Antigone: Divine Law Vs. Human Law Essay, Research Paper

Antigone: Divine Law vs. Human Law

The drama entitled Antigone was written by a adult male named Sophocles, a scholarly writer of doctrine and logic. The drama Antigone is likely one of the most outstanding readings of a tragic play. The two chief characters of the drama are Antigone and Creon. There is much struggle between Antigone and Creon throughout the drama, both of them holding their ain thoughts and sentiments sing Godhead jurisprudence versus human jurisprudence. The subject that I am traveling to analyse is the struggle of Godhead jurisprudence vs. human jurisprudence. The ground for this is because this subject seems to command the whole drama. It is an issue of which jurisprudence is the & # 8220 ; right & # 8221 ; jurisprudence, and if Creon & # 8217 ; s and Antigone & # 8217 ; s Acts of the Apostless were justifiable.

The drama Antigone can be summarized by the undermentioned: King Creon lets it be known that Polyneices the treasonist is non to be buried, but his sister Antigone defies the order because of the values she holds. She is caught, and sentenced by Creon to be buried alive & # 8211 ; even though she is to be married to his boy Haemon. After the blind prophesier Tiresias proves that the Gods are on Antigone & # 8217 ; s side, Creon changes his head & # 8211 ; but excessively tardily. He goes foremost to bury Polyneices, but Antigone has already hanged herself. When Creon arrives at the grave, Haemon attacks him and so kills himself. When the intelligence of their decease is reported, Creon & # 8217 ; s married woman Eurydice takes her ain life. Creon ends up being all entirely due to the fact that his household members took their ain lives. Creon blames himself for all of these calamities happening, chiefly because it was his incorrect behaviors that caused them.

The construct of godly jurisprudence can be described as the jurisprudence of God. Divine jurisprudence involves ethical motives and beliefs that are presented by God. Charles Segal describes the thought of godly jurisprudence as being the & # 8220 ; unwritten Torahs of the Gods & # 8221 ; ( Sophocles 64 ) . This type of jurisprudence is most likely in consequence when the thought of ethical motives are evident, such as when a moral determination must be made. This type of determination would likely be considered right or incorrect. Divine jurisprudence is non merely in determinations, but besides in the mundane actions of people. Thingss that are morally & # 8220 ; right & # 8221 ; are in conformity with the jurisprudence of God, while things that are morally & # 8220 ; incorrect & # 8221 ; be given to be actions that go against the jurisprudence of God. Divine jurisprudence may non use to those who do non believe in God. Even those who do believe in God may non follow this type of jurisprudence because they do non believe that this jurisprudence will hold any type of impact upon their lives. Most people are really disbelieving about whether or non the Torahs of God are genuinely upheld.

Human jurisprudence is the type of jurisprudence that is set up to regulate the land and the community. As it is stated on the cyberspace site,, human jurisprudence can be characterized as & # 8220 ; regulations of behavior of organized society, enforced by menace of penalty & # 8221 ; ( & # 8220 ; jurisprudence & # 8221 ; ) . Human jurisprudence is normally set up by the caput of a community or by the governors of the land. This type of jurisprudence is usually enforced by people known as officers or guards. They make certain that the jurisprudence of the land is followed consequently. There are people in communities that do non follow the Torahs that are put into consequence by worlds. This is evident in the drama Antigone, when Antigone herself disobeys a jurisprudence that was set up by King Creon, a jurisprudence that went against the beliefs she held towards the jurisprudence of the Gods.

The issues between Antigone and Creon is what the whole drama is fundamentally all about. Charles Paul Segal wrote in his essay & # 8220 ; Sophocles & # 8217 ; Praise of Man and the Conflicts of the Antigone & # 8221 ; that:

The characters, like the drama itself, have many degrees which fuse organically, sometimes indistinguishably, into a complex integrity ; and here the confrontations of the two supporters create an ever-ramifying interplay between meshing and spread outing issues ( 62 ) .

The issues that Antigone and Creon have between them are what ties this whole drama together, and the subject is besides developed with the usage of their issues between each other and what they believe in.

Both Antigone and Creon have their ain thoughts of what is & # 8220 ; right & # 8221 ; and what is & # 8220 ; incorrect & # 8221 ; . This is to state that we should non do premises about whether or non something is right or incorrect, unless the reply to that is seemingly clear. Antigone believed that the actions she took were done for the right ground, because they adhere to the jurisprudence of the Gods. In resistance to that, Creon believes that the actions he had taken were in fact the right 1s, because he believed that Polyneices was a treasonist to the land, and that anyone who should give him a proper entombment would endure the punishment of decease. So, the actions that were taken by both of them separately were the right 1s, in their ain heads at least.

Antigone, in her program to give her brother Polyneices a proper entombment, kept in head the effects that she would endure for holding followed through with the program. This doesn & # 8217 ; t needfully intend that Antigone does non obey the human jurisprudence that is set up by King Creon, it merely means that this peculiar regulation conflicted with the jurisprudence of the Gods, something that Antigone believes extremely in obeying, particularly when it deals with her household. Antigone disregards the Olympic Justice that governs the land and besides presides over the set Torahs that make civilised life come-at-able ( Segal & # 8220 ; Antigone & # 8221 ; 172 ) .

Antigone goes up against human jurisprudence, by burying her brother Polyneices, cognizing good that she will hold to give her ain life. She does this merely because it is morally and ethically right, and this is why she stakes her life based upon her strong beliefs ( Segal & # 8220 ; Sophocles & # 8221 ; 65 ) . Charles Segal says in & # 8220 ; Sophocles & # 8217 ; Praise of Man and the Conflicts of the Antigone & # 8221 ; :


chooses the Godhead bid over the human irresistible impulse, and rejects life with it’s via medias for the absolutes of decease. Indeed, in her footings these absolutes are, paradoxically, merely the things that live ever ( 64 ) .

To Antigone, Godhead jurisprudence is of more importance than human jurisprudence. She bases herself on following the jurisprudence that is set by the Gods. Antigone views ethical motives and values really extremely. Antigone meant well when she did what she did, but possibly she should hold allow the Gods vindicate their ain Torahs ( Waldock 111 ) .

By the terminal of the drama Antigone is exonerated for holding buried her brother Polyneices and besides for traveling against the jurisprudence that was set by Creon. Even though she had been excused for her actions, she still lost her ain life and the lives of people near to her ( Segal & # 8220 ; Sophocles & # 8221 ; 63 ) . This is one of the grounds why the drama Antigone has been referred to as one of the most influential Grecian calamities written. This is genuinely a calamity, and this ne’er would & # 8217 ; ve happened if merely King Creon hadn & # 8217 ; Ts made up the jurisprudence that cipher could bury Polyneices because he was a treasonist. There was much struggle in this drama, peculiarly between Antigone and Creon, over the affair of Godhead jurisprudence vs. human jurisprudence. Sometimes it is non possible or executable to obey and follow both of these sets of Torahs, unwritten or non.

Now, allow & # 8217 ; s see this state of affairs sing King Creon & # 8217 ; s side of the struggle. There is non much & # 8220 ; right & # 8221 ; on the side of Creon throughout the drama. Creon seemed to be content with his actions, though morally unacceptable in the country of Godhead jurisprudence. The lone thing Creon had done was to put up a jurisprudence in his community. Even though this jurisprudence was broken by Antigone, Creon was really shockable with his determination to condemn her to decease. He could hold looked more at her side, to better understand why she did what she did, but alternatively he acted more obstinate and hence stood his land ( Segal & # 8220 ; Sophocles & # 8221 ; 63 ) .

Harmonizing to Waldock in his essay, & # 8220 ; Romantic Calamity: The Antigone & # 8221 ; , he states the following in respects to who is right or incorrect:

There is no inquiry, so, as to theory: Antigone & # 8217 ; s position of the affair is the right one, Creon & # 8217 ; s position of it is the incorrect. Creon has offended against a human decency, has violated a recognized fittingness ( 110 ) .

This is merely one individual & # 8217 ; s point of position on the whole state of affairs, so there are other people who have differing sentiments towards the affair. If to the full analyzed, we can see that this premise is a really good one, or that it is a better theory than other one & # 8217 ; s that can be conjured up. Sophocles was seeking to do the readers think that manner besides, by coming to the decision that what Antigone did was right and what Creon did was incorrect, harmonizing to the unwritten jurisprudence of the Gods.

Towards the terminal of the drama, a unsighted prophesier named Teiresias went to Creon and informed him of his incorrect behaviors. Teiresias told Creon that his actions would ensue in awful things that are traveling to come back to him. He said that Creon would stop up paying back for his actions against Antigone and besides Polyneices. Creon eventually ends up trying to change by reversal what he had done, kind of delivering himself with the Gods ( Segal & # 8220 ; Antigone & # 8221 ; 169 ) . He understood that it would be bad and foolish to put on the line everything for obstinate pride. He decided to undo what he had done by rapidly constructing a grave for the organic structure of Polyneices and besides by liberating Antigone from the vault where she was taken to decease. He went foremost to construct the grave for Polyneices & # 8217 ; organic structure and so he went to let go of Antigone. When he got to Antigone, it was excessively late. Antigone & # 8217 ; s dead organic structure was accompanied by Creon & # 8217 ; s boy Haemon, who lunged a blade at his male parent and missed, and so took his ain life. When Creon & # 8217 ; s married woman Eurydice heard of what had happened, she excessively took her ain life, go forthing King Creon entirely in life without any other life people that are close to him.

A.J.A. Waldock, in his work entitled & # 8220 ; Romantic Calamity: The Antigone & # 8221 ; , he makes a good analysis sing Creon, it stating:

Cunning beyond fancy & # 8217 ; s dream is the fertile accomplishment which brings him, now to evil, now to good. When he honours the Torahs of the land, and that justness which he hath sworn by the Gods to continue, proudly stands his metropolis: no metropolis hath he who, for his heedlessness, dwells with wickedness. Never may he portion my fireplace, ne’er think my ideas, who doth these things ( qtd. in Waldock & # 8220 ; Sophocles & # 8221 ; 113 )

This quotation mark speaks about Creon and what type of individual he is after holding done what he did. It is stating that Creon is filled with wickedness. He honors the Torahs of the land but he doesn & # 8217 ; t acknowledge the Torahs of the Supreme beings who swore him into that place. This could besides be stating that Creon is slightly of a dissembler, which is non a really good quality. In a manner, Creon courted his ain ruin, so he deserves what he gets.

In decision, it seems that Antigone & # 8217 ; s side of this whole struggle was more & # 8220 ; right & # 8221 ; than incorrect. Antigone was merely following what she believed in, by giving her brother Polyneices a proper burial despite what the human jurisprudence set up by Creon had specifically stated. There should be a point where both sides, Godhead jurisprudence and human jurisprudence, should be looked at with an unfastened head, because many times conflict occurs over which side should be taken. I believe that Godhead jurisprudence should be extremely regarded, but I besides believe that the Torahs set up by adult male should be acknowledged and followed, with the exclusion of foolish Torahs that are set up, such as the jurisprudence that King Creon made up. One must carefully weigh out Godhead jurisprudence and human jurisprudence if they are put in a state of affairs where one of the sides must be taken. My decision is that Antigone was right for holding buried her brother, and that Creon was incorrect for even doing up this jurisprudence with the punishment of decease.

Written by

I'm Colleen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out