakan tragic hero atau pahlawan yang tragis dari drama ini. Lalu, si penulis menemukan bahwa Creon sebagai seorang pahlawan yang tragis tersebut sebenarnya menggambarkan sesuatu hal yang menjadi maksud-maksud tertentu dari teks drama ini. Dan pada akhirnya, inilah representasi ‘dalaman’ dari Creon sebagai seorang raja.
Si penulis merumuskan tiga pertanyaan dalam skripsi ini untuk memandu analisis. Pertanyaan yang pertama digunakan untuk menemukan karakteristik-karakteristik Creon sebagai seorang raja. Pertanyaan yang kedua digunakan untuk mengetahui karakteristik-karakteristik Creon yang signifikan, yang membuat dia menjadi seorang pahlawan yang tragis. Pertanyaan ketiga digunakan untuk mengetahui hal-hal apa sajakah yang ada dibalik Creon sebagai seorang pahlawan yang tragis.
Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kepustakaan untuk mendapatkan data dan teori. Si penulis menggunakan pendekatan strukturalisme dalam melakukan penelitian ini. Pendekatan strukturalisme berarti bahwa dalam menganalisa teks drama itu, si penulis harus menghubungkan teks drama tersebut dengan teks-teks lain dimana teks drama itu menjadi bagian dari teks-teks tersebut. Teori-teori yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah teori karakter dan karakterisasi, teori tragedi, dan teori representasi.
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Once a man has authority, he must be obeyed.
In big things and in small, in every act, whether just or not so just. I tell you this, the well-disciplined man is good
At giving orders and at taking them too.
Sophocles’ Antigone
The statement above can be found in Sophocles’ Antigone. It is said by the main character of the play, Creon. The statement above means that there is a strict obligation for the citizens to comply with a “man” who has the most important position in the city. Creon says that the people must obey the man’s orders though there are possibilities that the orders are considered unjust for some people. He also states that the people should believe that the man’s orders are aimed at their prosperity and joy.
By reviewing the problem above to Sophocles’ Antigone, the writer finds that what is meant by the “man” who has the absolute power is Creon himself because he is the king of Thebes. That is why the issue of Creon as a king, who possesses an absolute power, occurs in the play and it becomes an important issue in the play. So, the writer sees that the issue is worth to study.
Basically, by using his absolute power, Creon, as an authoritarian king (a tyrant), purposes to control Thebes and its citizens in order to make the city safe and well-organized, and Thebes can get its prosperity back after undergoing a civil war (the attack of The Argive Army from Argos, which caused a big disaster in Thebes). But things that happen after he becomes an authoritarian king with absolute power are not what he expects before. In fact, an adversity or downfall must be experienced by Creon.
Most of the readers and the audiences see that Creon’s downfall is the consequence of his actions (to unbury Polyneices’ body and to punish Antigone), which are seen as forms of oppression toward the innocent people (later they are called as the “the oppressed”). This is logic because by considering that Sophocles’ Antigone is a humanistic play, which tends to stand for the oppressed, Creon’s actions are seen as an insult to humanity.
Actually, until today, there is still a controversy in deciding the true tragic hero of Sophocles’ Antigone. Is it Antigone or is it Creon? The common knowledge states that Antigone is the tragic hero of the play, because she is much more sympathetic than Creon, who is seen as a tyrant (Barnett, Burto, Ferris, and Rabkin, 2001: 87). Moreover, the title is Antigone, which satisfies those who believe that Antigone is the tragic hero of the play. Most of readers and audiences believe that Antigone becomes the tragic hero because she tries to keep her faith and love for her family by burying Polyneices’ corpse (Polyneices is Antigone’s elder brother), which is considered as a noble action. She tries to honor her brother by fighting against Creon’s order to unbury Polyneices’ corpse because Creon considers Polyneices as a traitor for leading The Argive Army to attack Thebes. They also think that Antigone’s suicide is a form of her loyalty to her family. Most of the readers and the audiences view that Antigone has done the right things by disobeying the order of Creon, who is considered as a tyrant, and she dies in honor by keeping her loyalty to her family.
Since this thesis uses the point of view that Creon is the tragic hero, the writer should discuss about Creon’s significant characteristics (traits) that make him the tragic hero in order to prove that Creon qualifies Aristotelian tragic hero. And, the most important thing to discuss is his tragic flaw. According to Hugh Holman and William Harmon in their A Handbook to Literature (5th edition), tragic flaw is an error or imperfection in the tragic hero’s part that causes his or her downfall, which becomes the essential part of the hero’s character (1986: 507). So, the belief that Creon as tragic hero can be justified.
Then, in the last part of analysis, the writer is going to do an analysis that has never been done before by other researches, because the analysis of this thesis does not stop in analyzing the tragic hero of the play, just like what the common studies do. But, the writer views that the text has hidden intentions in making Creon as an authoritarian king with absolute power (a tyrant), then making him the tragic hero of the play. It means that the writer does not take it for granted that Creon is a tyrant, who claims to force his wills, and in most readers’ and audiences’ point of views, he is not sympathetic. So, in the end of the analysis, the writer is going to find the text’s hidden intentions in entering Creon to the system of absolute power, so that he does oppression, then it makes him the tragic hero.
something, which the writer is going to find out. And finally, this is the depth representation of Creon as a king.
B. Problem Formulation
The problems above are formulated into three questions below: 1. What are the qualities of Creon as the king?
2. What are Creon’s significant characteristics or traits that make him the tragic hero? 3. What is Creon as a tragic hero to represent?
C. Objectives of the Study
The purpose of this study is to answer the questions stated in the problem formulation. First, this study is aimed to find the qualities of Creon as a king. Second, this study is also purposed to identify the surface representation of Creon as a king by describing Creon’s significant characteristics or traits that make him the tragic hero, including his tragic flaw. Third, this study is aimed to define and explain the depth representation of Creon as a king by finding what Creon as a tragic hero is to represent.
D. Definition of Terms
1. Representation
Andrew Gibson in his book, Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative, defines representation as surface representation and depth representation. According to him, “surface representation” is a realism of particulars. The language is seen as innocent and it conceives of language as unproblematically adequate to what it represents (Gibson, 1996: 91). So, if it is applied in a work of art, it will result in something which is “visible”. The term “visible” here is also defined by Gibson by quoting from other theorist.
Of course, this is only a “visibility” by convention or contract, and is not to be confused with cinematic visibility. But in the terms of the old contract, “surface representation” emerges in the first instance as an “optical realism” (Feyerabend, 1987: 151). Strictly speaking, it is not confined to the “visible”, but equally includes what is heard, felt, and so on, the world as apprehended by the senses (Gibson, 1996: 82).
It can be concluded from the theory above that the term “visible” means something that not only can be seen by optical organs, but also by hearing and feeling. It means that “surface representation” sees the work as what it is without any deeper considerations and it does not see the work from different point of view.
Gibson also defines “depth representation” in the book as follows:
“Representation of depth”, on the other hand, means penetrating the visible. In James’ terms, it “guess[es] the unseen from the seen” (ibid. p. 3). This is the representation of essences, general features, types which thus depends on and expresses ontological conviction. It pierces through the veil of the visible to what the visible supposedly secretes or embodies, capturing the distilled essence and saturating language in it (Gibson, 1996: 82).
work. It can be said that it goes beyond the visible. It tries to find things that lay behind the surface representation by doing deeper considerations of the work, and by seeing the surface representation from various points of views.
2. Tragic hero
In tragedy, the tragic hero must be a man who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but some error or frailty. He or she must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous. All tragic heroes must have his or her tragic flaw, or hamartia, that leads to his or her downfall in such a way as not to offend the audience’s sense of justice. According to Aristotle, tragic flaw can be meant as some great errors or frailty done by the tragic hero, which brings the hero from prosperity to adversity. The occurrence of tragic flaw is regarded as desirable in an ideal or perfect tragedy (Bate, 1952: 17).
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Review of Related Studies
Library research is done by the writer to find some studies related to the topic. The studies are written by other researchers. The studies or the reviews are taken from books and internet.
It has been stated in Chapter I that this thesis is going to find the surface and depth representation of Creon as a king. The writer finds that there are some visible ideas that can be derived from Creon as a king. It is also urgent to understand that since Creon becomes a king, the fact makes Creon posses an absolute power. Besides, the writer also tries to reveal the hidden ideas which lay behind Creon as a king.
Surface representation is trying to define the visible condition of Creon as a king (without anymore deep considerations) through Creon’s characteristics as a king. Then, the writer finds that his qualities as a king construct the idea that Creon is the tragic hero of Sophocles’ Antigone. That is why tragic hero becomes an important issue in this thesis. So, in this part, the writer tries to review other studies that discuss Antigone, especially reviewing the controversy about the tragic hero of the play and reviewing the studies that support each belief.
In fact, most of studies, readers, and audiences believe that Antigone is the tragic hero. Most of them concern on the struggle of Antigone in fighting against Creon’s (Creon as the representation of men) oppression toward Antigone (as the representation of women). It can be said that they pay attention on feminist issue. One of the studies that reveal the idea of feminism in Antigone is done by Setyarini. In her undergraduate thesis, which is entitled The Emergence of Feminist Ideas in Sophocles’ Antigone, she states that Antigone performs in herself some feminist ideas through her thoughts and actions to be confronted with men’s narrow view of the unfortunate position of women within the patriarchal society in Ancient Greek (2002: 84).
So, the study above already provides enough explanation about the knowledge that Antigone is the tragic hero of Sophocles’ Antigone, which becomes a common knowledge. But, the writer tries to see the issue about the tragic hero by using different point of view (different angle) from the common knowledge. The writer tries to reveal the issue of tragic hero by using another knowledge, which states that Creon is the tragic hero. But, it does not mean that the writer sees that the common knowledge is wrong and the second knowledge is right. The writer tries to view and discuss the issue by using different perspective from the common knowledge in order to define the hidden ideas behind the issue of tragic hero. But, in this part, the writer is going to provide the related study which discusses that Creon is the tragic hero.
completely bad nor extremely good person, which becomes one of the qualifications of a tragic hero. This study concerns on Creon’s ability in making hard decisions. The study writes that Creon tries to make the best decisions he can, based on his belief. The study sees that his condition which forces him to make hard decisions makes him the tragic hero (http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=60640).
Besides, there are also some related studies that discuss Antigone. The first study is done by Sylvan Barnett, William Burto, Lesley Ferris, and Gerald Rabkin in their Types of Drama: Plays and Contexts (8th edition). They state that few modern readers see that Creon and Antigone are equally right and equally wrong. They state that most readers consider that Antigone is much more sympathetic than Creon for acting bravely against Creon and his laws, without the helps from other people. But, they see that she is a bit too headstrong and a bit eager to martyrdom. While they see that Creon in making the policies is not based on personal hatred, but as a new ruler of Thebes, he has an obligation to maintain order in a city, which has just undergone a civil war (2001).
The next study which discusses Sophocles’ Antigone is done by H. D. F. Kitto in his Form and Meaning in Drama: A Study of Six Great Plays and of Hamlet. According to him, what happens in Antigone is not merely a clash of personal, but more on a clash of principles. Antigone has appealed to the unwritten laws of Heaven, while Creon stands for the city’s laws (1956).
There is also a study done by a student that discusses Antigone, found in Hans P. Guth and Gabrielle L. Rico’s Discovering Literature: Stories, Poems, and Plays (2nd edition). He says that the play is a contest of wills. He sees that both of Creon and Antigone are sincere in their beliefs and they are both proud and self-righteous (1997).
The other study that discusses Sophocles’ Antigone is done by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in his A World Enclosed: TRAGEDY. He states that in Antigone, there are two tragedies. The first is Antigone’s tragedy, and the second is Creon’s tragedy. In his point of view, Antigone is the sacrificial hero, since she sacrifices herself for the spirit of her brother (Polyneices). He also states that the conflict in the play is between Antigone’s dedication to personal integrity and Creon’s belief in the integrity of the state (1973).
this thesis, the writer does a research that has never been done before by other researches. The analysis of this thesis does not stop in only proving that Creon is the tragic hero of the play, which is considered as the surface representation of Creon as a king. Since the writer views that the text has hidden intentions in making Creon an authoritarian king, and then making him the tragic hero, the writer is also going to find what Creon as tragic hero is to represent. And finally, this is the depth representation of Creon as a king.
B.Review of Related Theories
In order to discuss the topic, some related theories are used in this undergraduate thesis. In this thesis, the writer is going to apply theories on character and characterization, theories on tragedy (specifically theories of tragic hero), and theories on representation.
1. Theories on Character and Characterization
Character has an important role in a work of art. X. J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia, in their Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama (7th edition), defines that a character is presumably an imagined person who inhabits a story. According to them, the main character of the story acts in a consistent manner, and the author has provided the character a motivation, which is meant as sufficient reason to behave as they do (1999: 60).
fiction specifically, is an extended verbal representation of a human being, the inner self that determiners thought, speech, and behaviour. Through dialogue, action, and commentary, authors capture some of the interactions of character and circumstance (1989: 143).
Besides character, characterization is also an important element in a work of art. So, theories on characterization are urgent to be applied in the thesis. The first definition of characterization in this study is stated by Mary Rohberger and Samuel H. Woods in Reading and Writing about Literature. They define characterization as the process by which an author creates a character. It is also a process with its aim is to make the readers believe that a character is like particular person he is. In order to characterize, there are two principal ways can be used by the author. First, he can use direct means to describe physical appearance. Second, the author uses dramatic means and places the character in situation to show what he or she behaves or speaks (1971: 81).
second way is by observing what the characters do. The readers should interpret actions as signs of character. Third, the readers can characterize the characters in the story by observing what the other characters say about them. It is known that in stories and in plays, as in life, people often talk about other people. The readers must always consider the context and source of all remarks before they draw conclusions about character. The last way is by observing what the author says about the characters, speaking as a story teller or observer. What the author says about a character is to be accepted as accurate (1989: 147-148).
According to M. J. Murphy in his Understanding Unseens, there are several ways how the author describes characters (1972: 161-172).
a. Personal Description
The author can describe a character by analyzing his or her physical appearance. For example, the author can describe the details of the characters’ appearance, such as: the skin, face, eyes, hair, body, or his or her clothes. By analyzing physical appearance of the character, the author can describe the personalities of the character.
b. Characters as seen by another character
c. Speech
The author describes the character through what the character says. The readers can observe the character’s personality by observing his or her speech.
d. Past life
The author describes the character’s personality through the events in past life. The readers can analyze by paying attention on the direct comments, the character’s thoughts, and his or her conversation.
e. Conversation of Others
To find the personality of a character, the author can give the readers a clue to a person’s character through the conversations with other characters and the things they say about him.
f. Reactions
The author can describe a character by letting the readers know how the person reacts to various situations and events.
g. Direct Comment
h. Thoughts
The author describes the character’s personality through the character’s inner mind or thoughts, or the way he thinks.
i. Mannerism
By identifying the character’s manners or behaviour, the readers can identify his characteristics.
Since this study does a research on a classic play, so it is considered urgent to find the theories on drama’s characters. Milly S. Barranger in Understanding Plays divides the approaches that can be used to understand classic drama’s characters into four ways. The first way is that the readers observe what the playwrights say about them in stage directions. Second, the readers hear or read what the characters say about one another in dialogues. Third, the readers note general types of physical and psychological side. The last is by construing or analyzing the moral ethical choices that determine their destinies (1994:339).
2. Theories on Tragedy
M. H. Abrams in his A Glossary of Literary Terms (6th edition) states that the term, tragedy, is broadly used in literature, especially in dramas or plays, as the representation of serious and important actions which eventuate in a disastrous conclusion for the protagonist, or the chief character. He also states that “the pleasure of pity and fear” distinguishes tragedy from comic or other forms (1985: 21).
Based on Aristotle’s Poetics, which is discussed by Walter Jackson Bate, in his Criticism: The Major Texts, Aristotle defines some elements of tragedy. These elements of tragedy are specified as the elements of classical Greek tragedy, which become the most famous tragedy of all time. First, tragedy must fulfill the three unities: unity of time, unity of place, and unity of action (1952: 16). Second, the most important element is the occurrence of the tragic hero (1952: 16). The third element is tragic flaw which is possessed by the tragic hero. Tragic flaw can be said as the acts of pride or ambition of the tragic hero (1952: 16). Fourth, tragedy must include hamartia or hubris, which is meant as error or frailty done by the tragic hero (16-17). Lastly, a successful tragedy exploits and appeals at the start of two basic emotions: pity and fear, which is usually called as catharsis (1952: 17-18).
that the nature of tragedy is the falling of the protagonist, from his power, and from his happiness. And the most important thing is the falling from his high estate, which gives him a place of dignity to fall from. This fall can be said as his misfortune or his calamity (great and serious disaster), which involves an entire nation or people. According to them, the hero is not a superman. He is fallible. And the hero’s downfall is the result of tragedy (1999: 1295).
Hugh Holman and William Harmon in their A Handbook to Literature (5th edition) state that plot is “the soul of tragedy”. The plot in tragedy must involve a protagonist who is better than ordinary people, and this virtuous person must be brought from happiness to misery. They also state that the protagonist must have significance or importance. For them, hero or heroine is called as tragic protagonist. To qualify as a hero or heroine, he or she must be a person of high character and must face his or her destiny with courage and nobility of spirit (1986: 506).
In his book, Understanding Plays (2nd Edition), Milly S. Barranger defines more on the tragic hero, who is considered as an important person with certain admirable qualities.
The tragic hero usually does some deed and suffers as a consequence because, in Aristotle’s point of view, actions have consequences in the moral world. This was also Sophocles’ view. Moreover, Aristotle urged that the tragic hero, or protagonist, be credible; that is, he or she should be neither utterly villainous nor eminently virtuous. The reversal of circumstances is, therefore, brought about not by vice or corruption, but by some great errors-usually a misjudgment-on the hero’s part (1994: 58-59).
states that tragedy is not an imitation of man, but of human action and life and happiness, and misery. Both happiness and misery consist in a kind of action, and the end of life is some action, not some quality. According to the character, men have certain qualities, but according to their actions, they are happy or the opposite. Thus, the end of tragedy is the most significant thing of all. Other important factors in tragedy are parts of the plot, which are the reversal and the recognition. (47-49).
Reversal is the change of fortune in the action of the play to the opposite state of affairs, and it should be in harmony with probability and necessity. Recognition is a change from ignorance to knowledge. It can be meant that the main character has found or realizes the things that he ignores before, or the events that he never considers to happen, such as: the tragic hero realizes the consequences of his deed. In every tragedy, people can find both the complication and the resolution of the action (1998: 49-50).
and fear. Another definition of catharsis, which relates to the English word “cathartic” is the action of powerful laxative (the primary meaning of laxative is causing the bowels empty). It is because after seeing tragedy, the audiences’ souls are lightened and delighted. They are no longer obsessed by pity and fear, but their souls are cleansed and emptied (1998:41).
According to Charless E. Bressler in his Literary Criticism (2nd edition), Aristotle states that the tragic hero must be “a man who is eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous”. In addition, all tragic heroes must have a tragic flaw, or hamartia, that leads to their downfall in such a way as not to offend the audience’s sense of justice (1999: 20).
In A Handbook to Literature (5th edition), Hugh Holman and William Harmon define tragic flaw is a flaw, or an error, of imperfection in the tragic hero that causes his or her downfall. It is the essential part of the hero’s character (1986: 507).
So, based on the theories on tragedy above, this thesis sums the characteristics of tragic hero according to Aristotle, which are usually called as Aristotelian tragic hero as follows:
• The character must be noble.
• The character must be better than the ordinary people in rank, mind, or capacity to feel.
• The character must be significant or important. • The character must be consistent.
• The character must be neither utterly villainous nor eminently virtuous. • The character must posses ‘tragic flaw’ that leads to his ‘death’.
4. Theories on Representation
Andrew Gibson in his book, Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative, defines representation as surface representation and depth representation. According to him, “surface representation” is a realism of particulars. The language is seen as innocent and it conceives of language as unproblematically adequate to what it represents (Gibson, 1996: 91). So, if it is applied in a work of art, it will result in something which is “visible”. The term “visible” here is also defined by Gibson by quoting from other theorist.
Of course, this is only a “visibility” by convention or contract, and is not to be confused with cinematic visibility. But in the terms of the old contract, “surface representation” emerges in the first instance as an “optical realism” (Feyerabend, 1987: 151). Strictly speaking, it is not confined to the “visible”, but equally includes what is heard, felt, and so on, the world as apprehended by the senses (Gibson, 1996: 82).
Gibson also defines “depth representation” in his the book as follows:
“Representation of depth”, on the other hand, means penetrating the visible. In James’ terms, it “guess[es] the unseen from the seen” (ibid. p. 3). This is the representation of essences, general features, types which thus depends on and expresses ontological conviction. It pierces through the veil of the visible to what the visible supposedly secretes or embodies, capturing the distilled essence and saturating language in it (Gibson, 1996: 82).
It means that the depth representation observes and defines the invisible things or the unseen things from the surface representation (the visible things) of a work. It can be said that it goes beyond the visible. It tries to find things that lay behind the surface representation by doing deeper considerations of the work, and by seeing the surface representation from various points of views.
D. Theoretical Framework
The aims of this study are to find the surface representation and the depth representation of Creon as a king. At first, it is urgent to understand that being a king makes Creon posses an absolute power. Then, theories on character and characterization are used to define Creon’s characteristics as a king.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study
The writer takes Antigone as the object of the study. The play was written by Sophocles. Sophocles is famous as the best tragedy playwright, who was born in Colonus (a village just outside Athens, about 496 B. C.). He had won 24 contests because of the plays he made. The play it self was written by Sophocles on 442/441 B. C.
The play used by the writer is taken from The Literary Heritage, written by Hans P. Guth, and published by D. C. Heath and Company in 1981. The book, which explains about the history of literature, also includes some plays as the examples of each era, including Antigone. And Sophocles’ Antigone in the book was translated by Michael Toensad.
especially in the twentieth century. According to them, it is known that Antigone was highly esteemed in the century after it was written and that it influenced a Roman version of the play (2001: 106-107). Also, in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia World Drama Volume 4 (2nd edition), Antigone is the most appealing tragedy in times of authoritarian rule, and this tragedy has reworked by some people, such as: Bertolt Brecht and Jean Anouilh (1984: 488).
Generally, Sophocles’ Antigone tells about the tragic hero of the play, Creon, who must face his terrible fate. Creon became the king of Thebes after the deaths of the former kings, Polyneices and Eteocles.
For a time, the two brothers, Polyneices and Eteocles, together ruled Thebes after their father, Oedipus (who was once the king of Thebes) left Thebes. But then, they quarreled, and the elder brother, Polyneices had to leave Thebes. He went to the city of Argos and turned into a traitor against Thebes. Then, he led the Argive Army to fight against his own mother land. In the combat, the two brothers met, and finally they killed each other.
Based on this case, Creon, as the new king of Thebes, revealed a policy to unbury Polyneices’ body, because he had betrayed Thebes. Creon stated that the traitor did not deserve a decent burial. On the other hand, Creon decided to bury Eteocles’ body in an honorable rite because he was considered as a hero for protecting Thebes from the Argive Army and died because of it.
underworld. It meant that Antigone had disobeyed Creon’s policy. After knowing the defiance of Antigone, Creon revealed a new policy to punish Antigone for disobeying the law he made. He ordered the Guard to take Antigone to a deserted spot without food.
Haemon, Creon’s son, who was also Antigone’s lover, did not agree with Creon’s policy to punish Antigone. He told Creon to undo the policy because according to him, what was done by Antigone was a noble action. But Creon was still unwilling to undo his policy.
Then, a blind prophet, Teiresias came to Creon and told him about his prophecy relating to Creon’s policies. Teiresias told that if Creon was unwilling to undo the policies, a disaster would happen in Thebes. It would bring Creon and the citizens of Thebes into misery. At first, Creon was unwilling to accept the prophecy and unwilling to undo his policies. But finally, he decided to undo his policies because he could not pretend that he was unworried about Teiresias’ prophecy.
Finally, the play ended with the downfall of Creon as a king. He was not anymore a prosperous person, but he became a miserable person for knowing the facts that the deaths of his beloved people were caused by him.
B. Approach of the Study
This study uses structuralist approach to analyze the topic. Peter Barry in his The Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary Theory and Practice (2nd edition), states that it is difficult to boil structuralism down to a single “bottom-line” proposition, since things can not be understood in isolation (2002: 39). It means that since things can not be understood in isolation, they have to be seen in the context of the larger structure they are part of.
C. Method of the Study
In collecting the data, library research was done to conduct the research. Both primary and secondary data were collected from the library and from internet.
This study used two kinds of data. Both primary and secondary data were collected from many sources to support the study of “Representation of Creon’s Tragic Hero in Sophocles’ Antigone”. The primary data was the tragedy, titled Antigone, which was written by Sophocles (495-406 B.C.) in about 442/441 B. C. The play was taken from Hans P. Guth’s The Literary Heritage (1981). The secondary data were taken from some books to find the related studies and the related theories of the topic, which discussed about character, characterization, representation, tragedy. The data were taken from books and from internet.
There were some steps done in this study. Firstly, in order to understand the whole context of the play, the writer read and reread the play for several times, so that the writer could get a better understanding on the intrinsic elements of the play, especially the main character of the play, Creon, which became the object of this study.
Abrams; X. J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia’s Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama (7th edition); Edgar V. Roberts and Henry E. Jacobs’s Fiction: An Introduction to Reading and Writing (2nd edition). The writer also took the theories from Fiction: An Introduction to Reading and Writing (2nd edition) by Edgar V. Roberts and Henry E. Jacobs; Reading and Writing about Literature by Mary Rohberger and Samuel H. Woods. Since this study used a play as the object of the study, the writer also used Understanding Plays(2nd edition) by Milly S. Barranger.
Literary Criticism (4th revised and enlarged edition); David H. Richter’s The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends (2nd edition).
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
In Analysis Chapter, the writer tries to answer the three problem formulations, which have been mentioned in the previous chapter. The purposes of this study are to define the surface representation and the depth representation of Creon as a king, so that the writer can find out the hidden intentions of the text in making Creon as an authoritarian king, then making him the tragic hero.
Firstly, the writer is going to find the qualities of Creon as a king. By observing the qualities of Creon as a king, the writer finds that Creon’s qualities as a king construct the idea that Creon is the tragic hero of Sophocles’ Antigone, which is believed as the surface representation of Creon as a king. Then, the writer is going to prove that Creon with his traits qualifies Aristotelian tragic hero.
Lastly, the writer is going to define the depth representation of Creon as a king to identify the hidden intentions of the text in making Creon as an authoritarian king, then making him a tragic hero. In order to achieve it, the writer is going to identify what Creon as a tragic hero is to represent.
A. The Qualities of Creon as a King
1. Loyal to the city of Thebes
the readers about the character’s personality through the events in his past life (1972: 161-172). The event to show that he is loyal to Thebes is that he joined the Theban military in fighting against the Argive Army from the city of Argos. The writer sees that joining the war means to danger his life, because the risk in joining the war is death. As a form of his loyalty to Thebes, Creon takes the big risk. So, by considering his effort in protecting Thebes, and his success in fighting against the Argive Army, the writer views that Creon can be called as the savior of Thebes. The Messenger also states that Creon is the savior of Thebes, which shows that he has an important role in Thebes’ victory over the city of Argos. It implies that Creon is loyal to Thebes.
Messenger: Take Creon now. I thought he was doing well. The savior of his country, king of Thebes,
And the proud father of a lovely family. (Scene 6, 147)
Next, the writer views that Creon is loyal to Thebes because he puts his highest respect to Thebes. It means that the city’s interests are his first priority above the other interests, such as: religion interests and family interests. It can be said that Creon stands for the nation since he is loyal to the city. Or according to Harcourt Brace Jovanovich is his A World Enclosed: TRAGEDY, Creon believes in the integrity of the state (1973: 222).
The evidence to show that Creon is loyal to Thebes by putting the city’s interests in the first priority can be observed through his statements. According to M. J. Murphy, in order to describe the personalities of a character, the readers can observe the character’s speech or what the character says (1972: 161-172).
And watch my country sliding Towards the precipice of ruins
Nor can I be a friend to country’s foes. This I believe, and God may witness it.
Our safety is bound up with that of our country. Therefore, all other loyalties are subject to Our country’s interests. (Scene 1, 125)
2. Too strict to the rules
Being the king of Thebes means that he has to be faithful to the city’s laws and to give good examples to the citizens to be faithful to the city’s laws too. The writer also sees that there is a strong motivation in Creon to encourage honesty and loyalty among the Theban citizens, whether the loyalty to Thebes or to its laws. The two motivations encourage Creon to be strict to the rules or laws of the city. He demands himself to obey the rules of the city, also he demands all the citizens to obey the rules or the city’s laws.
His attitude that shows this characteristic is his promise to punish people who do not obey the rules or the city’s laws, such as: the policy to leave Polyneices’ body unburied. This characteristic can be observed through the conversation between Creon and Chorus about Creon’s policy to unbury Polyneices’ body and about the punishment for those who disobey the policy.
Chorus : We understand the attitude you take towards these men. It’s true your word is law.
And you can legislate the living and the dead. Creon : What do you think of this new enactment? Chorus : If I were younger, I might criticize…
Creon : No turning back. The guard is set on the corpse. Chorus : What are the penalties for disobeying?
The writer analyzes that Creon’s strictness to the rules or the city’s laws can be observed when he reveals a new policy to punish Antigone after finding out that she has disobeyed his policy by burying Polyneices’ body. Thewriter sees that Creon is being too strict to the rules because of his attitude to keep running the policy though there are some people who tell him to undo the policy, such as: Haemon, his son. Those people disagree with the policy because they see that Antigone’s action is not a crime, but it shows her love to her family. They think that there will be a better solution for the problem if Creon is being flexible in handling it.
Haemon: However acute one is, there’s no disgrace In being able to learn, being flexible.
In winter, when the streams turn into torrents, You can see the trees that try to resist the water Get rooted out and killed. But those that bend A little, manage to survive the flood.
In a gale at sea if you cram on full sail, You’ll soon have the waves breaking aboard And bowling over all furniture.
Why not relax and change your mind for once? (Scene 3, 137)
Haemon says that Creon should not hold the law too tightly, because it will be better for Creon to be flexible in dealing with the law. And it is okay to change his policy, if it makes the situation better. This implies that Haemon considers his father is being too strict in dealing with the laws.
Creon : Can there be anything worse that giving your love To a girl that doesn’t deserve it? No, reject her, And let her go and find husband in the grave. Now that I’ve caught her flagrantly disobeying When everybody has toed the line.
The eyes of the nation are on me. I must stay
True to my principle. I must execute her. (Scene 3, 135)
3. Arrogant
The writer defines that “being arrogant” means when a person shows too much pride of himself. The person is too proud of what he has got in himself, such as: his status in society, his position in society, and his wealth. This kind of characteristic can make the person behaves in superior manners.
The writer sees that Creon is arrogant because some of his behaviours or attitudes show that he is too proud of his status as a man, his position as a king, his power, and his authority. This over-pride characteristic makes Creon behave in superior manners because he feels that he is much better than other people for possessing the status as a man, the position as a king, the power, and the authority. These motivate Creon to underestimate the other people, since he thinks that the people are not better than him.
father, also because Haemon is much younger than him, which means that he has less experience than Creon. Through Creon’s statement below, it is obviously seen that he is so reluctant to be advised by his son.
Creon : Am I to stand here and be lectured to
By a kid? A man of my experience! (Scene 3, 137)
The next Creon’s reaction also shows his arrogance over Haemon, when he decides to accompany Antigone to die. This is Creon’s reaction toward Haemon’s decision. According to M. J. Murphy, the author can describe a character by letting the readers know how the person reacts to various situations and events (1972: 161-172).
Creon : Let him!
What does he think he is-almighty?
In any case, he won’t save these girls from death. (Scene 3, 138)
Next, Creon’s over pride of his position as a king also can be observed through the conversation between him and Haemon. It can be seen from his statement that since he places the highest position in Thebes, people whose positions are lower than him, such as: the citizens, do not have the right to interfere his authority in making policies. He interprets it as a humiliation toward his authority. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in his A World Enclosed: TRAGEDY also states that Creon becomes over-pride of his position as ‘the captain of the ship of state’ (1973: 223).
Creon : You seem to have caught Antgone’s disease. Haemon: The people of Thebes don’t call it a disease. Creon : Must I ask their permission for everything? Haemon: You’re talking like an adolescent now. Creon : Am I the king of Thebes, or am I not?
Creon : But a nation is personified in its ruler…
Creon : Must I let my authority be undermined? (Scene 3, 137)
Besides, Creon also shows his over pride of his status as a man. It makes him underestimate women, who are considered as second class citizens. It can be seen from Creon’s statements when he has a conversation with Antigone relating to her defiance.
Antigone: If I must have these groupings, let me say I’ll join anyone in loving, but not in hating. Creon : All right then, die, and love them both in hell.
I’m not here to be shoved around by a woman. (Scene 2, 133)
From Creon’s statement above, it implies that he feels humiliated that Antigone, who is a woman, rebels him, who is a man. Besides, his arrogance characteristic due to his status as a man can be observed when Creon has a conversation with Haemon, relating to Antigone’s defiance as follows:
Creon : Must I let my authority be undermined? Haemon: What a character! Subservient to a woman. Haemon: Subservient to what I think is right.
Creon : you’ve done nothing but back Antigone up. (Scene 3, 138)
Creon’s statement above implies that a man should not show too much respect to a woman, whose status is lower than a man in society. It is considered embarrassing that a man shows too much respect to a woman. It shows that he becomes arrogant because of his status as a man.
4. Obstinate or Stubborn
as: Haemon, who disagrees with his policy to punish Antigone; and Teiresias, a blind prophet, who warns Creon to undo his policy to unbury Polyneices’ body and to punish Antigone (it was Teiresias who had first confronted King Oedipus with the terrible truth about his own past). Haemon advices Creon to pay attention to the other people’s point of views. Haemon thinks that there will be a better solution if Creon takes notice of the other people’s point of views about the policies.
The writer sees that Creon is obstinate because Creon does not take notice of Haemon’s advices. He is unwilling to reconsider or rethink about his policy to punish Antigone, moreover to undo the policy. He ignores Haemon’s advices and keeps running the policy. This characteristic can be observed through Creon’s reaction toward Haemon’s advice. According to M J. Murphy in his Understanding Unseen, the author describes the personalities of a character by letting the readers know how the character reacts to various situations and events (972: 161-172). This is Creon’s reaction toward Haemon’s advice, which shows his obstinacy.
Creon : What’s that? I’ve had enough of your abuse. By heaven, I swear I’ll make you suffer for it. Take that wild eat away. You’ll watch her die.
and to punish Antigone), there will be a horrible disaster happens in Thebes. However, Creon is still unwilling to take notice of the advices.
Murphy states that the description of a character’s personality can be gained from the opinions of other characters (1972: 161-172). Through Teiresias’ statement, Creon’s obstinacy or stubbornness can be observed.
Teiresias: M y son, I ask you to consider well what you are doing. We all make mistakes. The wise man,
Having made an error of judgment, Will seek a remedy, not keep grinding on.
Obstinacy isn’t far removed from folly. (Scene 5, 144)
By observing the statements, it can be seen that Teiresias says that Creon is being obstinate.
5. Authoritarian
The writer views that Creon is being authoritarian when he requires the other people (including his family and the citizens) to obey his authority as a king. This characteristic makes Creon do not give them chance to talk, since what can be done by them is only obeying Creon’s authority. Creon’s force toward the citizens to “obey” his authority contrasts to the citizens’ personal freedoms. This writer sees that to force the citizens to obey his authority means that he does not respect or appreciate the citizens’ rights, and as a ruler of a city, he does not give what the citizens deserve to get.
advices or suggestions to Creon, also they have the rights to criticize Creon relating to his leadership.
The first evidence to show that Creon is being authoritarian is from Creon’s statement. Creon’s statement implies that Creon as the king of Thebes possesses the highest authority in Thebes. It means that since Creon possesses the authority, all the citizens of Thebes must obey all his words.
Creon : Once a man has authority, he must be obeyed. In big things and in small, in every act
Whether just or not so just. (Scene 3, 136)
Creon’s authoritarian characteristic also can be observed through the conversation between Creon and Chorus (as the representation of Theban citizens). The Chorus also states that Creon’s word is law, which shows that he is being authoritarian. It is obviously seen that Creon does not want to be criticized by Chorus.
Chorus : We understand the attitude you take toward these men.
It’s true your word is law, and you can legislate for living and dead… Creon : What do you think of this new enactment?
Chorus : If I were younger, I might criticize…
Creon : No turning back. The guard is set on the corpse. (Scene 1, 125)
Another evidence to show that Creon is being authoritarian because he is unwilling to be criticized can be seen when he has a conversation with Haemon relating to Antigone’s defiance. Haemon thinks that it seems so easy for Creon to reveal the policies and ask the other people to obey his words, but it seems so hard for Creon to listen to the other people’s advices and critics.
Creon : Don’t try to flatter me, you lady’s man.
6. Self-absorbed or self-centered
The writer defines “self-absorbed” as being unaware of other person. The person whose characteristic is self-absorbed centers on his own interests, his thoughts, and his own willingness. It can be said that the person is being self-centered or being selfish.
The writer analyzes that Creon is being self-absorbed when Creon only focuses on his own interests, his thoughts, his point of view, and his willingness in revealing the policies, without considering or seeing the problems from different point views or from the other people’s interests. The writer sees that his self-absorbed characteristic stems from his loyalty to the city of Thebes. In this case, the writer views that Creon only focuses on his interest and his thought about being loyal to Thebes in making the policies. He also centers on the concept of being loyal to the city of Thebes based only on his point of view, without considering the other people’s point of view relating to the policies he makes. Because of it, the writer analyzes that his loyalty to the city of Thebes turns into being self-absorbed or self-centered.
This characteristic can be observed through Haemon’s statements. From his statements (advices to Creon), the writer concludes that implicitly, he says that his father is being self-absorbed.
Haemon: Why not relax and change your mind for once? Perhaps, at my age, I should not express an opinion. But I would like to say this:
Not everyone can be right on every issue, But the next best thing is to take notice of
From Haemon’s statements below, it also can be observed Creon’s self-absorbed characteristic.
Haemon: Don’t be too single-minded then.
Don’t think that you have a complete monopoly of the truth. Isn’t it true that people who refuse
To see any other point of view but theirs
Often get shown up and discredited? (Scene 3, 137)
7. Male-chauvinistic
The writer defines “male-chauvinistic” as a characteristic when a man believes that men are superior to women. This characteristic motivates a man to consider women as second class citizens under male-domination in society. This kind of characteristic makes the man oppress women to always listen to and obey his commands. So, rebellion done by a woman is considered as a humiliation and a shameful thing for him.
about her action in giving purification to Polyneices’ body, which is forbidden by Creon.
Creon : If she gets away with this behaviour,
Call me a woman, and call her a man. (Scene 2, 132)
This characteristic also can be observed through his statements when he has a conversation with Haemon in talking about Antigone’s action as follows:
Creon : We can’t go about kowtowing to women. If I must lose my throne, let it be a man
That takes it from me. I can’t have people saying My will has been defeated by a woman. (Scene 3, 136)
Creon’s point of view toward women, which sees them as second class citizens, is also discussed or described by Ismene (Antigone’s younger sister) when she has a conversation with Antigone about Creon’s edict. Antigone asks Ismene to help her to bury their brother’s body. Ismene refuses it because she realizes their weak position as women in Creon’s point of view. She sees that as women, they must obey Creon’s orders, because she thinks that Creon is superior to them as women.
Ismene: Oh please remember-we are women, aren’t we? We shouldn’t take on men. In times of crisis It is the strongest men who take control. We must obey their orders, however harsh. So, while apologizing to the dead,
Regretting that I act under constraint, I will comply with my superior’s orders.
8. Unwise
The writer views that it is an unwise attitude when a person asks or orders people to always say “yes” for everything he wants or he orders. It shows that he forces other people to obey him, whether they agree or disagree with him.
This writer sees Creon as being an unwise king when he has to face the problems relating to Antigone’s defiance. He forces the other people to agree with the policy to punish Antigone. The example is when he asks or orders the Guard to punish Antigone, though actually, he is unwilling to do it. The reason is because he feels sympathy for Antigone for burying her brother’s body. He thinks that she does it because she loves her family. Creon’s unwise characteristic can be seen through the Guard’s reaction toward Creon’s order to punish Antigone. There is a tendency that the Guard is oppressed to do it.
Guard : So I’m half-glad, half-sorry. Glad that I am out off danger,
But sorry someone that I like is in trouble. (Scene 2, 131)
Creon’s unwise characteristic also can be viewed from his conversation with Haemon when he forces Haemon to agree with his policy.
Creon : I take it you are siding with this woman. Haemon: It is your interests I have at heart. Creon : You show it by arguing against me?
Haemon: Because I think you’re making a mistake. (Scene 3, 137)
asks Creon to be wiser in making policies. He says to his father that “of all God’s gift, good sense is far the best” (Scene 3, 136). It implies that he thinks Creon is being unwise. Second, it is Teiresias who reminds Creon to use his good sense in seeing the problems relating to Polyneices’ body and Antigone’s defiance. He says to Creon that “good sense is a man’s most precious attribute” (Scene 3, 145). His statement also implies that Creon is being unwise. Third, the Messenger says that “it only goes to show that good sense is best, when all this tragedy comes from one rash action” (Scene 6, 148). This is said by the Messenger when he reports to Eurydice (Creon’s wife) and Chorus about the deaths of Antigone and Haemon. It implies that the deaths of Antigone and Haemon because of Creon’s unwise personality in handling the problems. Fourth, chorus’ statement also implies that Creon is being unwise. The Chorus states that “proud man in old age learn to be wise” (Scene 6, 150). It shows that at the time the Chorus says the statement, Creon is being unwise.
9. Fond of his family
king of Thebes). Oedipus tells Creon that he is banished from the city, and he entrusts Creon to take care his daughters, Antigone and Ismene (1984: 490).
The writer analyzes that Creon’s concept of “loving the family” changes after he becomes the king of Thebes. Being the king means that he has to enter a system that forces him to stand for the nation or the city’s interests, and not for the individual or family interests. This condition forces him to position the family interests after the nation’s interests. It means that he must put aside his love to his family, because the interests of the nation are much more important than the family ones. This makes his concept of “loving the family” changes after he becomes the king of Thebes.
However, though he positions the family interests after the nation’s interest, he actually still loves his family when he becomes the king. His love to his family can be observed when he finds out the deaths of Haemon and Eurydice, his beloved wife. From his statements and his attitudes, it can be seen that he feels a huge pain and deep misery because of the deaths of Haemon and Eurydice. He feels a huge pain and deep misery because he loves the two people. Moreover, he has to face the reality that it is him who causes the deaths of Haemon and Eurydice. It shows that he actually loves them very much, because if Creon does not love his family, he will not feel such huge pain and such deep misery.
The characteristic can be seen through his statements when he begs Haemon not to commit suicide, which is reported by the Messenger to Chorus and Eurydice as follows:
“Oh my son, what is this? What possessed you? Why are you trying to kill yourself?
Come out now, please, I beg you.” (Scene 6, 148)
His huge pain and deep misery of loosing his beloved people make him think that it will be better for him if he dies, rather than facing the truth that he causes the deaths of his beloved people.
Creon : Nobody else to share the blames. Just me… I killed you. I killed you, my dear.
Servants, carry me in, away from all this. I wish I weren’t alive. (Scene 6, 149)
The statements above show that he cannot bear to live without his beloved people, Haemon and Eurydice. It shows that he actually loves his family very much.
10. Narrow-minded
loves the city too much, which means that his portion in loving Thebes is far above the proper portion. Creon’s narrow-mindedness or single mindedness in defining the concept of “loving the city” tends to be chauvinism.
Creon’s narrow-mindedness can be observed through his conversation with Antigone after he finds out that Antigone is the person who gave the necessary purification for Polyneices. From Antigone’s statements, it can be observed that Creon becomes narrow-minded in seeing the concept of “loving the city” by ignoring his obligation to obey the God’s law. In this case, the God’s law is to bury the dead body so that his soul can enter the Underworld (Guth, 1981: 4-6).
Creon : You knew about my edict which forbade this? Antigone: Of course I knew. You made it plain enough. Creon : You took it on yourself to disobey?
Antigone: Sorry, who made this edict? Was it God?
Isn’t a man’s right to burial decreed by divine justice? I don’t consider your pronouncements so important That they can just overrule…
The unwritten laws of Heaven. (Scene 2, 131)
Ismene : There is no life left without her.
Creon : Forget about her. She’s as good as dead. Ismene : So you would execute your own son’s bride? Creon : Plenty of other women in the world.
Ismene : But they were so well suited to each other. Creon : I won’t have my son marrying a criminal.
Antigone: Poor Haemon! See how much your father cares. Creon : Leave me in peace. You and your marriage with you. Ismene : You really intend to take her from your son?
Creon : I won’t stop the marriage. Death will stop it. (Scene 2, 134)
11. Noble
The writer views that Creon is a noble person because of three things. First, he is noble because he inherits a noble blood (noble birth). He inherits the noble blood since he is the elder brother of Jocasta. Jocasta is the wife of the former king of Thebes, Oedipus. It means that Jocasta is the former Queen of Thebes. So, based on this family tree, Creon as the brother of Jocasta inherits the noble blood. The evidence to show that Creon is a noble blood can be found in Hans P. Guth’s The Literary Heritage. Here, Guth states that “Creon, uncle of the two brothers, and brother of the dead queen, Jocasta, then became the ruler of Thebes, fabulous city of the seven gates” (1981: 119).
Third, the writer views that Creon is noble because of his excellent moral characters. It is based on Webster’s College Dictionary (2nd edition), which states that the term noble can be related to high moral principle or excellent moral character (p. 981). The writer considers that Creon shows his excellent moral characters when he reveals the policy to unbury Polyneices’ body. By revealing the policy, actually, Creon intends to teach the Theban citizens an honesty and loyalty to the city of Thebes. He tries to show to the citizens that it is such a bad attitude to betray his own mother land for money, just like what Polyneices did, because this kind of attitude can ruin the city and can make the citizens suffering. Even, in Creon’s point of view, the God will not accept the soul of the betrayal who had betrayed his own mother land and burned the God’s temples. And Creon does not want the other citizens to be a betrayal of his own motherland and ruin the city, like what Polyneices did. So, by revealing the policy, it is hoped that the citizens will be loyal to Thebes and become honest citizens without corruption, so that the city of Thebes becomes a great city.
12. Wealthy
of the city, he receives the biggest share of the city’s incomes from taxes (paid by the citizens) and from sea trade. This means that he has a large amount of money.
Creon also possesses wide area of lands. Since he is the king of Thebes, he possesses almost the entire area of Thebes. It can be said that he has lands which are much wider than the citizens or the ordinary people. It can be said that Creon is a landowner. The writer sees that he is wealthy for possessing large area of lands, because someone’s wealth can be measured from the lands he possesses.
The writer views that Creon is a wealthy person based on what the Messenger says in Scene 6. The Messenger directly says that Creon is a wealthy person. It can be seen through his statement as follows:
Messenger: Take Creon now. I thought he was doing well. The savior of his country, king of Thebes,
And the proud father of a lovely family. He’s lost a lot. Oh yes, he’s wealthy still,
But wealth can’t buy you happiness. (Scene 6, 147)
13. Not greedy
through his statements which show that he hates people who do corruption and betray his own city to gain much money.
Creon : There is no human institution as evil as money. Money ruins nation, and makes men refugees. Money corrupts the best man into depravity. People who have done this thing for money Will get what’s coming to them. (Scene 1, 127)
14. Intelligent
Based on the text, this thesis discusses that Creon is an intelligent person due to his intelligence in political affairs, his capability in facing difficult situation, his ability in making hard decision, also his capability in facing the consequences of his actions.
a. Being intelligent in political affairs
