Portrayal of society in "Oedipus the King" and "Antigone"

At the end of the ode the chorus is open to both possibilites, that of the deities being wrong and of Oedipus having killed his father. This is although they believe in them and respect them deeply. This demonstrates their open-mindedness and openness to new ideas.

Sophocles’ contemporaneous Athenian society is also twined into the story. Oedipus’ character reflects that of the Athenian people. Bernard MacGregor Walke Knox writes1 “The poet’s language presents him to the audience not as a figure of the mystical past but as one fully contemporary; in fact he is easily recognizable as an epitome of the Athenian character as they themselves conceived it and as their enemies saw it too. One trait after another in the character of Sophocles’ Oedipus corresponds to Athenian qualities praised by Pericles in his Funeral Speech or denounced by the Corinthians in their attack on Athenian imperialism at the progress in Sparta before the war.” He goes on to explain that these characteristics are: being a man of swift and vigorous action, having experience as a result of constant action especially in naval warfare, courage, swiftness and rationality in action and decision, intelligence, adaptability to circumstances, and his dedication to the interests and needs of the city. Knox concludes with “Oedipus the King is a dramatic embodiment of the creative vigor and intellectual daring of the fifth-century Athenian spirit.”

The preoccupations of the Athenians are also reflected in the play. During the fifth century B.C. when Sophocles wrote the play great changes were taking place in Athens. The old respect and attention given to the deities were eroding as the result of the intellectual, social and scientific progress of the time. About this Knox writes “The figure of Oedipus represents not only the techniques of the transition from savagery to civilization and the political achievements of the newly settled society but also the temper and methods of the fifth-century intellectual revolution. His speeches are full of words, phrases and attitudes that link him with the “enlightenment” of Sophocles’ own Athens.” This change in society is reflected when Oedipus ridicules and offends Tiresias who represents prophecy and spiritual power. In fact Sophocles expresses his conservative ideas by setting up the double irony of the blind man who can see the truth and the future and the seeing man who is blind to his past, present and even to his own identity. As the story goes on we see the proud man who rejected the prophetic power descend to total humiliation and destruction. Knox puts it this way: “ The catastrophe of the tragic hero thus becomes the catastrophe of fifth-century man; all his furious energy and intellectual daring drive him on to this terrible discovery of his fundamental ignorance – he is not the measure of all things…”

Anouilh wrote a new version of Antigone during World War II. His writing therefore contained political messages against the Vichy government. Most of the depiction of society happens through Creon and not the chorus. They are not Anouilh’s opinions but rather what he thought the Germans and the Vichy government’s view of people. By conveying this to the people he could motivate them to join the resistance.

As opposed to Oedipus who loves and cares for his people, Creon does not respect or care about the people he governs. He refers to them as “the featherheaded rabble I govern” and says that if they “are to understand what’s what, that stench has got to fill the town for a month!” Clearly he doesn’t think much of their intelligence. He has only taken the position because he thought it would be cowardly not to and he thinks the country is on the brink of destruction. As he himself explains to Antigone he thought “Someone had to agree to captain the ship. She had sprung a hundred leaks; she was loaded to the water-line with crime, ignorance, poverty. The wheel was swinging with the wind. The crew refused to work and were looting the cargo. The officers were building a raft, ready to slip overboard and desert the ship. The mast was splitting, the wind was howling, the sails were beginning to rip. Every man-jack on board was about to drown – and only because the only thing they thought of was their own skins and their cheap little day-to-day traffic.” In these few lines Creon has called people criminal, ignorant, poor, thieves, lazy, quitters and egocentric. He is also giving a very dark picture of the country when he came in charge. He is implying that the government before him, be it Oedipus causing a plague and Eteocles and Polynices’ civil war or France’s third republic’s failure to deal with the depression, has destroyed the country and he is the one making amendments and restoring order.

He describes people as hypocritical and makes them look stupid when describing Eteocles’ funeral. He sarchastically explains how “schoolchildren emptied their savings-boxes to buy wreathes for him. Old men, orating in quavering, hypocritical voices …and every temple priest was present with an appropriate show of sorrow and solemnity in his stupid face.” This also shows that he has no respect for religion or people’s beliefs, earlier he also uses phrases like “flummery about religious burial”, “priestly abracadabra”, “jibber-jabber” and “dreary bureaucrats”.

At one point Antigone exclaims “ Animals, eh, Creon! What a king you could be if only men were animals”. This can be Anouilh using Antigone’s voice to say that not all people are animals, but docile and obedient people are.

In general one can say that society is portrayed as better in Oedipus the King than in Antigone. Sophocles describes society as loyal, pious, open-minded and Oedipus and the Athenians as active, rational, courageous, intelligent, experienced, good at adapting to new circumstances and compassionate. The only portrayal of society in Antigone, which is through Creon, describes it as criminal, hypocritical, stupid, lazy, self-centred and ignorant. That does not necessarily say anything about the people, but more about the ruler himself. The writers describe two successive generations of the Theban people, but through them write to and about people more than 2000 years apart.