nterDretation

journal

of political

philosophy

' olume v

4/3

spring 1975

page

117 148

Leo Strauss

Xenophon's Anabasis
A

Seth Benardete

Reading

of

Sophocles'

Antigone: I 197
Mera J. Flaumenhaft

Begetting
The Law
Hobbes'

and

Belonging

in Shakespeare's Othello 217

Robert C.

Grady

II

of

Nature in the

Christian Commonwealth:

Argument for Civil

Authority

martinus

nijhoff, the hague

edited at

queens college of

the city university

of new york

interpretation
a

journal
4

of political

philosophy
issue 3

volume

editors

seth g.

benardete

hilail

gildin

robert

horwitz

howard b.

white (1912-

1974)
consulting
editors

john hallowell

wilhelm
-

hennis
strauss

erich

hula

arnaldo mamigliano
-

michael oakeshott

leo

(1899-1973)

kenneth

w.

thompson

executive editor

managing

editor

hilail

gildin

ann mcardle

interpretation is

journal devoted to the study

a year.

of political philosophy.

it its
a

appears three

times

editors welcome contributions

serious

from

all

those

who

take

interest in

political

philosophy

regardless of their orientation.

all manuscripts and editorial correspondence should

be

addressed

to the

executive editor

interpretation

building

glOl

queens college

flushing,

n.y.

11367

u.s.a.

subscription price

for institutions

and

libraries Guilders 36 + Guilders 5.50

postage

postage

for individuals Guilders 28.80 + Guilders 5.50

subscription and correspondence

in

connection

therewith

should

be

sent

to the publisher

martinus nijhoff

9-11 lange

voorhout

p.o.b.

269

the hague

netherlands.

117

XENOPHON'S ANABASIS
Leo Strauss

most

Xenophon's Anabasis seems today to be regarded universahy as his beautiful book. I do not quarrel with this judgment. I merely wonder
its
grounds are.

what

The

question

eighteenth

century,

quite a

few judicious

is obviously reasonable; in the men would have assigned the

highest place among Xenophon's writings to his Memorabilia rather than to his Anabasis. In other words, the fact that we judge the Anabasis
to be Xenophon's most beautiful book does not yet prove that that judgment was shared by Xenophon. Before we can agree or disagree
with

the niling opinion, we would have to know what the book

we would within the of

meant

for

Xenophon,
the
and

book

beauty

have to know the place and function of the Corpus Xenophonteum and therewith possibly the full Anabasis. Perhaps we have answered our question

unwittingly

Anabasis,
The

of

thoughtlessly, if truthfully, Xenophon's ascent.

title of the book is Cyrus from the coastal
Cyrus'

by

speaking

of

Xenophon's
expedition

authentic

"Cyrus'

Ascent,"

i.e.,

the
of

of the younger

plain

to the interior

Asia. The
of

title is misleading, for

ascent came

to its end in the battle

Kunaxa in which he was defeated and killed; the account of his ascent Ms at most the first of the seven Books of the Anabasis. The title of the Anabasis is not the only misleading title of Xenophon's works: The Education of Cyrus deals with the whole life of the older Cyrus while his
education what

Xenophon

is discussed only in the first Book; the Memorabilia contains Socrates' remembers of justice and not Xenophon's

memorable experiences as such.

The Anabasis opens as follows: "Dareios and Parysatis had two sons born to them, of whom the elder was Artaxerxes and the younger The work begins as if it were devoted to a memorable incident in the
Cyrus."

royal

family

of

the

strongest

Persia. This opening makes us see that Persia, apparently monarchy, was in fact a dyarchy in which the preference
younger son

of the queen

for her

had the be

gravest consequences.

Yet

while about

the Anabasis tells us a great deal about

Persia,
said

it

tells us

very littie

the

royal

family

of

Persia; it

cannot

to be devoted to

Persia,

not

even

to the Persian-Greek conflict, except incidentally.

This

manuscript was

left

by

Leo Strauss in its handwritten

form;

the

printed

version

was

not

seen

or

approved

by
to

him. The transcription

assure

presented

certain
version. original

difficulties, but
The
editors manuscript and

great care was taken

are

the accuracy of the printed the

very

grateful and

to

Joseph

Cropsey for transcribing

the valuable assistance

to

Jenny

Diskin

Clay for

they

gave

him.

118

Interpretation
of

Perplexing and even misleading as the title and the opening Anabasis are, the identity of its author is no less enigmatic. Xenophon recapitulates in his historical work, the Hellenika, with brevity
those the events narrated in the
events

the

When
utmost

Anabasis, he ascribes the Syracuse (III 1.1-2). Nothing is known about Themistogenes, not even regarding his ever having lived. One is entitled to assume that Themistogenes of Syracuse is a pseudonym for
account of

to Themistogenes

of

Xenophon deeds
and preserve

and speeches

Anabasis, Xenophon speaks of his outstanding in the third person; he apparently wishes to only this kind of becoming anonymity as much as possible. Syracuse
of

Athens. In the

Athens

were the most

might

Greece; Xenophon
while
seem

outstanding commercial and naval be thought to mean "slayer of

of

powers of
strangers,"

Themistogenes is "the offspring

Right"; Themistogenes
same context

could
which

to be a somehow idealized Xenophon. In the

in

he

mentions

Themistogenes, he

mentions the name of the

Spartan

admiral

who was ordered name

was

by

the ephors to assist Cyrus in his expedition; his

Xenophon
of

calls

Samios. When he mentions him in the Anabasis (I 4.2), him Pythagoras. It would not be surprising if the author
when

the

Memorabilia,

hearing

the

"Samios"

name

thought at once of

the most famous Samian philosopher, Pythagoras.

In the
at

Anabasis, Xenophon
of

appears on
us

the

center

of

the stage only

the

beginning

Book Three. Let

first

see what we

learn

about

him

his intention from the first two Books by observing certain peculiarities of his manner of writing. As can be expected, he will say
and

everything necessary about the cause as ascent, but it is not likely that he
Cyrus'

well
will

as

the

circumstances

of

forgo

things

worthy to be
ascent

mentioned which came although what

to his attention

on

the occasion of that

they do he says in
which

not

throw hght on it directly.

about

Still, it is doubtful
of

whether

particular

the fauna and flora

the

countries
provisions

through

he

passed was not required

by

his interest in

for

the

army

and concern with them.

In

order

to secure himself against disgrace and even mortal danger

threatening him at the hands of his brother, the king, to whom he had become suspect, Cyrus resolved to make himself king; for this purpose
he secredy been
assembled an

army consisting

of

different

contingents of

Greek

mercenaries, to say nothing of the Persian troops whose command had

entrusted

to him

by

his brother. For his

in the
eyes

march

inland he found but

which

pretext which was plausible

of

the

king,

did

not

fool the king's loyal satrap Tissaphernes. Xenophon mentions as the most important stations of the way the cities which he describes by a standard formula that is
mentioned are susceptible of characteristic variations.

The first

cities

"inhabited,

prosperous and

large."

In the

present context

(I
of

2)

cities

the standard expression occurs three times, whereas the description "inhabited" large" as with the omission of "prosperous and

occurs

five times; in
of
Phrygia."

one case

the city in question is simply called "the

procedure means

last city

What this

becomes

clear

from the

Xenophon's Anabasis

119
as

description

of

Tarsos
Cyrus'

as a

large

and prosperous

city;

is

said

immediately
fled
at

afterward, Tarsos
approach of

was

not

inhabited,
In the

its inhabitants

having
of

the
one

army.

case of

wonders whether
approach

it was not uninhabited reached it. This much is clear: the

the last city even before the

Phrygia,

Cyrus'

rumor of

standard expression

indicates
states of

the normal or optimal case; the variations indicate the various

defectiveness. This has the consequence that Xenophon is not compelled to speak in many cases expressly of defects or that his general tone is less harsh, himself to
more gentle than

it

otherwise would

be; he

enables or compels

speak as much as possible

in terms

of praise rather

than in

terms of blame.

The inhabited, important

all of virtues.

prosperous

and

example of a practice of great

number

large city is the first, in itself not importance. Let us think above
occasions

the virtues. On a

of

Xenophon
the

gives

lists

of

Out

of

those hsts

one can

easily

construct a comprehensive

hst

of all virtues which a man who was not

he
in

regarded as such.

In

describing
but

character of

all respects admirable

on the whole

deserved
which

praise, it is
of

sufficient

for Xenophon

not

to mention the
not

virtues

the individual in question

lacked; he does

have to

speak

explicitly
Cyrus'

his blemish or blemishes. Here piety in his eulogy of Cyrus (1 9).

The
second

we mention

only his

silence on

Xenophontic device which must be discussed at this point It makes a difference whether legetai (he, she, it is said to. a human being is said to possess such and such qualities and whether he possesses them in fact. Artaxerxes and Cyrus are introduced as the sons of Dareios and Parysatis. When Xenophon speaks of the parents of the older Cyrus, in the Education of Cyrus (I 2.1), he says that Cyrus is said

is his

use of

.).

to be the son of Kambyses and that his mother is agreed upon to have been Mandanes. Was the paternity of Dareios known to a higher degree than was that of Kambyses? And in what way? And does this help to preference for Cyrus? We do not know. We do not explain have to seek the reason why Cyrus was said to have had intercourse with Epyaxa, the wife of the king of the Kilikians (I 2.12). When
Parysatis'

speaks of a city located near the river Marsyas, he says: "There Apollon is said to have flayed Marsyas after having defeated him when he challenged him to a contest regarding wisdom, and to have hung up his skin in the cave from which the sources (of the river Xerxes is said to have erected (magnificent Marsyas) issue.. buildings) when he returned from Greece after having been defeated in

Xenophon

..There

(I 2.8-9). Xenophon treats here a mythical and a non-mythical equally trustworthy or untrustworthy. The conflict between Apollon and Marsyas was foolishly provoked by Marsyas who received condign punishment; the conflict between Xerxes and the Greeks was
that

battle"

story

as

foolishly
punished:

provoked

by Xerxes,

who

was

of

course

much

less severely
our attention

the object of the

conflict

between Xerxes

and

the Greeks was

not wisdom.

The

parallel

treatment of the two stories

draws

120
to the broad and in a this theme

Interpretation
sense comprehensive

theme "gods and

alone

men."

Yet

is

not

strictiy comprehensive, let

"gods."

all-comprehensive,

because

big

For instance, "The Syrians held the the equivocity of and tame fishes of the river Chalus to be gods, and did not permit
of

anyone

to harm

them,

nor

doves"

(I 4.9):

are

these Syrian gods

regarded

as gods also said

by

the Greeks? or are only those gods truly gods that are the Greeks to be gods? and are the latter regarded as gods

by

by

Xenophon in
matter

particular?

There is surely
and

very important

agreement
as

in this
regards

between the Greeks

Cyrus'

the

Persians, in

particular

sacrificing and swearing (I 8.16-17; II 2.9). The conflict between Greeks and Persians after death turns precisely on the question as to which of the two sides broke the solemnly sworn treaty. When

addressing Tissaphernes, the Greek general Klearchos takes it for granted that they both agree as to the sanctity of oaths and its ground: the Cyrus' universal rule of the gods (II 5.7, 20-21, 39). When army succeeded
in crossing the Euphrates River on foot, the event seemed to the living in that place to be divine, and the river plainly to have before Cyrus
as
people retired

the

man who was

Cyrus'

to be the king. The

of

omen soon proved

to be misleading, just as

interpretation

the predictions

of

the

Greek
The
at

soothsayer proved points which

to be wrong (1

4.18;

7, 18-19).
are

we

have

stated

or

indicated

brought together

the end of Book Two. Xenophon had narrated how most of the Greek

generals

(strategoi)

and quite a

few Greek

captains

(lochagoi) had been

now

treacherously

murdered

by

the

Persians,
One
of

and

is

describing

the

characters of the murdered generals.

these generals, the Thessalian

Menon,
was

proves a

to have been
and

a man of unbehevable

wickedness; not only

he

deceiver, liar,

qualities

and

their victims.

himself on using these ridiculed those men who were foolish enough to become He was the one who in a critical situation determined his
prided
against

perjurer; he

fellow Greeks to follow Cyrus

the

king

(I 4.13-17). He
Cyrus'

was

friend,
troops,
Persian

and

guest

friend
Cyrus'

of

Ariaios,

the

commander
Cyrus'

of

Persian
to the

who after

death betrayed

Greek

contingent

king (II 1.5; 2.1; 4.15). Klearchos at any rate suspected that Menon was responsible for the betrayal to the Persians of his fellow
officers,
whereas

Ariaios

makes

the

already

murdered

Klearchos

responsible while
Klearchos'

claiming that Menon plotting, are greatly honored

concludes

and

Proxenos, having denounced by the king (II 5.28, 38). Be this

on

as

it may, Xenophon

his
was

statement

Menon

as

follows:

"While Menon's fellow

the

generals were

killed for
not
of

having

campaigned against

king

together with

Cyrus, he

killed

although

he had done
the

the same

things, but
him

after the

death

the

other generals

king

took

Klearchos and the other generals who were thought to be the quickest death, but, having been tortured alive for a year, is said to have met the end of an evil (II 6.29). The king of Persia punished most severely that Greek
revenge on

by killing him, beheaded, which is

not as

man"

general

whose

crime, whose perjury,

whose

breach

of

solemnly

sworn

Xenophon's Anabasis
oaths,
not was most

121
for his impiety, But this

beneficial to

him; Menon

was punished of

by

any god, but

other

by

the human

beneficiary

his how
the

crime.

"is
of

said"

to have been done. It suffices to note that whereas in the case

murdered generals
silent

the

Xenophon tells

us

old
of

they
of

were

when

they died, he is
premise of the

on or

this point in the case

Menon. The
Persia
quoted

imphcit

justice
the

highmindedness
enabled

of

king

is

as credible as that of
said"

gods'

revenge of perjury.

Through the
things
all

"he is "the
and

sentence

Xenophon is
same

to

present

things,

world"

as grander and

while

indicating

at

the

better than they are (cf. Thucydides I 21.1) time the difference between the naked truth have been
whole served

the adornment. He has succeeded, not indeed in mitigating his harsh

condemnation of

Menon

what useful purpose would

nevertheless
of

by

such mitigation?

but

in speaking

on

the

in terms

of praise rather

than in terms

blame.
one

With
Menon
stage.

slight

exaggeration

and

Book Three begins

of

with

may say that Book Two ends with Xenophon taking the center of the
and

Three

At any rate, the end read as if they were

and
whether

Book Two
to

the

beginning

of

Book

meant

bring

out

the contrast between

Menon

to be seen

Xenophon, between the arch-villain and the hero. It remains Menon is truly the foil of Xenophon in the Anabasis.
enumeration of

In his first Xenophon

the

Greek
of

Cyrus'

contingents

of

army
order:

mentions

the

generals

those

contingents

in this

1) Klearchos of Sparta, 2) Aristippos the Thessalian, 3) Proxenos the Boiotian, 4) Sophainetos the Stymphalian and Sokrates the Achaian (I 1.9-11); Menon is not mentioned here because he joined
Cyrus'

expedition after

it had already begun its

march

inland (I 2.6). At any

rate, the contingent led by Proxenos, and hence Proxenos, can well be When said to occupy the central place in the initial enumeration. describing the characters of the Greek generals at the end of Book Two,

Xenophon
and

speaks

extensively only

of

three

of

them:

Klearchos, Proxenos

Menon (II
us now

6); Proxenos is
see

again

in the

center.

Why

does Proxenos
about

deserve that place? Let

what we

learn from the first two Books saying that the

"I"

Xenophon. It II

should go without

who

is

said

to have

2.5; 9.22, 28; this happens in a quotation from a speech explicitly 3.1; 6.6), ascribed to Xenophon, cannot be identified by anyone who has a decent respect for our author, with Xenophon, but only with Themistogenes of
said or written or unless

thought something in the Anabasis (I

Syracuse. Xenophon himself

occurs

in

these

Books three times. In the

first

place

he

approaches

Cyrus

who

orders are

surveying the two opposed armies to give; Cyrus commands him to tell favorable
and

is just passing by on horseback while and asks him whether he has any
everyone sacrificed

that the sacrifices

that the entrails

of

the

beasts
Cyrus'

are

fine.
not

Xenophon regarding
so much

was also

a similar

fortunate enough to be point (I 8.15-17). This

place

able

to satisfy

curiosity

conversation

is

important,

because it takes

shortly before the fatal battle but because

122

Interpretation
exchange as

it is the only Xenophon, just

concerns occurs

between Xenophon

and

Cyrus

recorded

by

there is only one exchange between Xenophon and Socrates in the Memorabilia; the former concerns sacrifices, the latter the dangers inherent in

kissing
occurs

handsome boys. When Xenophon

in the Anabasis for the

Proxenos (II

4.15);

when

he

company of two other generals is again somehow in the center.

time, he is in the company of for the third time, he is in the (II 5.37, 41). In the central case, Proxenos
second
overlook an occasion on which

But

we must not

completely

Xenophon

by name yet may very well have been meant. After the battle of Kunaxa, when Cyrus was already dead but his Greek mercenaries were victorious, the king sent heralds to the Greeks, one of them being the Greek traitor Phalinus, with the request to give up their
is indeed
not mentioned
arms.

The

chief

speaker

for the Greeks

was

in fact the Athenian

Phalinus that the only good things which Theopompos, have are arms and virtue, but their virtue would not be of any they avail without the arms; with the help of their arms they might even fight
who explains to with

the Persians about the

and

Persians'

good

things. When Phahas heard

a

this, he laughed
and speak

said,
us

"You

resemble

gracefully"

(II 1.13-14).

Theopompos'

philosopher, young man, thesis is identical to

the

one most

familiar to

virtue, is in

need of external equipment

from Aristotle: virtue, and especiaUy moral (Eth. Nic. 1178a 23-25, 1177a 27and

34;

compare

Mem. I 6.10

Oec. II 1-4).

Why

Xenophon

should

appear

for

a moment

in the
their

guise of a

Theopompos ("God-sent")
and of

will

become

manifest soon.

After the in
which a

murder

of

generals

many
them

of

their

captains
situation

the Greeks were utterly

disheartened, they they found themselves; only few of

when

considered

the

could of

take

food,
all of was

kindled

fire,

or went

to their arms. In spite

night

or

because
who
a

this,

them settled down to rest for the

with one exception:

"There
with

in the army

certain

Xenophon from Athens

captain,
or

went
of

the
sort

expedition without

but him
a

being a general, a Proxenos, being a guest-friend of

who was then at
of

soldier

any

home. He

promised

his for a long time, had sent for hun if he came to make him
said

friend

Cyrus

whom

Proxenos himself

he

regarded as

better for

him than his

to join
attached

fatherland."

assigned a central place:

Cyrus'

We begin he was the

to understand why Proxenos is one who had suggested to Xenophon

now

to Boiotia

army (III 1.1-4). Proxenos was then not unqualifiedly or for that matter to Greece; he was to some extent he

uprooted.

Apparentiy
attached

had

no

doubt

that

Xenophon

was

not

unqualifiedly
some extent

to Athens or even to

Greece,

that he too

was

to

uprooted, although he does

what was

not state attached?

why this was the

case.

To
this

whom

or

then

Proxenos

From his very

youth

he desired to become
reason

a man capable of

doing

the great things and for

he took
with

his intercourse

instruction from Gorgias of Leontini. After Gorgias he had come to beheve that he was now
paid

Xenophon's Anabasis

123

capable both to rule and, by being a friend of the first men, not to be inferior to them in requiting them for the benefits he received from them; in this state of mind he joined Cyrus. He beheved to acquire through his actions with Cyrus a great name and great power and much money; but he was obviously concerned with acquiring those things only in just and
noble ways.

He

was

indeed

able

to

rule

gentiemen
of

but he

was

unable

to inspire the

soldiers with awe and

fear

himself; he

to become hated

by

the soldiers;

he

thought that

obviously feared it was sufficient for

being

and

[being]

regarded a good ruler

that

one praise

him

who acted

well and not praise

him

who acted

Xenophon, in
amiable acquisition
of

contradistinction

unjustly (II 6.16-20). Proxenos and to Menon and even to Klearchos, were
to be
more

gentlemen.

Proxenos
great

seems

attracted

to the
on

noble earth

fame,

power

and

great

wealth

anywhere

than to his fatherland. Xenophon is clearly distinguished from Proxenos by the fact that he was tougher, wilier and wittier than the latter. One is

tempted to trace this difference to the difference between their

teachers,

Gorgias

Socrates. But Gorgias was also the teacher of Menon. The difficulty cannot be disposed of by the assertion that Socrates was a philosopher and Gorgias a sophist, for how do we know that Gorgias
and

was a sophist

70a5-b2, 95b9-c8, 96d5-7;

according to Xenophon or his Socrates? (cf. Plato, Meno cf. Gorgias 465cl-5). This much however

may safely be said, that this difference between Proxenos and Xenophon is likely to be connected with Xenophon's having been familiar with Socrates. Must in the Anabasis
we then understand

Xenophon

the Xenophon

presented

in the hght Athens

of

Socrates?

When Xenophon had

with

read

the letter from

Proxenos, he
Athens is

communicated

Socrates
of was

of

about

the journey.
of

(Socrates is
not

called

here

"Socrates
Xenophon Socrates

Athens"

because Xenophon
aware of

the writer.)

obviously

the gravity of the step which he

counsel of an older and wiser man. with

contemplated and sought

suspected

therefore the

that Xenophon might get into trouble

of

the city
warred

by becoming
War. But

friend

Cyrus,
not

since

Cyrus

was

thought to have

zealously together

with

the Spartans

against

Athens in the Peloponnesian

give

of course or

he did

know. Nor did his daimonion

verdict advised

him

any guidance,

if it

did, it

was not of

say nothing of the fact that its Theages 128d8-e6). He therefore

to
communicate

any authority for the city, to might be disputable (cf. Plato, Xenophon to
go

to Delphi and

with

the god

about

the journey. Xenophon followed

what god

that
and
and

advice and asked

Apollon in Delphi to

he

should sacrifice

pray in order best way and,

to make the
after

contemplated

journey

in the

most noble

having

performed noble

actions, to return safely.

Apollon told him to

which gods

he

ought

to

sacrifice.

Xenophon does

not

tell us why Apollon did not give him any guidance regarding the god or gods to whom he ought to pray. On his return to Athens, he reported
at once

to Socrates. Socrates

was somewhat

the god first whether it would

taken aback: instead of asking be better for Xenophon to make the

124

Interpretation
or

journey
the

to stay at Athens, he had by himself decided to go and asked only how he could make the journey in the most noble way. Xenophon must have thought that the question as to whether becoming
god

friend

of

Cyrus

was

in itself

desirable,
worth

and

in

particular as

to

whether

the

Athenians'

reaction

by
cf.

his

own

unassisted

whether

the

journey

considering, powers, but that no human being could know would be beneficial to Xenophon (cf. Mem. I 1.6-8;

to this was

could

be

answered

Hellen. VII 1.27). Perhaps

Xenophon,

as

distinguished from Socrates,

in underestimating the hostile reaction of the city of Athens to his joining Cyrus. Socrates merely rephed that after he had addressed to Apollon the second or secondary question, he must do what the god
was rash

had

commanded

him to do. Therefore Xenophon

mentioned and

sacrificed

to the gods
as silent

whom

Apollon had

left Athens (III 1.5-8): he is

about prayers as

Apoilon.
the

The agreements as well as Socrates regarding the oracle

return

disagreements between Xenophon it

all

and

make

to the
must

question

as

to whether

necessary for us to the Xenophon presented in the

the
more
of

Anabasis
as

be

understood

in the hght

Socrates, in

other

words,

to

what

was of

a man

precisely is the difference between the two men. Xenophon of action: he did the pohtical things in the common sense
whereas

the

term,

Socrates did not; but Socrates taught his

on

companions

the

political

things with the emphasis

I 2.16-17;
terms

6.15;
a

strategy III 1). What this difference means in

we
remember

and

tactics

(Mem.

simple practical

appears

when

the three
power

ends

which

Proxenos

so

nobly
we

pursued: was

great

name, great
and

and much

wealth.

Socrates,
condition.

know,

very

poor

in

no

way dissatisfied
proves

with

this

As to Xenophon, he
comfortable

returned

from

the expedition with

circumstances

(V 3.7-10). This

Cyrus in very that he exercised

successfully the economic art in the common sense of the expression. But this implies that Xenophon, as distinguished from Socrates, was desirous In
this
economic
of

wealth,

of course resembles

respect

he

only of nobly Ischomachos

acquired
who

moderate

wealth.

taught

Socrates the

art, not exercised by Socrates, rather than Socrates; Xenophon think of his contemporary and friend Kritoboulos whom Socrates tried to teach the economic art, but in his case Xenophon leaves
also makes us

it

open

whether go

Socrates had any

far
that

success

(cf. the Oeconomicus). We

which

hardly
and

by saying Xenophon in the Anabasis comes to

Socrates,
and

too

the

principle

individualizes

sight

by

the contrast between him

not

by

that between him and

Proxenos,

to say no

further

word of

Menon.

Cyrus deceived Xenophon as well as Proxenos about the purpose of his expedition; he did not say a word to anyone about his plan to depose or kill the king except to Klearchos, the most renowned general in his
employment.

But

after

his army had

of

come

to

Kilikia,

everyone saw that

the expedition was aimed against the king. Yet most of the Greeks

Xenophon

being

one

them

did

not

abandon

Cyrus

out

of

shame

Xenophon's Anabasis

125

before

one another or

everyone else after slumber

struck

most

before Cyrus. Xenophon was as disheartened as treachery but then he had during a short astounding dream. He dreamed that a lightning had
the
Persians'

his father's house

escape.

and

had

set

it

altogether on
respect

fire
on

so

that no

one

could

This dream
and might

was

in

one

comforting:

Xenophon
other

seemed

to see a great hght coming from

a

Zeus; but

the

hand,

Zeus is
who

king

show

by

dream

what was

had dared to attack the king of Persia (III 1.9-12; 6.5, 9; II 2.2-5). The dream brought Xenophon, and Xenophon alone, to his senses: he must do something, and at once. He gets up and calls
Proxenos'

awaiting those cf. I 3.8, 13, 21;

first is

captains and

together. He addresses to them

which

a speech which

quoted

in full
which

in

he

sets

forth clearly

and

forcefully

the

dangers to
longer

they

are exposed as well as the great

Persians'

to the Greeks from the

under

benefits accruing treachery: the Greeks are now no

with

an

obligation
Persians'

to comply

the

treaty; they may

however be
on were much

now

justiy
the

take of the

possessions whatever and

of

they

like. The judges

the contest are the gods,

who will

the

side of

Greeks,

as

is

reasonable

to assume; for
observed

the

oaths

broken
speech

by by

the Persians
mentions

while

they

were

in this

speech the

strictly by gods five times. He concludes the

the Greeks. Xenophon

promising the captains his full cooperation and even more than that: if they wish him to lead them, he will not use his youth as a pretext for

declining
captains

the successor to
and

the leadership. He is naturally elected to be their leader, i.e., Proxenos, with the unanimity of all who were in fact
even

Greeks

(III

1.12-26).
speech,
a

This is
spoken at

the

beginning

of

Xenophon's
and

ascent: through a single

the right moment,

in

the right way,

captains

he has become from

next

nobody

a general.

Proxenos'

called

together the generals and other high

commanders who

had

survived
of

the

bloodbath,

of all

Greek

contingents.

captains, Xenophon is asked to by Proxenos' to this more stately assembly what he had said to captains; say but he does not simply repeat himself. The second speech is again quoted

Introduced

the oldest

Proxenos'

in full. He

puts now

the emphasis
on

on

the fact that the

salvation of

the

Greeks depends

decisively

the mood and conduct of the commanders; the soldiers.

murdered

they must act as the models for thing to do is to replace the

especiaUy in war, depends
election of

Therefore,

the most urgent

commanders; for
then

everything,
to the

on good order and

discipline. In this speech,

proceed

the gods are mentioned only once.

The
these

officers

five
after

new

generals,

one of
when

Shortly
to

that election,

the next
caU

being day
an

Xenophon (III 1.32-47).

was about of

to begin

break,

the

commanders

decided to

assembly

the soldiers.

The
place

soldiers

were

first

briefly

addressed

by

the Spartan Cheirisophos

assigned the central

and then

by

the

Arcadian Kleanor, is
about

who

had been

in Xenophon's
speech of

enumeration of the

newly
as

elected generals

(III 1.47).

Kleanor's
to a

twice

as

long

Cheirisophos'

and

is devoted

rehearsal

the Persian

treachery,

about which

Cheirisophos had

126 been
the
silent.

Interpretation

Accordingly, Cheirisophos

refers

only

once

to the
as

but Kleanor four times. Yet their

speech

speeches

served

only

preludes

gods, to

stately assembly stately an attire as he possibly could: he wished to be attired becomingly for victory as well as for death on the field of honor. When he mentioned the many fine hopes of salvation before
which

by

which

Xenophon in
as

addressed

this

most

he

appeared

which

they may have if they

Thereupon

wage ruthless war against

their enemies,
grasped

man sneezed.

aU soldiers with one

impulse

made obeisance

to the god (cf.

Aristophanes,
the

Knights 638-45). Xenophon

the

opportunity
proposed

thus offered with

both hands
as an omen sacrifices

or

he interpreted
that
a

sneezing
vow

any false shame; from Zeus the Savior and

without god as soon

they

to

offer

to that

as

they
to

come

to

friendly land,
was

but to

make a vow also

man's ability.

to

offer sacrifices

the
a

other gods

according to every

He

put

this proposal to

vote; it

and chanted.

unanimously adopted. Thereupon they made their vows After this pious beginning, Xenophon began his speech by

explaining what he meant by the many fine hopes of salvation which the Greeks have. They are based in the first place on their having kept
the
oaths sworn

by

the god

in

contrast

to the perjury committed

by

the

enemy; hence it is reasonable to assume that the gods wiU be opposed to the Persians and wiU be allies
course
of

the

Greeks,

and

the gods can

of

very great help if they wish. Xenophon arouses the hopes furthermore by reminding them of the deliverance of their ancestors
of with

be

Greeks'

the

gods'

help

from

the

Persians in the Persian

more numerous

wars.

Even
a

Cyrus'

Greek
now

contingents

defeated the many

Persians

few days but

ago with

the
prize

gods'

help

and

then the prize was

Cyrus'

is the very salvation of the Greeks. this Xenophon ceases to mention the gods. As orator he had spoken of point, the gods in this third speech eleven times, whereas he had spoken of
the
them in his first speech five times and in

kingly rule: Having arrived at

He turns
connection

his central speech only once. to purely human considerations or measures. In this he points out that if the Persians succeeded in preventing the
next

Greeks from returning to Greece, the Greeks might very weU settle down in the midst of Persia, so rich in all kinds of good things, not the least in beautiful and tall women and maidens. Could the vision of himself
place be the second stage of his invitation to join Cyrus could have imphed his certainty as to the lukewarmness of Xenophon's patriotism, not to say Xenophon's lack of patriotism; this impression could seem to be reinforced by what Xenophon says now to the army. Be this as it
as

founder

of a

city in

some

barbaric

ascent?

We

recaU

that

Proxenos'

may, the final and

by

no

means

the least important measures

and even

which of

he
the

proposes

to the army
punitive

are the restoration

strengthening

commanders'

powers,

which must

be

supported

by

the active

and zealous assistance of this proposal

every

member

of

the army; he

demands that

be

put to the vote.

by

the Spartan

Cheirisophos

and the proposal

He is strongly supported in this matter is thereupon unanimously

Xenophon's Anabasis
adopted.

127

Finally

Xenophon

proposes that
on

mand of the van of

the march, two youngest generals, in command of the

the army

Cheirosophos be put in com and he and Timasion, the

unanimously

adopted.

commander of
urgent matters

rear. This proposal too is Xenophon has become quite informaUy, if not the the whole army, at least its spiritus rector. After the most have been settled, Xenophon reminds in particular those

desire wealth that they must try to be victorious; for the victors both preserve what belongs to them and take what belongs to the defeated (III 2). The economic art as the art of increasing one's wealth
who

wiU

can

be

exercised

by means of the
next

military

art

(Oec. 1 15).
sent

The Persians
soldiers

tried with very minor success to corrupt the Greek

and even captains. and slingers

They

were more successful when

they

bowmen
a of

against

the

Greek

considerable

losses

and were unable

guard, which suffered to retaliate. Xenophon thought of

rear

device

which proved generals

his fellow

to be whoUy useless. He was blamed by some and accepted the blame in good grace. By

analyzing what had happened more closely and by drawing on his knowledge of things military, which he surely had not acquired during the present campaign, he found a solution which promised to redress the superiority in shngers and cavalry. Again his proposals
Persians'

were adopted.

In his
their

speech

to the soldiers Xenophon had explained to them that

cut off

fear
are

of

being

from

the

way to Greece

by

the

big

and

deep

rivers, the Tigris and

Euphrates,
sources

was unfounded: aU

rivers,

even

though

they

impassable

at a

one approaches

their

distance from their sources, become passable if (III 2.22). He had faUed to mention there

that this solution brings up a new predicament: the predicament caused by mountain ranges, by the ascent. After having defeated the Persians,

the

Greeks

reached

the Tigris

River
a

at

the

originaUy
when

Median,

which could not

be taken
city.

by

deserted city the Persians

the

of

Larisa,
and

at the time

they

conquered

Media,

until

cloud concealed

sun

the

inhabitants thereupon fled from the

The Greeks

came next

to

another

originaUy Median city, which the Persians also could not take until Zeus horrified the inhabitants with thunder. (Shortly before making this remark Zeus' Xenophon uses the expression legetai: are we to think that having
caused

the thunder is what v/as said as distinguished from what was

continued after

known?) The Greeks

arrangements.

their march while the Persians pursued the Greeks had improved their tactical
proportion

them cautiously, especiaUy

Their

situation

improved in

as

the

country

through which

they had

marched

became

more

MUy, but

whenever

they

had to descend from the hills to the plain, they suffered considerable losses. On one occasion there arose a difference of opinion between
Cheirisophos
and

Xenophon

which was soon

amicably

settled.

The

settle
on

ment required a

strenuous uphiU

march, to which

Xenophon, riding

horseback,
promise.

encouraged the soldiers

one of

in

question

by

a somewhat exaggerated

When

the

soldiers complained

that the ascent was easy

128 for Xenophon

Interpretation

who was on horseback, while he was marching on foot his shield, Xenophon leaped down from his horse, pushed the carrying from him and complaining soldier out of his place, took away the shield marched on with it as fast as he could, although he had on his cavalry

breastplate in
soldiers

addition with

to the infantryman's
and

shield.

But the
and and

rest of

the

their striking complaining soldier, forced him to take back his shield (III 4). Xenophon was not a Proxenos.
sided

Xenophon,

by

abusing the
to
march on

opinion between Cheirisophos and Xenophon began to burn down the viUages near the Tigris arose when the Persians which were weU supplied with victuals. Xenophon seemed to be weU

Another difference

of

pleased with

the

spectacle:

as

long
now

as

there

was

treaty between
abstain

the

Greeks

and

the

Persians,

the Greeks

were obhged

to

from

harm to the king's country but

the Persians themselves

admit

doing by

their actions that the country is no longer the king's: therefore we ought Persians' incendiaries. Cheirisophos, however, thought that to stop the the Greeks too should set about
would

this way the Persians may have remembered his thought that if the worst came to the worst, the Greeks could settle down in the midst of the king's possessions, did not reply. However this may be,

burning, for in

stop the

sooner.

Xenophon,

who

the

officers were

prisoners the generals

greatly disheartened. Yet after the interrogation of the decided to march north through the mountainous
a

land

of

the Karduchians

difficult land inhabited

by

a warlike people
Greeks'

but

not subject

to the Persian king. This decision proved to be the

was

salvation.
as we

WhUe it

taken

by

"the

generals,"

its

seed

had been planted,

state

have seen, by Xenophon's speech to the soldiers (III 5). Books Two to Five and Seven begin with summaries which
what

very

briefly

had been
or

these summaries

before (but cf. introductions is the name

narrated

also of

VI 3.1). In

none of

Xenophon

mentioned.

He may have
self-praise

wished

to counteract the not

involuntary
most

but inevitable
speeches.

conveyed

through the narration of his deeds and

The introduction to Book Four is

by

far the

extensive,
and

about as

long

as

the introductions to Books

Two, Three, Five

Seven taken

together. Book Four is the central book.

with an central

By failing
about

to supply Book Six

introduction, Xenophon brings it

also

that Book Four is the

Book

among

the

Books

supplied with

introductions. Is
content? of the

the

doubly

central position of

Book Four justified

by
a

its

The Karduchians This does

were no

friends, let
gave

alone

allies,

Persian king.
reception.

not mean that

they

the Greeks

friendly

On

the contrary, when the Greeks entered their

mountains,

taking
on

their women and

land, they fled into the high children with them, and inflicted as
In fact,

many losses

the Greeks as

they

could.

during
king

the seven days

during
fight

which

they

marched through the

Karduchians'

land, they had

and

to

aU

the time and suffered more evils than the

Tissaphernes

altogether

had inflicted

on

them

whUe

they

marched

through

Persia

(IV 3.2). The difficulties

were

considerably increased

by

the snow which

Xenophon's Anabasis

129

to faU. Cheirisophos was now in sole command of the van and Xenophon of the rear. Communication between the van and the rear became very difficult especiaUy since the rear was very hard-pressed by the enemy and the forward march of the rear began to resemble a flight. When Xenophon complained to Cheirisophos about his not having waited for the rear, the Spartan had a good excuse but could not suggest
a

began

solution; the

solution

was

suggested
one of

by Xenophon,
them slaughtered

whose
within

men

had
sight

taken two prisoners.

of

By having

the

the other, he induced the latter to

obstacles caused

march

help the Greeks to overcome the Greeks' his countrymen and to act as the guide. The through the land of the Karduchians reveals again the bravery by fighting
with

and resourcefulness of

the

savage

the Greeks and especiaUy of Xenophon. Despite the barbarians, under a treaty Xenophon
and

succeeded

in recovering from them the Greek dead

burying

those

dead in

a most

becoming

manner.

From the difficult

and

dangerous

mountains of the

Karduchians they

descended to Armenia, which is lying in the plain and whose climate seemed to offer in every respect a rehef from the hardship suffered from
the

former country

and

its inhabitants. Yet

their

entry into Armenia

resisted

was
an

blocked

by

a river

the Karduchians reappeared in force in the rear Greeks' likewise tried to prevent the crossing the river. Thus the Greeks were again in great difficulties. In that situation Xenophon had a dream just as in the night after Kunaxa but the present dream was much less frightening, and when dawn came he
of

army consisting of Armenians. In addition,

the Greeks and

difficult to cross, and the crossing was Persians and of Persian mercenaries,

by

some

of them

reported

it to Cheirisophos together
origin.

with

its favorable interpretation

confirmed

of

Xenophontic
offered

The

good

omen

was

by

the

sacrifices

in the

presence of aU generals which were aU always related

favorable from
approached

the

very beginning. Xenophon, who could the soldiers if they had to tell anything

be easUy

by

to the war, was now told

by
the

showed

two young men that they had by accident discovered a ford. Xenophon his gratitude to the gods for the dreams and the other helps in
proper manner and

informed Cheirisophos

at once of

the two young

put

men's

discovery

a wreath upon

ford. Before crossing his head and the soothsayers

of the sacrifices succeeded

the

river, Cheirisophos

were

offering

sacrifices to

the river; these

not

too were favorable. In these circumstances it is

surprising that the Greeks "Theopompos

of

in their

enterprise.

Contrary

to

Athens,"

what

who resembled a

philosopher, had said,

of

weapons and virtue were not

the only good things within the power

you

the Greeks (II

a

1.12-13);

or, if

wish, the

kind

of

necessity the

Greeks'

keeping

favor foUowed with their oaths. Yet if one wishes,

gods'

may also say that one of the virtues by which Xenophon distin guished himself was his piety, provided one adds that his piety is hard to distinguish from that combination of toughness, wittiness and wiliness
one which separated

him from Proxenos

and

which revealed

itself already

1 30

Interpretation

to some extent in the query addressed by him to the god in Delphi. It surely differs toto coelo from the piety of a Nikias.

After their entry into Armenia the Greeks

marched
of

through

western

Armenia,

which was ruled

by Tiribazos,
a

"friend"

the

king

of

Persia.

Tiribazos tried to
experiences with

conclude

treaty
and

with

the Greeks. Despite their two

Tissaphernes

the

king,

the Greek

generals accepted
another

the offer. But this time

they

were cautious enough

to prevent

Persian
snowfaU.

treachery.

The Greeks
example also

were
showed

helped

and

hindered
some

by heavy
Viola
soldiers

Xenophon's
the

them again a way

out.

tions
who

of

treaty had

been

committed

by

Greek

had wantonly burned down the houses in which they had been quartered; they were punished for their transgressions by having to hve in poor quarters. Their further march through Armenia was again hampered by deep snow, and the north wind blowing fuU in their faces
clear and

freezing

the

men.

Then

one

of

the

soothsayers

told

them quite

to offer sacrifices to the wind; when this was

done,

it

seemed

to

aU

that the violence of the to

all"

storm

abated

(IV 5.4):
said."

quite clear

is

more

trustworthy
know
what

than "what is

"seeming Owing to
ravenous

the

snow

many

of

the

human beings began to

not

suffer

from

hunger; Xenophon did

learned it from an the desired result. WhUe the
and great march
on

the trouble

was

but

when

he

experienced

man, he did the necessary things

with

through the land of the hostUe Karduchians inflicted the

many hardships
extent

Greeks,

the march through Armenia was gay

the reception to

by

the natives was very kindly. This was due to a

village
chief

an

Armenian

(komarchos)

with

whom

Xenophon
shortest

in establishing a most cordial relation within the time. Provisions and especiaUy an exceUent wine were ample.
succeeded came the next

When Xenophon
pitable.

day

in the company

of

the

viUage

chief

to look after the soldiers, he found them

feasting,

cheerful and most

hos

With the

help
of

of the vUlage chief

Xenophon

and

Cheirisophos

found

out

that the horses bred there were meant as a tribute to the king. the colts for himself and gave his
own rather old

Xenophon took one horse to the viUage

manders.

chief

for

fattening

up

and

sacrifice, for he heard

that it was sacred to Hehos. He also gave colts to the other high com

(The

number

of

horses bred for the

king

in Armenia

was

seventeen

before, by Xenophon

; the daughter of the viUage chief had been married nine days and nine is the center of seventeen. [IV 5.24] Gods are mentioned

as orator in his first three speeches by which he established his ascendancy seventeen times: III 1.15-2.39). Perhaps we are now in a position to answer the question as to why Book Four or at least the account of the march through the land of

the Karduchians and through Armenia is located in the center of the Anabasis. We might add here that Book Four is the only Book of the Ana Zeus," basis in which no formal oaths (like "by and so on) "by the is the toughest and occur. The march through the country
gods,"

Karduchians'

Xenophon's Anabasis
the march through Armenia is characterized

131
of

by descriptions

gaiety

the Karduchians and the Armenians are in a way the two poles. When we turn from the Anabasis to the Education of Cyrus (III 1.14 and 38-39),
we find in the latter work and only there a kind of explanation of the distinction accorded to Armenia in the Anabasis. The son of the king of Armenia had a friend, a "sophist," who suffered the fate of Socrates

because the
"sophist"

king

of

more

than his

Armenia was own father Armenia

envious

of

his

son's

admiring that
"sophist"

and therefore accused that

seems

of

"corrupting"

his

son.

to be the barbarian

analogon

to Athens. It is then not quite true that the Persian-Greek

antagonism

is

of no or of

only From here we

subordinate

importance in the Anabasis. better than before the difference

understand somewhat and

Socrates. The Armenian analogon to Socrates is perfectly free from any desire for revenge with his pupU's father. More generally stated, he does not believe that virtue consists in surpassing one's friends in benefiting them, and in surpassing one's enemies in harm ing them; he tacitly rejects the notion of virtue which Socrates tries to instill into the mind of Kritoboulos (Mem. II 6.35; II 3.14), the gentle
man's

between Xenophon

virtue,

and which

Cyrus is

said

to have possessed to

an

extremely

high degree (Anabasis I 9.11,24,28;

character of

cf.

ibid., V 5.20). The

only

questionable

this

notion of virtue

is

pointed out not

by

the Platonic
Socrates'

Socrates (Rep.
virtues

335dll-12) but also by Xenophon's two hsts of in which courage (manliness) does not occur and in which
with never

justice

is identified
and

harming
or

anyone

in the his

slightest

(Mem. TV 8.11

Apol. Soc. 15-18).

ascent

The

of

Xenophon
serious
rift

rather

itself in the
given

sole

between him

to Cheirisophos the vUlage chief as

quite
act

ascendancy showed Cheirisophos. He had guide. Since the Armenian

and

native

did him

not

according to

Cheirisophos'

wishes, the Spartan beat

ran

without

binding him;
Klearchos

thereupon the Armenian

viUage

Proxenos

would never as

have beaten the

would

him, just
of

have done,

away (IV 6.3). Cheirisophos beat chief; but faUed to bind him; Xeno
precaution

phon would

binding
When

have beaten him if necessary but have taken the him; Xenophon keeps to the right mean.
time their way was again blocked

after some

by

hostUe natives,
the
barbarians'

Cheirisophos
sals
were

called together a councU of generals.

Two
on

opposed propo

made.

Kleanor favored Xenophon

with also

straight

attack
eager

strong
the

position.

was

no

less
of

to

overcome

the

obstacle goal

but to do it
in
a

the

minimum

loss

lives; he
a

proposes

to

achieve

the easiest way:

the enemy position should be taken not

by
He

means
appeals

of

frontal

attack

but

by

means

of

feint,

of

"stealing."

to the exceUent

training

of the

Spartan ruling
good

class

in

stealing.

After he has thus

gained

Cheirisophos'

will, the Spartan replies

equally good-naturedly that the Athenians are outstanding in stealing public money, as is shown by the fact that they prefer to have the best thieves for their rulers. Xenophon's proposal is naturally adopted with

132
a minor modification success. place

Interpretation
suggested

by

Cheirisophos

and

leads to

an entire

incident shortly thereafter it was again in the first Xenophon's shrewd calculation, as distinguished from In
a similar
Cheirisophos'

simple march

aggressiveness,
that

which overcame

the obstacle to the

Greeks'

onward some sea.

was caused

by

other

barbarian tribes (IV 7.1-14). After

further

strenuous efforts who was

the Greeks came

command of

finaUy

within sight of

the

Xenophon,
Greek
was

in

the rear,

was so

to

speak

the last

who was vouchsafed this not minimize

deeply

moving

and
of

beautiful

sight.

But it

this did

in the least the had

to

greatness

his

achievement:

his

prudent counsel which

barbarians'

saved

the Greeks from the

king's
of

and

the

other

attempts

destroy them.
this, it
would

If there
grand,
arrived at

could

be any doubt

about

be disposed

by

the

solemn and

gay

celebration which

the Greeks

staged after

having

land

of

where

Trapezus, located at the Black Sea in the [the] Kolchians. They stayed for about thirty days in Kolchis they found ample provisions partly by plundering and partly by
the Greek city of

buying
which

they had

from the Trapezuntianes. Thereafter they prepared the sacrifices vowed. They sacrificed to Zeus the Savior and to Hera
as
weU

cles

the Leader

as

to the
to

other

gods

to

whom

they had
of

made

vows.

Here Xenophon

seems

disclose the

identity

the gods to

whom

the god in Delphi had advised him to sacrifice prior to his depar

ture and which he had disclosed previously only to Socrates (III 1.6-8).

Next the
the

question arose of

how the army

should continue

its

progress

toward Greece proper. There was universal agreement that the rest of

journey
sent to

should

be

made

by

sea.

Cheirisophos
of

promised

that if he
would

were

the

admiral

in

command

the Spartan navy, he

bring back the by the army.

a warning.

ships required

for the

purpose. was

This

proposal was approved

Xenophon alone,
untU

who

the least
would

sanguine,
and

uttered

He told the

soldiers what

they

have to do
in

and

how

they
that

would

have to behave

Cheirisophos'

return,
Cheirisophos'

particular

they

could not

be

certain

that

mission would succeed.

But

when

he drew their

attention

to the fact that

they

might

have to

continue their sea ought

way by land and hence that the cities situated along the to be directed to repair the road, the soldiers protested loudly:

under no circumstances would

they

continue

to march

by

land. Xenophon
vote

wisely

refrained

therefore from putting

regarded as

achieved what

he

his indispensable

proposal

to the

but

by

persuading the

cities to

take care of the roads; in addition, of the

Xenophon's After
get

injunctions,

some were

detachments which disregarded destroyed by enemy action.

Cheirisophos'

mander of the whole

departure Xenophon was in fact the chief com Greek army. The Trapezuntianes did not wish to
the Kolchians for the sake
of

into trouble

with

approvisioning the

Greek army
warlike of

and

therefore led that army against the

of the

Drilai,

the most
of

the peoples
Greeks'

Pontos

who

inhabited territory difficult

troops could not take the enemy strong hold and it was quite impossible for them to retreat. In this situation
access.
armed

The

hght

Xenophon's Anabasis

133
the view
of

Xenophon,
that
reliance on

asked

for

decision,

agreed with

the captains
put

an assault on the stronghold

be

made

by

the

hoplites, for he

his

the favorable
counsels of

sacrifices

as

interpreted

by
by

the

soothsayers

(V 2.9). The

human

prudence and the

hints

of the god proved

to be in fuU agreement: the stronghold was taken this was not yet the end of the

the hoplites. But

battle;

an

first

observed

by Xenophon,
there

came to sight

enemy reserve, apparently upon certain strong heights.

view of

That is to
manders,

say:

was agreement

between the

the

other com

and not of

The

situation was quite

Xenophon in particular, and that of the soothsayers. as desperate as it was before Xenophon's intervention.

Then

saving house
all
"

unexpectedly and suddenly some god gave the Greeks a device: somebody only god knows how and why set a on fire and this led to a panic on the part of the enemy; when
grasped

Xenophon

the lesson supphed

"

by
"

chance, he

gave

orders

that

houses, i.e.,
"

the whole city, be burned down. What was first caUed

: deus sive casus. It is surely different from human prudence or, from the point of view something of the good pursuit of human prudence, something higher than human some

god,

is

now

called

chance

prudence which

brought

about the

Greek victory (Mem. I 1.8). It

on

was

Xenophon's
with

rehance on the

superhuman,

the

daimonion,
which

which

dis
itself

tinguished him from the

particular

other

commanders

and

showed

clarity
with

after

he had become in fact the

commander-in-

chief. went

wondering how Xenophon's extraordinary piety his extraordinary wUiness. As a human being he was surely less powerful than any god. But may he not have been wUier than any god? May not a slave be wilier than his master, however
cannot

One

help

together

Yet, the gods, in contradistinction to human beings, know every (Mem. I 1.19, but compare Symposium AA1); therefore, they wiU thing see through every human ruse. But is precisely the attribution of omni
wHy? science to the gods not part of a
great

difficulty
is the

which

here

remains

human ruse, of human flattering? The in Xenophon or his Socrates is

connected with

the fact that according to him (or to

them),

the pious

man

man who

knows the laws,

or

what

is

estabhshed

by laws,
"

regarding the gods, and that he never raises the question, " law ? (Mem. IV 6.4 and I 2.41-46). This difficulty cannot be
within the context of an
simpler raise and

what

is

resolved

interpretation

of

the Anabasis. It would

be both

less

simple

to say that Xenophon or his Socrates never

god?"

the stiU more fundamental question, "what is

were

The Greeks
the

least strong, led Those who marched

on the sea where and counted them:
survived.

finaUy by the

compelled

to leave Trapezus

two

oldest

generals,

were sent off

arrived on stayed

the third

day

in

by land. Only by boat. Kerasus, a Greek city

the

they

for ten

days,

made a review of

hoplites have
of

8,600 hoplites

out of about

10,000

proved to

Thereafter

they distributed
generals

the money received from the sale

of

the booty. A tithe had been assigned to ApoUon and to

each of

Artemis

Ephesus;

the

took his part to them in the place indi-

134
cated

Interpretation

by

the

god.

Xenophon

specifies

how he
some

applied

the

portion

entrusted

to him in honor of ApoUon. As for the portion to be given

of

by

him in honor
was

Artemis, he
exUed on

ran

into
the

difficulty
of

because in the presumably

a plot

meantime

he had been

by

city

Athens

because he land
of

fighting

the side of the Spartans against his father

but the Spartans

settled

him in SkiUus

where

he bought
choice.

land for Artemis according to Apollon's was rich in beasts of chase; the hunting, to hood
was

oracular

The land

which the whole neighbor

invited,

took place in honor of the huntress-goddess. Xenophon

goddess

had the temple to the

buUt

as a replica of the
a

Artemis-temple

in Ephesus. It

shocking solecism if he had abandoned his piety or receded from its demands after his blessed return. His account of his hfe in SkiUus is a fitting conclusion to his account
would of

indeed have been

the

supreme

command

which

he

exercised

after

Cheirisophos'

departure.

From Kerasus the Greeks

of

proceeded

by

sea or

by land
whom

to the

mountains

the Mossynoikians. to
prevent

The Mossynoikians to
them
alliance with

they

came

first
were

attempted

from passing through their territory, but

those

Xenophon
enemies
a of

arranged

an

Mossynoikians

who

the

former. The
not

attack
of

disgraceful defeat
who

only

the enemy stronghold led to the allied barbarians but also of those
upon
sake

Greeks

had

of

their own free wUl accompanied them for the

next

of plunder.

On the

day however,
naturaUy
on

the whole Greek army, properly

attacked and was

prepared

by

sacrifices which were were

favorable,

entirely

successful.

The Greeks

weU received

by

the

allied

Mossy
from

noikians.

Those

people were regarded

by

the soldiers as the most barba

most remote

rous men whom

they had
and

met

their march, the

alone

the Greek

laws, for they did

when
of

in

pubhc what others would

they
were

are

alone,

they

were

in the company

others

talking

themselves,

dancing

wherever

an exhibition

to others (V

that the Karduchians and

they chanced 4.33-34). We were previously led to beheve the Armenians were the two poles whom the
We
see now that the

they would themselves, laughing by to be, as if they were giving

to

do only when act as if they

Greeks
nians.

came

to know

on

their march.

Mossynoikoi
Arme

are more alien

to the Greeks than

not

either the

Karduchians
under

or the

This does
a

kians hved in
aU other

mean, "state of
men

as goes without

saying, that the Mossynoi

nature

"; they hved

laws

as

weU

as

tribes. AU

live

under

laws;

to this extent, law is natural

nevertheless necessary law (cf. Oec. 7.29-30 and
on the

to

man or

law belongs to

man's nature.

Yet it is
and

to make

distinction between
and to preserve

nature

Hiero if

3.9)

it. Some hght falls

we observe

the simUarity of some traits of the most extreme

seeming paradox barbarians

cf.

with

some

traits of Socrates (cf. Symposium

2.18-19;

Plato, Sym
the generals
since

posium,

175a7-b3,

c3-d2,

217b7-c7, 220c3-d5).
to the land
of

When the Greeks

were

came

the

Tibarenians,
abstained

tempted to

attack their

fortresses but they

from this

Xenophon's Anabasis
the
sacrifices were not

135
that the gods
through the
a

favorable
war.

and all soothsayers agreed marched a

in

no

way

permitted

that

So they
to

Tibarenians'

land

until

they

came

Kotyora,

peacefuUy Greek city,

colony

of

the Sinopeans. There they stayed 45 days, in the first place sacrificing to the gods and each Greek tribe instituting processions and gymnastic
contests.
one sold an

As for provisions, they had to take them

the army.

by force,

since

no

them any. Thereupon the Sinopeans became frightened and

sent

embassy to

The

spokesman a clever

mos,

who was thought

to be

for the embassy was Hekatonyspeaker. He revealed bis power of

oratory by addressing to the Greek soldiers a few friendly words which were foUowed by a much more extensive and insulting threat to the effect
that the Sinopeans might aUy themselves with the Paphlagonians and anybody else against Xenophon's army. Xenophon disposed of the threat

by

not

those of
whose

only contrasting the the Trapezuntians

customs and actions of and even

some of

the Sinopeans

with

the barbarians through

land they had passed, but

by

a much more effective counter-threat:

the alliance with the Paphlagonians is at least as possible for Xenophon's

army as for the Sinopeans. As a consequence of Xenophon's oratory Hekatonymos lost his standing among his feUow ambassadors and there was perfect harmony between the Sinopeans and the army. Xenophon

had perfectly succeeded in defending the army against the charge of injustice; he had given a signal proof of his justice by presenting his possible recourse to war against Greeks in aUiance with barbarians as an
act of sheer self-defense.

Yet the

harmony
from

was not as perfect as an

it

seemed at of

first. On

the next

day

the generals caUed together

assembly

the

soldiers

and of the

ambassadors

Sinope,
its
of

in

order

to decide the

question of whether

the

army He

should continue

journey by

land

or

by

sea; in either case

they

would need asserted

the

help

the Sinopeans. Hekatonymos again made a

speech.

that to march through

out was

Paphlagonia

was

altogether

impos

by sailing to Herakleia. Although the speaker some of them suspected him of was by no means trusted by aU soldiers being a secret friend of the king of the Paphlagonians the soldiers voted to continue the journey by sea. Xenophon added this warning: the resolution is acceptable only if literaUy all soldiers wiU be embarked and
sible; the only way

accordingly if the necessary number of boats be provided. So new negotia tions between the army and the Sinopeans became necessary. In this situation it occurred to Xenophon that, considering the magnitude of
resplendent

force in this out of the way region, it would be a if the soldiers were to increase the territory and power thing of Greece by founding a city. It would become a large city, considering the size of the army and the number of the people already settled in the
the
Greeks'

armed

region.
Cyrus'

Before

talking
But fiUed

to anyone,

Xenophon

sacrificed

and

consulted

soothsayer.

that soothsayer was eager to return

with

home
given

for he him for

plan

had his

pockets

the money

which

Cyrus had

his true prophecy

and

therefore betrayed to the army Xenophon's

136
which

Interpretation

he traced solely to the latter's desire to

we
seem

preserve

for himself

name and power.

Here

to have reached,
place"

Xenophon's

ascent.

"in

some

barbaric

and already surpassed, the peak of Granted that the foundation of a great Greek city (Plato, Republic 499c9) would have redounded was that name and power not amply have been beneficial, not only to him hence to the human race? Had he not jusdy and and

to Xenophon's

name

power,

deserved? Would his but to Greece piously

expect and performed

action not

anything,
who

and

more

than

anything,

that

one

could

had joined the expedition of Cyrus as a Xenophon was fit to nobody and apparentiy for rather frivolous reasons? commander of the army the highest degree not only to be the supreme but to become the founder of a city, worthy of the greatest honor during
from
someone

his hfe

and

of a city.

especiaUy But then, in

snatched

honor is

greedy Xenophon's But

soothsayer.

his death: the honors awarded to the founder last moment, that highest and so weU-deserved away from him not by any divine Ul-wiU but by a It goes without saying that the gods did not come to
after the

assistance

in that

matter.

perhaps we
soldiers

have

not paid sufficient attention to of

the true difficulty. to found a

When the
of

heard

Xenophon's

stiU undivulged plan of

city far away from

the soldiers a

Greece,

the

majority disapproved

it. In

an

assembly

number of men attacked

the plan. Xenophon however

listened in
mander of

sUence.

the

rear

Timasion, who officially was Xenophon's feUow com (III 2.37-38), declared that one must not esteem

anything more highly than Greece and hence not think of staying in the Pontos (V 6.22). Tacitly, perhaps unknowingly, Timasion was opposing invitation addressed te Xenophon to join expedition, for
Proxenos' Cyrus'

the

invitation
as

was

based

on the premise that

it is

perhaps right

to

regard

Cyrus

better for

oneself

than one's fatherland (III 11.4). Xenophon

charge: was

faUs to reply to that grave, if imphcit, can esteem a barbarian prince or king
not an act of profound

the thought that one than one's fatherland

root of

more

highly
the

injustice,

perhaps

even

Xenophon's

injustice?

But,

to

repeat,

Xenophon

remained

sUent.

Only

when

he

was

reproached

for trying to persuade the soldiers privately and for sacrificing privately, instead of bringing the matter before the assembly, was he compeUed to stand up and to speak. He begins by stating that, as they knew through their own seeing, he sacrifices as much as he can both regarding the
soldiers and

thinking
soldiers

and
and

doing

what

wiU

himself in order to achieve by speaking, be most noble and best both for the
words,
and

himself. In
present

other

the

soothsayer's

distinction
a

or

opposition

between Xenophon's

soldiers'

the

interest is

vicious

imputation. In the

case, Xenophon continues, he

or not

sacrificed

solely

in

order

to find out whether it would be better to speak to the soldiers

and

to do the required things

means

to touch the matter at all (V

not consult the sacrifices

6.28).

This

in

plain

English

that

he did

regarding

Xenophon's Anabasis
the advisability
resembles
of

137
of a city.

bis thinking

about

the

founding

The

case

his

conduct toward

Proxenos'

invitation to join
counsel,
expedition
order

Cyrus'

expedi

tion

when

Xenophon, deviating from

he
should

Socrates'

asked the god

in in

Delphi
the

not whether

join that

but

what

he

should

do in the way

of sacrifices and prayers

in

to make the

journey

most noble manner cases:

(III 1.7). Yet there is this important difference

between the two

himself
made
of a

in the

case of

Proxenos'

invitation,

Xenophon
the

the decision to join

Cyrus'

expedition; in
soothsayer

the case of

founding
wrong

city, he found
about

out

from the

the most important

thing, namely,
with

that the sacrifices were favorable: so that there the

are of a city.

thinking
and

thing; speaking
prevented

doing

was nothing But thinking is one founding entirely different things. Xenophon was

from consulting

the

sacrifices
or

regarding speaking

and

doing,

not

by

unfavorable

sacrifices

soothsayer.

This happened in the

about

by his own decision, but by the very following manner. The soothsayer had
of

told Xenophon the truth

the sacrifices since he knew of Xenophon's

thorough knowledge in this field

his

own

the warning

that,

as

the sacrifice revealed,

human endeavor; but he added of some fraud and plot

against

Xenophon

was

being

sacrifices soldiers

that he himself

was

not indeed from the prepared; for he knew to slander Xenophon before the plotting
a

by

asserting

that

Xenophon intended to found Xenophon has thus

city

without

having
tion
of

persuaded the

army.

succeeded

perfectiy in

refuting the
anyone who

soothsayer's charge.

the majority,

he himself

But now, he goes on, given the opposi abandons his plan and proposes that
the end of the

leaves

the

army before

journey

be

regarded

as

having

adopted.

was

unanimously This decision naturaUy displeased the soothsayer greatly, for he eager to go home with his money at once. His lone protest did not
slightest
effect on

committed a punishable offense.

His

proposal was

have the
some

the generals. The

of

case

was

different
conspired

with with

more

powerful

members
against

the

army

who

had

the Greeks of the Pontos

Xenophon. A

rumor was

launched that

Xenophon had
mutinous
spirit

not

given

abroad

so

up his plan to found a city. There was a that Xenophon found it advisable to caU

together an assembly of the

army.

very easy for him to show even to the meanest capacity the of believing that he could deceive the whole army about his stupidity aUeged plan to found a city in Asia while the large majority, if not aU It
was
except

himself,
of

were eager

to

return

to Greece. Regardless of whether the

one man or

imputation
stemmed

that

foUy

was

due to

to more than one, it

awarded

from envy,

a natural consequence of

the great honors

to him
never

which were
prevented

the natural

consequences of

his

great merits.

He had

anyone

fighting or fighting, being (V 6.28) ing,

speaking,
doing"

from acquiring the same or greater being awake (V 7.10). The tripartition
takes the place of

merits:

by

awake"

but

occupied

in the

earlier

fighting now discussion, because thinking

"speaking, the tripartition "speaking, think takes the place which thinking
was there central

for

138
the
reason

Interpretation
given
when

we

replaced

by "being

awake"

discussed that passage; since it is intended as

phrontizein).

"thinking"

is

now

"worrying,"

a special

kind

of

thinking (merimnai,
anyone

his authority to
This is the
greatest

who

shares

his deserts but to

Xenophon is wUling to cede a slight degree.

his defense. But he has an important point to add. danger that threatens the army does not come from a plan The to found a city or simUar things but from the lack of discipline in the told to Xenophon army which has already led to terrible crimes, partly and as a whole told by him for the first time to now for the first time the army; it wiU in the future inevitably lead to its destruction. Xenophon
end of

has turned from defense to attack,

The
soldiers

and

this turn is entirely

resolve

successful.

spontaneously
crimes wiU

move

and

that

henceforth those
and

responsible

for the

committed

wiU

be

punished wiU

that those
trial for

who

in the future

start wiU

Ulegal

proceedings

be

put on

their

lives;

the generals

be

responsible

for

the proceedings against aU

Cyrus'

crimes committed since

death
the

and the captains wiU

approval of

form the jury.

At Xenophon's
further
enacted

advice

and

with

the

soothsayers, it is
purification
was

that

the

army be

purified

and

the

performed.

This It

was not yet the end of

Xenophon's defense turned into

not

attack.

was resolved

Xenophon does One

the

say

at whose suggestion offenses

that the
might was

generals

themselves should be prosecuted for any

of generals

they

have

committed.

accused

of

misconduct

Xenophon

himself; he was accused by some of having beaten soldiers from hybris, i.e., without necessity. This means that at this time the
and

difference between him from hybris found

to
a as

Proxenos becomes the

theme.

It

was as

easy

for him to defend himself it

was

against

the charge of acting against the

against the charge that

soldiers would

to defend the
wUl

himself
of

he

colony
to

against

the army. In continuing he

asks

the

soldiers

remember not

only the harsh actions which he was

also

compeUed

perform

for their benefit but

the kind

ones.

His

speech ends with

this memorable sentence: "It is noble

pleasant

as weU as rather

just

and pious and more

to to

remember remember

the good things

than the
come

bad

ones."

It is

pleasant
although

bad things

after one

has

safely through them,

view

even as regards

the pleasures of memory the good things are there

preferable seems

to the bad ones. At any rate, from every point of

a

to be in the last analysis

harmony between
then that than
rather

the noble, the

just,
as

the pious and the pleasant. No

much as possible

wonder praise

Xenophon
in terms

speaks
of

in terms saying his

of

blame.

It

should

go without

that

his

audience

complied with

the advice

with which

he

concluded

speech.

Xenophon's trial leads then to a complete acquittal. Perhaps nothing shows more clearly the difference between him and Socrates than the fact Socrates' trial culminated in his capital punishment. But we must that not forget that Xenophon's plan to found a city faUed.

Xenophon's Anabasis

139 larger
number of

In Book Five there

pronounced

occurs

somewhat

oaths

by

Xenophon himself than in

of

aU

The dissatisfaction

the army which

preceding Books. led to Xenophon's accusation

(Hero dotus II 37.1) and nothing and no one forces us to be so we may admit that Xenophon has indeed succeeded perfectly in vindicating his piety; but did he vindicate his justice? Did he meet the imphcit charge that he esteemed something more highly than Greece? More than that:
was not altogether unfounded.

If

we are not

"excessively

pious"

is full devotion to Greece the justice? Must

one

sole

or

even

the highest ingredient

of

of

not, just

as

in the

case
of

indigenous breadth
of
an

or

homebred,

the chUdren

the
ad

horses, fatherland, but

observes:

prefer

not the

the

best

human beings (Cyropaedia II 2.26. Dakyns

of view: virtue
world.

loc.

"Xenophon's

the whole

is not confined to citizens, but we have the pick Cosmopolitan HeUenism.")? Xenophon has described

army, nay, a
standard point

highest

from the

political society, which is constructed according to this in his Education of Cyrus. What then is the difference of view of justice between the hero of The Education of

Cyrus,
he both

the older

Cyrus,

and

Xenophon? The
of

older

Cyrus

achieved what was on no

achieved sides

partly

by

virtue

his descent,
of

his inheritance: he
point of view and of

the heir of a

long

hne

hereditary kings;
to rule

Xenophon had

such advantages. edge of

Granted that from the highest

rule gives a man a right

how to

inheritance (cf. Mem. Ill

some

9.10), does
viable?

not

knowledge
admixture

only knowl not, for instance, how to rule need

order

iron aUoy,

some

crude and rough

in

to become

legitimate, i.e., politically

"prescription"

Is,

to use a favorite term of

Burke,

not an

indispensable ingredient
a
"justice"

of non-tyrannical govern

ment,
mean

of

legitimacy? In
virtue

word,
which

is

the

of

the man

consists

benefiting
may
also

them and
mean

his
in

enemies

in

harming

an ambiguous term; it may in surpassing his friends in them (Mem. TL 6.35); but it

whose justice consists in not httle thing (ibid. TV 8.11). While Xenophon harming undoubtedly possessed the justice of a man, he can hardly be said to have possessed the justice of Socrates. This does not mean that his place is near to that of the older Cyrus. One fact setfles this question to our full

the virtue of a Socrates

a

anyone even

satisfaction: the enjoyment which

Cyrus derived

after

his first batde from

even

looking

at

the faces

of the slain enemies was

too much

for his

own

grandfather, the tyrannical

king

of

Media,

to bear (Cyrop. I

4.24); cruelty

is indeed an indispensable ingredient of the military commander as such (Mem. Ill 1.6), but there is a great variety of degrees of cruelty. Xenophon stands somewhere in between the older Cyrus and Socrates. By this position he presents to us not a lack of decisiveness but the problem of justice: justice requires both the virtue of a man (and there
with

the
of

possible emancipation of

cruelty)

and

the

virtue of

Socrates;

the

virtue

the man points to

of

Socratic

virtue

and

Socratic

virtue requires

as

in their

its foundation the virtue plenitude in one

the man; both kinds of

virtue cannot coexist

and

the same human being.

Xenophon may

140 have
regarded

Interpretation

himself

as

the closest approximation best known to himself

to their coexistence in one and the same human being.

(Cf.

Strauss,
Plato)

Xenophon's
presents

Socrates, 144.) Surely,

Xenophon's

Xenophon (does
the

not

equal

himself in his difference from Socrates.

after

Shortly
discipline

acquittal

and

restoration with

of

military

as weU as

the conclusion of a peace

treaty

the Paphlago

nians, from whom the Greeks

provisions

had for
not

time partly procured their

through robbery, Cheirisophos returned from his mission to

the Spartan admiral

promised or

Anaxibios. He did

bring

the

boats

which

he had
of

hoped to
that

bring

but he brought
would

words of praise and a promise succeed

from Anaxibios

if the army
to

in getting

out

the

Pontos,
might

he
a

would

employ them as mercenaries. This increased the

return

soldiers'

hope for

take

speedy home.

Greece
army,

and

hence for

possessions which

they

They

thought that if

they
would

were

to choose a single their

goal

commander

for the

whole

they

achieve

best
and mind

because

of

the obvious advantages of monarchic rule (greater secrecy

dispatch

and the

like)

for

purposes of

this kind. With this thought in

they

turned to Xenophon. The captains told him that the army wanted
sole

him to be
position. absolute

commander
not

and

tried to persuade him to accept this to the prospect

of

He

was

entirely

adverse

being

sole,

ruler, not responsible to any one; he considered that this position

name when

would

perhaps

increase his honor among his friends and his he might do some good to the army. But

in Athens he

and

considered

how immanifest to every human being the future is, he saw that the him brought with it also the danger of his losing even the reputation which he had gained heretofore. Unable to make up
exalted position offered

his mind, he did what any sensible man confronted with such a dilemma would do; he communicated his difficulty to the god. He sacrificed two
victims

to Zeus the King. That god

distinctly

indicated to him that he

should not strive

The

oracle

directly,
to found

were elected to it. less clearly unfavorable. But instead of saying this straightaway, Xenophon gives a brief survey of his earlier experi

for the

position nor accept

it if he

was

ences with
a

the omina related to his fate: his experience with his

attempt

city and perhaps with his accusation throw a new light on the old omina. As for his consulting Zeus the King, this was the god who had been named to him by the Delphic oracle. Furthermore, he was the same
god

who, Xenophon
care of

believed, had

shown

him the dream

when

he

set out
of

to take the

generals;

the army together with others, i.e., after the murder the dream was ambiguous (III 1.12) but
as rather a good omen. of

originally

Xenophon had taken it

now

Finally, he

remembered

that

at

the very

beginning

his setting

out

from Ephesus to join

Cyrus, a sitting eagle screamed upon his right; as a soothsayer explained to him, this omen was a great one, by no means befitting a nobody,

indicating
apt

great

fame but

at

the

same nor

time great

toU, for birds

are most

to

attack

the

sitting eagle;

did that

omen

prognosticate

the

Xenophon's Anabasis
acquisition of great

141

wealth, for the

flying

eagle

is

more

likely

than the

sitting For
the

one

to take

what

it

wants.

a moment one of a

founder

command of

is tempted to beheve that not the plan to become Greek city in the Pontos but the election to supreme the whole army, to "the (VI 1.31), would have
monarchy"

been the peak of Xenophon's ascent (cf. Cyropaedia VIII 2.28; Aristotie, "monarchy" "foundation" Eth. Nic. 1115a32). But can equal in grandeur, in sacredness?
In be
an

assembly

of the soldiers aU speakers said that one man should

elected commander of

approved

Xenophon

was proposed

the whole army and after this proposal was for that position. In order to prevent

his election, which seemed to be imminent, he had to state the case against his election as clearly and as forcibly as he could. That case had been made in the required manner by the gods, but in his speech to the army he is to begin with silent on this theme; to begin with, he keeps his pious
thought private, for himself. In
with

his

pubhc

speech, he

speaks

to begin

pubhcly, politically,
not

as a political man.

The

reason seems election

to be this.
give

He does

merely

wish

to prevent his

own

but to

the

army some he had no just

as

guidance as
oracular

to whom

they

should elect.

As for that

guidance

indication. He had to

make

the decision himself

he had

made

the decision in Delphi as to whether or not he

should accept

Proxenos'

invitation. Xenophon disapproves

of

the thought

that the army would elect him as supreme commander when a Spartan was present and avaUable; in the circumstances the election of Xenophon
would

be inexpedient both for the army

and

for Xenophon himself. As

the Spartans have shown

permit

by

their conduct in the late war,

they

wiU never assures

leadership

to go to

a non-Spartan

(cf. Ill 2.37). Xenophon

the army that he wiU not be so foolish as to cause dissension if he is not elected: to rebel against the rulers whue a war is going on means to rebel
own salvation. The seemingly casual observation of one's Xenophon regarding the Spartan preponderance and her concern with it must never be neglected; it helps to explain the partly true and partly alleged pro-Spartan bias of bis writings. The immediate reaction to Xenophon's observation was indeed anti-Spartan; whether and to what

against

extent

that immediate

reaction was

intended

by

Xenophon

perhaps as a

warning to the irascible Spartan in

the
case of

candidate against misuse of

his

power

his

election

it is impossible to helpful
of

say.

The
as

reference

to the

Peloponnesian War is
questionable

also

and even more

helpful for
the
sole

indicating
or most

character of

fidelity

to Greece
rate

important ingredient
to
counteract

justice. At any
of

Xenophon is
pro-Spartan

now compeUed move.

the

effect

this seemingly
now states

Swearing
to him

by
in

aU gods and goddesses

he

that the

gods

have

stated

a manner which even a

tyro in

such matters could not misunderstand

that

position would

must abstain from "the monarchy"; to accept that be bad for the army but in particular also for Xenophon (cf. Mem. I 1.8). It hteraUy goes without saying that Cheirisophos is

he, Xenophon,

142

Interpretation

elected sole and absolute commander. confirms

Xenophon's
with and

suspicion that

He gladly the Athenian

accepts the would

honor

and

hard time
Xenophon Greece

the Spartans. The fact that the choice

have had a very lay only between

Cheirisophos justice

shows

that the

struggle

for

hegemony

within

was

stiU
of

the Spartan-Athenian
with

struggle

and

therefore that the

questionable.

identification

fidelity
city.

to Greece

remained

Under
the
coast

Cheirisophos'

command the

Greeks

saUed on

the next

day

along
settle

to

Herakleia,
sea.

Greek

But the

soldiers stiU

had to
of

the question whether

they
One

could continue was

their

journey

from

there

by

land
plan

or

by

The
army.

question
of

inseparable from that

who

how to

approvision

the

the

men

had

opposed

Xenophon's

to found a city

proposed one

that

the Herakleotai:
and perhaps even men

should

not

they should demand money from send Cheirisophos, the elected ruler,
purpose?

Xenophon to Herakleia for that

the use of
violence

Both

leading
city.

strongly

opposed

against a

friendly

Greek

But they met only firm resistance on the part of the Herakleotai. This led to a mutinous mood of the majority of the Greek soldiers who were Achaians and Arcadians and refused to be dictated to by a Spartan or an Athenian. They separated
The
soldiers elected therefore a special embassy.

therefore from the minority and elected ten generals of their own. In this way, the command of Cheirisophos was terminated about a week after

his
the

election : an

indication

of

the impermanence of the Spartan hegemony. the gods had advised Xenophon regarding

One

sees

in

retrospect of

how

weU

rejection of

"the
a

monarchy."

He

was

displeased

with

the splitting

up

the army

of all

its

parts.

splitting up which, he thought, endangered the safety But he was persuaded by Neon, the commander imme
to Cheirisophos
with

of the latter's contingent (V 6.36), Cheirisophos and his contingent, the force com manded by Klearchos, the Spartan commander at Byzantion. Xenophon gave in to Neon's advice perhaps because it agreed with the oracular indication of Herakles the Leader; surely that indication was not, as

diately
to

subordinate

join,

together

far
of

as we

know,

supported

by

any

calculation or guesswork on

the

part

contemplating the army and saUing home, but when he sacrificed to Herakles the Leader and consulted him, the god indicated to him that he should

Xenophon. But is

this

quite

correct?

Xenophon

was

leaving
stay
or

with

the

soldiers. or

Whether

or

to what extent

Herakles'

indication

Neon's purely human persuading determined Xeno phon, it is impossible to say. Thus the whole army was split into three parts: the Arcadians and Achaians, the troops of Cheirisophos, and those
of

Xenophon's

Xenophon. Each

part

went

in

different way in the direction

night at

of

Thrace. The Arcadians (and

Achaians) disembarked by

Kalpe Harbor;

they immediately
which abounded
when

proceeded

in booty;

to occupy the villages of the neighborhood in fact the Greeks took a lot of booty. But

the Thracians

recovered

from

the unexpected

attack,

they kUled

a considerable number of their assaUants and cut off

the retreat of their

Xenophon's Anabasis
enemies.

143

Cheirisophos,

on the other

coast, safely in Kalpe. who had some cavalry, learned

arrived

hand, Xenophon,
his

who

had

marched

along the

the only Greek commander through his horsemen of the fate of the
soldiers

Arcadians. Thereupon he he concluded, the

who

caUed

together and explained to

them that their situation required that

god wishes

they
we,

save

the Arcadians.

Perhaps,

to arrange things in this way that those

made of course aU would with the gods, wiU the necessary arrange be in the van; everything was who

talked

big

are

humbled

whereas

begin

have

a more

honorable fate. He
with the

ments.

Timasion

horses

to be done to create the impression that the troops relieving the besieged Arcadians were much more numerous than they in fact were; the first

thing they did in the next morning was to pray to the gods. EventuaUy be it through the wish of the god or through Xenophon's counsel or
through both the three parts of the army were
region was reunited

in Kalpe,

which

is located in Asiatic Thrace. The

so much so that the suspicion arose

very fertile and attractive, that the soldiers had been brought

hither owing to the scheming of some who wished to found a city (VI 4.7). Cyrus' expedition not from Yet the majority of the soldiers had joined poverty at home but in order to make money in order to return to Greece loaded
whole
with riches.

army

resolved

At any rate, after the failure of the Arcadians the that henceforth the proposal to split the army would
that the generals elected

be treated

as a capital crime and

by

the

whole

army be restored to their power. The situation was further simplified by the death of Cheirisophos, who had taken a medicine for fever; his unforeseen successor became Neon. In a way by any human being

Xenophon had thus become the city remained as abortive as before. The
of

"monarch,"

whUe

the

plan

to found a
unresolved

question

is however

how the political difficulty obstructing an Athenian's monarchy in a period of Spartan hegemony can be overcome. As we shall see almost at once, it is resolved by an event which could be understood as an
act of

the

god or

Xenophon's

piety.

As Xenophon next explained to an assembly of the soldiers, the army had to continue its journey by land, since no boats were avaUable, and they had to continue it at once, since they had no longer the necessary provisions. Yet the sacrifices were unfavorable. This renewed the suspicion that Xenophon had persuaded the soothsayer to give a false report about
because he still planned to found a city. The sacrifices be unfavorable, so that Xenophon refused to lead out the continued to Neon to get provisions army for approvisioning itself. An attempt made by from the nearby barbarian villages ended in disaster. Eventually provisions
the
sacrifices arrived
sacrifice

by

ship from Herakleia.

a view

Xenophon
and

arose now

early in
the

order

to

with

to

an

expedition

sacrifices
good

were
omen

favorable.

soothsayer

saw

at

about

this

time

another

Xenophon to start the expedition against the enemy (Persians and their Thracian aUies). Never before had the resistance of the gods to intended actions of the Greek army been so sustained.
and therefore urged

144

Interpretation

Needless to say, there were opportunities left to Xenophon to reveal his military and rhetorical skiUs. In the ensuing battle the Greeks were
unmistakably victorious. WMle the Greeks stiU
provisioned themselves waited

for the

arrival

of

Kleandros,

they

in

almost aU good

from the nearby countryside, which abounded things. Furthermore, the Greek cities brought things

for

sale

to the
there

camp.
would

Again

a rumor arose

that a city was

enemies
aUeged

being
to

founded
estabhsh

and that

be

harbor. Even the

which with

tried

friendly

relations

with

the new city

was

to be founded

by

Xenophon

and turned

to him

questions on

this subject but he

wisely
ship.

remained

in the background.
arrived with

Eventually
He

Kleandros
in
the

two triremes but

with no merchant

rather company of the Spartan Dexippus who had misbehaved in Trapezus. Thus it came to an ugly dissension between Kleandros and Agasias, one of the generals elected by the army. Despite

arrived

aU efforts of

Xenophon
and

and

the other generals Kleandros took the side

of

Dexippus

declared that he
at

the Greek mercenaries, "for

forbid every city to receive Greeks" that time the Spartans ruled aU
would

(VI 6.9). Kleandros demanded

and

the extradition of

Agasias. But Agasias

Xenophon

slandered

friends. This precisely was the reason why Dexippus Xenophon. The commanders called an assembly of the soldiers
were

in

which

Xenophon
arisen:

explained
single

that

had

whatever

he

pleases.

every The

Spartan

to the army the gravity of the situation can accomplish in the Greek cities

conflict with

Kleandros

wiU make
or

for the Greek

mercenaries either

to stay in Thrace

to

saU

it impossible home. The

whom
quasi-

only thing to do is to submit to Spartan power. Xenophon himself, Agasias' Dexippus had accused to Kleandros as responsible for
rebeUion,
surrenders

to Kleandros for adjudication and

advises

every
gods

other man who

is

accused

to do the same. Agasias swears

on

by

the

and

goddesses

that he acted entirely

his

own

initiative: he foUows Thanks

to

Xenophon's
not

example

by
to

also

surrendering

to

Kleandros.

Xenophon's intervention the

only himself but
so

whole conflict

speak aU

is peaceably settled: he saved his comrades in arms, not only from

as well.

the Persians and other

barbarians but from the Spartans

Anaxibios
for the
was

The Spartan
Pharnabazus to
since

admiral
arrange

induced
of

by

the Persian satrap

promised

removal

the Greek army from Asia

it

seemed

to constitute a threat to his province. Anaxibios

the commanders to hire the army as mercenaries in case they crossed Anaxibios' over to Europe. The only man who was unwilling to consider
proposal was

him to
soldiers

postphone

Xenophon, but he gave in his leaving the army

On the in
other

when
until

Anaxibios merely
after give

asked

the crossing.

The

next

entered

Byzantion but Anaxibios failed to hand he

wished a war with the

them the

promised pay.
of

to avaU himself of the services

which

the

mercenaries

Thracian Seuthes in
the mercenaries to

he

was

engaged.

He

succeeded

in persuading
that

until

they became

aware

they

were

to be cheated of

leave the city their pay; then

Xenophon's Anabasis

145

city with the use of force. An ugly conflict threatened. only of Byzantion and the army but also of himself, Xenophon intervened. When the soldiers saw him, they told him that

they

re-entered the
not

Thinking
here
was

"You have a city, you have triremes, you have have so many He first attempted to quiet them money, down, and, after he had succeeded in this, caUed an assembly of the army
great chance: you
soldiers."

his

and

told them the

a

foUowing

things:

by
a

Spartans for
a

deception attempted whoUy innocent city, they merely

by

avenging themselves on the few Spartans and by plundering

Spartans
and aU aUies experience of the

would make aU

of

Sparta, i.e.,
War has
wiU

aU

Greeks,
a

their

enemies; the

Peloponne

sian

shown them aU

how
war

mad

their proceedings and intentions

small

are; it
and

lead to

hopeless
of

between the
is

the whole power

Greece

which

now under

army of mercenaries Spartan control; all

to take
revenge

justice is on the side of the Spartans, for it is on the Spartans for the deception attempted by
a

unjust a

few Spartans

and

by

whoUy innocent city the first Greek city plundering occupied while they never harmed a barbarian city; the
themselves
fatherlands'

which

they
their

mercenaries

wUl

become
even

exUed

by

their

fatherland He
urges

and

hence

and

their kin's enemies.

them that

being

Greeks they obey those who rule the Greeks and thus try to obtain their rights. If they fail in this, they will at least avoid being deprived of Greece. On Xenophon's entreaty the army resolved to send to Anaxibios a properly submissive message. Xenophon knew both when to resist and when to give in. So it came to pass that ultimately through Persian treachery even those Greeks who were willing to esteem Cyrus more highly than Greece were compeUed to restore Greece to her rightful
place.

But

his brother
Anaxibios'

to say nothing of the justice of this is not yet the end of the story.

Cyrus'

expedition

against

reply
the

was none too gracious.

This

gave a

Theban

adventurer

opportunity to

try

to

sabotage the arrangement which

Xenophon had

proposed.

The

next result

however

was

that Xenophon

by

himself left

Byzantion in the company of Kleandros. Thereafter there arose a dissension among the generals as to where the army should move; this led to a partial disintegration of the army a result welcome to Pharnabazus and therefore also to Anaxibios. But Anaxibios was about to hand
over

the command of the Spartan navy to his

courted

successor and was asked

therefore

no

longer
return

by

Pharnabazus. Therefore Anaxibios

Xenophon

to
of

to the army and to bring back to Asia by all means the bulk Cyrus' mercenaries; the soldiers gave Xenophon a friendly reception,
as

glad

they

were

to leave Thrace for Asia.

Given the intra-Spartan

jealousies, fidelity
altogether

to Sparta and hence to Greece was not easy, if not

impossible. Seuthes
renewed an earlier attempt
general won

In
over

this situation

to

win

Xenophon

to his side. Kleanor and another

to lead the army to

Seuthes,

who

had

had already before wished their favor with gifts, but The
new

Xenophon refused to give in to

Seuthes'

wish.

Spartan

comman-

146

Interpretation
Cyrus'

mercenaries der in Byzantion, Aristarchos, forbade the return of to Asia. Xenophon had to fear being betrayed by the Spartan commander or by the Persian satrap. He therefore consulted the god as to whether he plot against should not attempt to lead the army to Seuthes.
Anaxibios'

Xenophon he decided
each

becoming now most manifest

that

and

the sacrifices

being favorable,

it

was

safe

for him
and

and

In their first meeting Xenophon

expected

for the army to join Seuthes. Seuthes stated what kind of help Xenophon
of was

to

receive

from
of

the other;
an

especially

concerned

with

what

kind

protection

against

the Spartans Seuthes

the soldiers Xenophon

would offer
stated on

to the

mercenaries.

In

assembly

to them, before
one

the

they up their minds, what Aristarchos hand and Seuthes on the other promised to them; he advised
made

them to provision themselves forthwith from the villages from which

they

could

safely do
was

so.

Seuthes'

proposal
mercenaries

preferable

The majority of the soldiers thought that in the circumstances. Thus

Cyrus'

became
was not

Seuthes'

mercenaries.

But it

soon

became

clear

that
a

Seuthes

quite

honest. He had invited the

commanders

to

banquet but he expected to receive gifts from them and especiaUy from Xenophon prior to the banquet. This was particularly awkward for Xenophon, who was practicaUy pennUess at the moment. StiU, when his turn came, he had had already a drink which enabled him to find
a graceful

way

out.

his Greeks kept their bargain with their Thracian allies help Seuthes in subjugating his Thracian enemies. Yet there was the exorbitant cold of the Thracian winter. Above Seuthes' friend or agent Herakleides tried to cheat the Greek aU, Xenophon
and

faithfuUy; they

did their best to

mercenaries

of

part

of

their pay.

When found
now

out

by Xenophon,
it
was

he

incited Seuthes

against

him

and attempted

to induce the generals to defect

wonder whether wise

from Xenophon. Xenophon began

soldiers was not

to

to continue his alliance with Seuthes. In addition, as the pay for the

forthcoming, they became

At

this

moment, the Spartans Charminus

and

very angry Polynikus

were

with sent

Xenophon.

by

Thibron

arrived and against

told the army that the Spartans

which
Cyrus'

Tissaphernes for

This

gave
and

Seuthes

a splendid

planning former army was urgently needed. opportunity for getting rid of the merce

an expedition

naries

soldiers

his debts to them at the same time. In an assembly of the the two Spartan emissaries laid their proposal before the soldiers delighted
with

who were

it, but

one of

the

Arcadians
rich

got

up straightaway
soldiers'

to accuse Xenophon who aUegedly was responsible for the

mercenaries

having
ascent

joined Seuthes
has

and received all

the

benefits

of

the

toUs from

Seuthes; Xenophon deserves

capital punishment. ought

Xenophon's
not
also

finaUy

led to the lowest descent. But

one

say that Xenophon's apology, which refers to deeds and speeches well known to innumerable men, is infinitely easier and at the same time

infinitely
attempt

more

effective

than Socrates'?

Seuthes

made

last

minute

to prevent

Xenophon's

reconciliation

with

the

Spartans

by

Xenophon's Anabasis

147

calumniating the latter. But Zeus the King, whom Xenophon consulted, dispeUed aU suspicions. There foUowed a somewhat ambiguous reconcihation between Xenophon and Seuthes and as its consequence the payment of the debt
stiU owed

to the mercenaries,

and thereafter an unambiguous reconciha

tion between Xenophon

and aU mercenaries and

between Xenophon

and

the Spartans. Xenophon eventuaUy showed by deed that he esteemed Greece more highly than Cyrus and other barbarians (III 1.4). He faUed to
show

that he
the

esteemed

because
tells us,
when

city

of

Athens had
Proxenos'

his fatherland more highly than Cyrus or Sparta exUed him (V 3.7, V 6.22, VII 7.57), as he he fails to teU
us.

for

reasons which of

Could

Socrates'

apprehension

he heard

invitation be

vindicated

by

the Anabasis

as a whole?

Xenophon begins
view

at

once

to wage war against the Persians

with

to capturing booty. He was rather successful in this enterprise. The density of references to god, of oaths and in particular of formal

oaths pronounced aU

by

Xenophon himself is

greater

in Book VII than in

preceding Books.

148 A READING OF
SOPHOCLES'

ANTIGONE: I

Seth Benardete

1 (1).
palace.

1.1.*

Antigone

meets

Ismene

outside

the

gates

of

the

royal

She usurps for the planning of her crime the place Creon had designated for his own meeting with the elders (33). As they converse without any chance of being overheard (19), they must be imagined to meet in semidarkness, before anyone has set out for work (cf. 253). The

Chorus, at any rate, wiU greet the sun as though it has just come up (100); and it is still early enough for them to convene at the palace
without

attracting
the

undue
of

notice

(164).

In this

semidarkness

Antigone

introduces
Ismene,"

theme

the

play

with

her
of

manner
Ismene."

of

Ismene. "O my very

which
appeals

own sister's common

head is

addressing The "head of

common.1

"common"

characterizes,

not

held

in

Antigone

to that part of Ismene that most distinguishes her from

and which makes
on

everyone else

(cf. O.C. 320-1, 555-6),

her
and

individually
of
"common"

lovable (cf. 764), at the same time that she insists Ismene and herself. The link between "head of is
supphed

the togetherness

Ismene"

by

avxddeXcpov.

Antigone
she

recognizes

Ismene's head

as

a
no

sister's

head,

and not

just because

loves

some girl called

Ismene,

matter what

love for Ismene

her genealogy, does she address her in this way. Antigone's as a person is mediated through Ismene's kinship with

and not only mediated through, but identified with, that kinship; for Ismene's head is avxddeXcpov, nothing but a sister's. Ismene is herself

herself;

The text

used

is Pearson's OCT
his

except where otherwise

indicated. I have myself,

the passage, I

however,
any

not always accepted

readings wherever

am

silent, for if I did not see

of

connection

between the reading

my

chosen and

my interpretation

have

passed over or

own preference. of

Each line
numbers

group

lines interpreted is

given a section

number,

with

the

line

in

parentheses after

it. Each

paragraph of

every

section

is

numbered as well

for
1

ease of cross-reference.

Nauck

recognized

the

peculiarity
as

of

xoivdv

but

not

its

significance:

only if

'Iap.r)vqg
xoivdv

xaoa

were

the

same

Oidlnov
cf.
of
X'

xixvov

would

xoivdv

be in

order. no

In

lurks the incest

that the

of

Oedipus;
'head

OT 261-2, OC
occurs

533, 535. It is
Sophocles'

doubt
plays

accidental

periphrasis

only in

Oedipus

(Euripides has it only thrice: Tr 661, He 676-7, Cy 438), but it seems more significant that in the vocative the phrase is restricted in classical poetry to Ant 1
and

Zr\vbg 6fi6XexxQOV
the
person's name

OT 40 (Oedipus), 950 (Iocasta), 1207 (Oedipus). Eur. Or 476 is very different: xaqa (Tyndarus); cf. Or 1380. The normal usage is either in the
vocative

followed

by

"head"

with a

qualifying adjective

or

"head"

an adjective plus

by itself.

A in

Reading of
if Ismene

Sophocles'

Antigone

149

being

a sister.

Only

acknowledges wiU

a sister

to Antigone

and

Polynices

Antigone

herself to be nothing but continue to love her.

Ismene the individual, with such and such bodUy characteristics, is loved because she belongs to the same fanuly as Antigone. Her distinc tiveness merely signifies for Antigone her membership in the fanuly that Antigone loves unreservedly. Ismene can, therefore, be readUy sacrificed for the sake of her fanuly, particularly as the semidarkness in which she and Antigone meet partly conceals her distinctiveness along with the reasons for it.
1.2.

One

cannot

help
virtual

wondering, in hght
are of

of

the

body,

the

soul,

and the self

whether

that necessarUy
relation

Antigone's
as a

importance in a play about burial, identification of Ismene as her self with foreshadow Antigone's understanding burying Polynices.
not
someone's

Ismene
of
what

does

is involved in her

1.3.

Antigone
and

refers

twice more to

head:

Eteocles'

and
xaqa.

Polynices'

(899, 915),
Polynices

each

of whom she caUs xaalyvnxov

That

Eteocles
1.4.
and
of

are

of address.

Her brothers

keep

dead in no way changes Antigone's manner in death their individual loveableness.

twice more,
once

avxddeXcpog

also

occurs

by

Antigone (503),

by Haemon (696), and both times of Antigone's burying Polynices. The substantival use of avxddeXcpog indicates that Antigone
once

dared to

bury

Polynices the enemy 1.5.

play:
2

Polynices solely because he was her brother, of Thebes had no part in her daring (cf.
compounded with avx

and

that

15.3).

Words
avdadia

are

particularly frequent in this

(1028),

avxddeXcpog,
avxdvofiog

(875), avxoxxoveco (56), (52), avxdcpwQog (51),

uses three:
of

avxd%eiq

avxoyevvnxog (864), avxdyvcoxog (821), avxdnQe/ivog (714), avxovqydg (306, 900, 1315). Of these Antigone

avxddeXcpog of
and

her mother,
parents
and

her three siblings, avxoyevvnxog of the incest avxd%eiq of her performing the funeral rites for
with

her

brothers

her
use

own of a

hand.
verb
of awareness

2 (2-10). 2.1.

Antigone's herself
not

(dnwna)
says she

in talking
not seen.

about

reveals

her

kinship
or

with

her father. She

that there is nothing painful,

shameful,

dishonorable that

has
and

She does
that

say,

as

Ismene's

phrase
of

(16-7)
every

suggests that she possible

(*

could suffers

have,
of

she

accordingly. ovx

has full knowledge She does not speak

If
she

evU

of

suffering

ov

instead
shares

oticoti).3

had,

she would

have

admitted

that

she

in Ismene's sorrows, and that her suffering is not just her own. But in spite of xoivdv in the first line and her use of the dual for
2

For the meaning

of

such

compounds

see

F.

Sommer, Zur Geschichte der

griechischen

Nominalkomposita, 83-6.

alo%ioxct>v,

Cf. the imitation in Dio Cassius 62.3.2 (cited by Bruhn): xi [iiv yao ov xcbv ov x&v SXylaxmv nendyQa/xev ; and El 761-3 (3>v omarf iym xaxcbv), where seeing is opposed to hearing.
3
rid'

150 Ismene
evils and

Interpretation

herself
own

(vcov),
(xdiv

she nevertheless

distinguishes between Ismene's Their

evUs are

and
start

her

o&v

xe

xajxcov).

distinct from

the

(cf. 31-2).
Antigone distinguishes
between
the
evils

2.2.
evils set

from Oedipus
herself,4

that

Zeus has

fuUy
in

brought to

completion

for Ismene

and

and those

motion

by

their enemies
evUs

(Creon)
await

friends

(Polynices).5

The

that

that are approaching their Polynices do not belong to

is Zeus the cause of them. There cannot be anything painful or disgraceful in Creon's decree, since Zeus faUed to inflict no evU that could possibly arise from Oedipus, and Antigone has seen every disgrace and pain there could be as already among
Antigone
and

Ismene,

nor

the evils that are Ismene's and her

own.

Antigone's actions,

however,

evUs and her own evidendy belie any separation between (cf. 48); but she has to admit, even if only tacitly, that there is a evUs as her own difference between them, and that to count is to enlarge the domain of her own (cf. 238, 437-9).
Polynices'

Polynices'

2.3.
their the
stUl

Antigone
single origin

moves

in

this

speech

from

the evUs

that because of
and

in Oedipus

belong jointly

to

Ismene

herself,

observes

living offspring of Oedipus, to the two sets of evUs that she as belonging severaUy to Ismene and herseh, and from these
(the only
xaxd

to evils

without

the

article) that

threaten

Polynices.
point
with

The central xaxd, in separating Antigone's and Ismene's evUs, to Antigone's subsequent shaking off of her living connection Ismene
2.4.
that
are and

her

joining

her fate

with

the dead

Polynices.6

Antigone does
not aware
of

not

consider never

Creon's decree
again refers

as one of the evils

from Oedipus. (She any

and

to Oedipus

She is
of apart

connection

between

Polynices'

by name.) being deprived

burial

his
she

being
just

the son of Oedipus. She is able to

keep

them

because

altogether

disregards here Her only

(8).

and

throughout the play

the
she

war

that has

occurred.

reference

to

it is

oblique:

caUs

Creon the

general

By

suppressing any direct

mention of

Boeckh's

reason

for

taking

vwv

Ixi t,dioaiv
exi

as

genitive

rather

than
weil

dative

convinces me that
waren sie

it is dative: "derm der Zusatz

todt,
the
of

nicht

leicht Uebel begegnen

the

So the scholium;

ihren, (209); cf. 925-6. Schneidewin-Nauck, Wolff-Bellermann, Miiller; Jebb's inter

ware

<6oaiv

nichtig,

konnten"

pretation

enemies

are

all

Argives left
apparent

unburied

rests of

on

misunder

standing
to
which

1080-3 (cf.

55.5). The

redundancy

xcbv

ixOQ&v xaxd,
that
their

J. H. Kells

objects

(BICS 1963, 40-53), if Antigone

means

inflict evils, is only apparent; for Ismene does not know that Creon is their enemy, and Antigone would hardly admit that Zeus is their enemy, despite his having inflicted evils on them. In light, however, of 23 and 79 xcov ixOgcov
enemies should of not

be taken
should

as

generalizing plural, any

as referring
of

more

than xovg cplXovg

in light

75
6

and

89

be taken
of triads

exclusively to Polynices.
was

The importance

every kind in Sophocles

cursorily treated

by

H. St. John

Thackeray (Proc.

British

Academy XVI, 1931).

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone

151

the war, she suppresses as weU the rivalry of Eteocles and Polynices for the throne of Oedipus. Her sUence about the war and the cause of
the war thus leads to her
was
sUence
about

three

things:

that Polynices

killed in the war and did not just die in some miserable way (26); that Polynices attacked and Eteocles defended Thebes; and that Eteocles and Polynices kUled one another. We learn of aU this from Ismene, the

Chorus,

or

Creon but
the

everything except 3 (11-17). 3.1.

and shame.

never from Antigone. Antigone fact that Polynices lies

abstracts

from

unburied.7

as weU as of pain and

he
and

never

Ismene at once thinks of pleasure and happiness disaster (13, 17). She does not speak of dishonor Creon, who thinks solely of honor and dishonor (cf. 4.5) uses aXyog or any of its derivatives stands at one extreme,
and
on

Ismene, who speaks solely of pleasure wltile Antigone, who speaks of and acts
3.2.
cannot

pain,

stands at

the other,
occupies

both principles,

the center, where pain and pleasure, honor and

dishonor,

meet.

In

spite of what

Antigone says, Ismene does

with

not preclude

the

possibUity
an
open
not

of a change

for the better in her

and

circumstances.
of

But Antigone

conceive, especiaUy

her knowledge herself

are

future. That Ismene carry

with says

stiU

Creon's decree, of alive (exi cboaiv)

does

it any hope.
that
are and Antigone have been deprived of from now on without any brother (58). to have a living brother (cf. 48.7). Death she
earth.8

3.3. To have
puts
an

Ismene
a

their two brothers.

They
means

brother

end

only

refer

to any relationship that obtains on to her brothers in the past tense (55; cf.

Ismene

can

1.3). Antigone

must remind

her that the

corpse she even

is

asked to

help bury
wish

is her brother

(not just her 3.4.

wiU
wiU

brother's),
occurs son of

if

she

does

not

it to be (43-6). 9

axeqeoi

twice more. The Chorus ask Creon whether he

deprive his be deprived

seems

Antigone (574);
sojourn on earth
unqualified

and

Creon

says

that

Antigone

of

her

cases,

to entaU an
of

(890). Death, then, in aU three loss (cf. 575). But Haemon is not

totaUy deprived
obtained

in thus (at least metaphoricaUy)

as

Hades'

his bride; the messenger, at any rate, says that he house the marriage rites (1240-1). Haemon's loss is
qualified.

Ismene

then might

be

mistaken

to

whether

she

ceases

to have her brothers with their death.

question of

body,
of

soul,

and self would once again of a

sojourn

Antigone's loss, however,

not admit

on

The 1.2). be decisive (cf. earth is absolute and does

any

qualifications

(cf.

46.6; 47.4).
have

t
no

Antigone

reports

that Creon intends to announce his decree to those who

it (33); she, no more perhaps than those from whom she heard it, has any suspicion of, or any interest in, the political reasons for Creon's convocation
knowledge
of of

the Chorus.
8
9

Cf. PI. Lgs. 959c2-dl. Cf.

schol.

45:

rrJG

ovyysvetac.

x&v ftij ngocmoifj iycb Bdyico xdv i/tdv

avxdv elvai adv adeXcpdv xai

&XX'

dXXoxoiotg

aavxijv

adv adeXcpdv.

152

Interpretation

4 (21-36). 4.1.
compared with

Antigone's

presentation

of

Creon's decree

must

be

Creon's

own presentation

to the Chorus (194-201). Both

begin the Antigone died

with what

same

replaces

fighting

on

she

that they diverge. way ('ExeoxXea fiev), but after he Creon's explanation for his honoring Eteocles behalf of his country and proved to be the best warrior justice.10 calls Creon's just use of law and

ironicaUy

She thereby suppresses any mention of the war and the city, about which it would have been difficult to be ironical. Antigone never casts doubt on patriotism. Creon hid Eteocles, she then says, below the earth honor among the dead below. Creon, however, says that he had ordered Eteocles to be hidden in a grave and sanctified with dead. Antigone disregards aU everything that goes below for the best
endowed with

the rites that accord honor to Eteocles

connects

or confuses through
war with

his

mention

among the of the rites

dead; but Creon

the exceUence of

Eteocles in
must

the

exceUence of

separate

the

honor

of

Eteocles among the dead. Antigone Eteocles among the dead from whatever

honor he

if he had hved; but Creon must hold 209-10). The city must for him keep itseh intact therefore cannot be more exactly determined; it is only below. an extension in depth of Thebes. For Antigone, however, who with Ismene (65) alone specifies that below means below the earth (cf. 26.2),
would

have

obtained

them together (cf.

"Below"

burial

means

removal

from Thebes
of

and

its

concerns.

The city is

restricted

to the

surface

the

earth.

4.2.
corpse,
so
of

The
so

word

for the dead below is the

granted what

plural

of

the

word

for
and

much

is it taken for

that corpses

are

buried

little does the language itseh indicate

the buried dead.

the condition might be

4.3.

Antigone

says

that

Creon forbade

the

burial

Polynices'

of

corpse; Creon says that the burial of Polynices is forbidden. Antigone seems to separate Polynices from his corpse; Creon, in order to justify

his vindictiveness, seems to identify them; but Antigone speaks of the haplessly dead corpse of Polynices, as though his corpse and not Polynices had
suffered nor

and

died.

It is
a

not

enough

to say that she

of the

speaks

by

enaUage,
vexvcov

that there is

reminiscence

Homeric "the

expression

xaxaxedvncoxcov.

If

one unscrambles

the phrase, the pathos and

not mean corpse
of
Polynices'

the point both equally disappear.

She does
she

the

haplessly

kiUed

Polynices,"

for

is

not out

to vindicate

death. Jebb's translation, "the hapless corpse of is right, but "hapless" if one adds that refers to the living. Antigone only properly

Polynices"

10

Line 24

seems

to be

hopeless; but I
Xiyovoi
avv

should

suggest, in light
xai

of

Thucydides 5.18.4 Antigone's

of

(dixalcp
and

xQriodcov

xai

Sgxoigi):
ihg

%or\oQ(ov

dtxalcp

v6/j.cp

as

paren

thetical comment on

dixn. For the

coordination

dtxaiov (dlxrj)

vdfiog
n.l.

see

the

passages collected

by R. Hirzel, Themis, Dike

und

Verwandtes,

164

A
must speak
ever

Reading

Sophocles'

of

Antigone
nor anyone else

153
in the play be buried. No

explains

catachresticaUy, for neither she why, apart from the law, a

are

corpse

must

in Hades (cf. El. 841, 1418-9), whose burial of corpses here.11 No one speaks of this kind of separation of body and soul (cf. El. 245-50). In the absence of any such account, Antigone attributes everything that belongs to Polynices to his corpse. His corpse is in and of itself the object of her care.
one says

that there

living

souls

admittance there

depends

on the

4.4. Creon
She

Antigone
says

exovxpe xaXvrpai, as she had said xxeoieiv, as he had said dcpayviaai before.

says

before,

and

vague where omits

Creon is (cf.

precise
of

about ritual

the
that

rites are

Antigone is to be denied Polynices.

connected
with

those
sorrow

aspects

not

the

3.1). Both say /iijde (xe) xmxvaai xiva, but whereas Creon says Polynices is to be left unburied, Antigone adds that he is to go unwept. Perhaps Creon omits the prohibition against
mourner's

weeping because,
8.18).

unlike

ritual

possible to regulate

(cf. H 427; PI. Lgs.

lamentation (xcoxvaai), it is almost im 959e7-960a2; Cicero in Pisonem

4.5. Antigone says the proclamation was made to the townspeople, Creon to this city (cf. 7). It seems to mark a great change in Antigone
when she

finaUy

calls

the Thebans citizens

(806,

cf.

79, 907,

30.2).

4.6. Antigone says Polynices is to be left for the birds, Creon says for the birds and dogs; and according to the messenger, who is altogether truthful (1192-3), he was torn apart by dogs alone (1198, cf. 1017, 17.3). Antigone says that corpse has been left to be for the
Polynices'

birds
at

as

sweet

treasure-trove

whenever

they descry him

to feed

on

their

pleasure.12

Creon

says

that

the

body

is to be left to be

eaten

and dogs and seen disgraced in its mangling. For Creon the is done by men, for Antigone by birds; hence Creon considers seeing the disgrace and Antigone the pleasure. For Creon the eating of Polynices

by

birds

is like the burying of Eteocles: a manner of showing honor or dishonor for what the dead stood for. But for Antigone, who sympathetically enters into the perspective, the eating like the burying is a trait that belongs to the corpse itself. The sweet treasure-trove that is Polynices indicates the preciousness of Polynices even though dead.13 Antigone
birds'

11

the law that

Cf. M. Pohlenz, Die Griechische Tragbdie, 195. Aeschines, in commenting on absolves a son whose father has sold him for purposes of prostitution
care of

from taking
rites,
rjvlxa

his father but

still enjoins

him to

bury

him

with

the customary

says

that this prevents the evegyexov/tevog

ovx

father from profiting

aloddvexai xcav eS

while

alive,

and when

dead,
xai

fiev

naa%ei,

xijxaxai

di 6 v6/iog

xo

Oeiov (1.14).
i2

For the
oBv

feeling
xai

expressed

in

Orjaavgdg

see

Eur. EI.

565;

PI. Lgs.

931a4-5;

naxrjQ
is

oxcp

firjxr]Q

ij

rcrdrcov

naxiqeg rj /inxiQeg iv

olxta xslvxai xeifitfXwi

dmsiQ7)x6xeg

yriQq.
Philoctetes'

Compare

address

to

the

birds

no

longer

afraid

of

his

bow:

154
can
maintain

Interpretation

his
not

preciousness

because

she

does
the

not

contemplate

his

consumption.

He is

an

inexhaustible find for

birds. The

corpse as

corpse

does

disgust her
second visit

(cf. PI. Rep.

stench

439e7-440a, Xen. Cyrop.

she pays no attention

1.4.24). On her

to the putrescent corpse, when the guards

have

retired

to

hiUtop

to avoid its

(411-2),
more:

to the

stench.

4.7.

Nonadverbial %dqig
can

occurs

twice

the guard

says

he

owes asks

much gratitude

to the gods for saving his life

she

(331),
grace

and

Creon

Antigone how

honor Polynices

with

that

his brother

finds impious (514). The guard's %dqig is in exchange for a favor received, and the favor Antigone renders Polynices is at least partly in exchange for the loving reception she wiU receive after her death
(cf.

9.4); but
so

the favor

Polynices'

corpse renders

the birds
makes

is

without

reciprocity.

Perhaps

this selfless

generosity

of

Polynices

Antigone

dweU

lovingly
might

upon

that seems not to

it, for in revealing a preciousness in his corpse be in its nature to have, it cancels out any defects
when alive

Polynices
regard

have had
of

(cf.
of

15.3). Antigone

might thus

showing favor to what in way even apart from the law, deserves to be favored. She might then itself, come a second time in order to feed her eyes on the corpse that she
the burial

Polynices

as

thinks of as fuU

of

grace

(cf.

28.1).
good

4.8. 4.9.

For Antigone's calling Creon the Antigone

says

Creon,

see

17.5.

that the punishment for disobedience is death

not mention

by

pubhc stoning.

Creon does

the punishment; and indeed

Antigone is

not punished

in that way (cf.

14.1, 43.1).
challenge or

5 (37-8). 5.1. is to
show

Antigone lays
she
was

down

for Ismene,
noble

who

whether

born

noble

base from

parents.

Antigone disregards the incestuous

marriage of

her

parents.

They

were

noble, and nothing prevents their offspring from being noble; rather, it is to be expected that blood will tell.14 Not until her own death is very near

does Antigone
of

admit that

the incest

of

her

parents

has been the

source

the

most painful concern

for her (857-66).

calls

6 (39-40). 6.1.
occurs

Ismene

Antigone

daring

twice more, both times in Antigone's

mouth of

(cf. 42, 47). xaXaicpocov herself (866, 876).

ioMExe,
shows

vvv xaXov

dvxlcpovov

xoqioai ngdg xdoiv

regard

i/idg
his

aagxog aloXag (1155-7).

consumption with

xaXov

that Philoctetes does not wholly

not

own

horror.

aagxdg aldXag is

"discolored
of

flesh"

brilliant flesh";
arrjQeoi
sardonic

one

is to think

Patroclus'

(for which, see E 354) but "gleaming/ dgyixi drj/icp (A 818) and Homer's own

najxcpalvovxag (A

100;

cf.

(cf.

73;

Tyrt.

fr.

aldXoi evXai edovxat

14

(X 509; cf. Cf. Xen. Mem. 4.4.23: ra&s

xexvojioiovvxai, ovg

E 295; Soph. Tr. 94-5), which is not merely 7, 21-8). Andromache's lament for Hector also contributed to M 208) expression.
Philoctetes'

o$v,

icpri ['Inniag,
dyadovg

xaxcog

natdeg

ye ovdev xcoXvei

avxovg

oSxoi [yovelg Svxag i dyaBdiv

xai
xexv-

oTioiEiodai.

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone

155

She first
parents,

caUs

and then and

friends,

xaXalcpqwv because she was born from incestuous because she is going to her death unwept for, without unmarried. Her origin and her fate equaUy constitute her

herself

wretchedness.

Ismene

calls

Antigone i

xaXalcpqwv

apparently

because

Antigone
room

seems

to believe that in the circumstances there is somehow

for their doing something that would reveal their nobihty or baseness. Perhaps she implies as weU that there is something strange for the offspring of an incestuous marriage to talk of nobility at aU.
Whom Antigone
might came a

from,

what she

dares to
might

do,
and

and what she suffers

be

all

of

piece.

Her

daring
be both

have the

same

source

as

her

wretchedness.

She

might

daring

wretched

7 (41-8). 7.1.

Antigone

asks

whether and

lifting

up

the corpse,

(cf. 1201);
thought
of

plainly to wash but Ismene's refusal to

Ismene dress it, as

compels

would
would

in be customary
abandon

by help her

birth.

help

her to

the

giving Polynices aU the rites she gave Eteocles and her parents (901). Her faUure, then, to stress the rites in reporting Creon's decree seems to anticipate her faUure to perform them.
7.2.

Antigone teUs Ismene

that
and

no

prohibition

can

alter

the fact

that the corpse is their

brother;
be

that as the

to the city, it
special care

cannot

concerned

Creon is taking, so that his decree (31-5), only Antigone and Ismene wiUy-niUy are involved. If Antigone acts so as not to be convicted of treachery to her own,
that
cannot

does not belong with the prohibition. Despite the no one will be uninformed about
corpse

make

her

traitor to the

city.

7.3.

Ismene
and

asks

Antigone
replies

whether

Creon's

prohibition

does

not

daunt her; he cannot

she

Antigone

that as Creon has no share in her own,

keep

her from her

own

(cf.

2.2). If Ismene had said,

as

does later, that it is a prohibition of the citizens (79), would Antigone have given the same answer? She does not in the dispute that foUows argue against Ismene's identification of Creon and the
citizens;

indeed,

she

later

accepts

or not to determine who issue between the two sisters.

it (907). Whether the city is competent should receive burial proves not to be the is in
The first

8 (49-68). 8.1.
an
account of

Ismene's

speech

three

parts.

gives

the fate of their

father,

mother,
reasons

and

brothers
certain

(49-57);
faUure if

the

second matches go against

that triad with three

for

they
that

Creon's decree (58-64); and the third gives the conclusion Ismene has drawn for herself (65-8). What holds the three parts
is Ismene's
and

together
(pqdvnaov

triple

appeal

to
ovx

reasonableness
e%ei

and

prudence:

(49), ivvoelv
are

%qr\

(61),

vovv

ovdeva

(68).

Her

central

thought,
can

what

occupies

the

center of their starts

of

she and

Antigone

the

sole survivors

her speech, is that famUy (cf. 548, 566).

same

They
but
their

alone

continue

it. Antigone As they

must

from the
only

premise
of

concludes

differently.
cf.

are

the

living

members

fanuly (3,

3.2), they

join them. Ismene

sees

the

farruly

156
as a
succession

Interpretation
of generations

it is

she

who

first
so

mentions

Haemon

(568). Antigone

sees

their

copresence

in Hades (73-76;

cf.

892-94,
is

897-99).
replaced

Oedipus'

confusion

of

generations

(53),

that succession

by togetherness, finds its proper extension in Antigone's refusal to think of any future apart from the dead. Her name, whose meaning proves bears witness to "generated in place of
another"

succession,15

to mean

antigeneration.
Oedipus'

8.2.
Jocasta's

self-discovery of,
suicide

and self-punishment
sons'

for, his

balanced in
suicide,
whose
and

the

by hanging, play by Creon's by hanging

and

and

their

mutual

crimes, fratricide are

acknowledgment of

Haemon's. The figure that links the two

recaUs

his crime, Eurydice's groups is Antigone,

occasions
crime.

suicide
and

her mother's,

those

of

Haemon
8.3.

Eurydice,

brings home to Creon his

The only historical present Ismene employs in this speech is to Her describe Jocasta's suicide: Jocasta "treats hfe in a despiteful
way."

outrage against

life
at

was

due

perhaps

to a

revulsion

against generation.

Her daughter, 8.4. Ismene

would consist

any rate,
a

embodies

such

revulsion what

(cf.

50.3).

gives

threefold

account

of

their

transgression
shaU

transgress
and

in if they buried Polynices: "if the decree or powerful authority of

seem a
17

we

despite the law

16

tyrants."

Law, decree,
and

power

to

be identified. The
assumption of confusion

confusion

of

law

decree

tends

to

be
one

democratic but the

(cf. Th.
and

1292a4-37);

law

3.37.3-4; Arist. Pol. power is tyrannical. If,

foUows Plato's Thrasymachus, the identification of aU however, three is a necessary consequence of asserting that justice is the advantage
of

the stronger.

them

shows that she

That Ismene is indifferent to the differences among has no illusions about the foundations of the city.
two other reasons

8.5.
give

There

are

that, according
were

to

Ismene,

should
and

Antigone
are not

pause.

The first is
and who

that they
the

born
submit

women are

hence

fit to fight men;

stronger,

second

is that they
as

ruled

by

those

who are

may

cause

them to

to still more the most

painful

things.

Ismene does
slavery,
or

not

reckon

Creon's decree
can

painful thing.

ExUe,

death,

if imposed

without their

any crime, (cf. 3.2). 8.6.

of

might

be

more painful.

Their future

committing be better or worse

Antigone

sets

herself in

opposition

to Ismene's understanding

law, nature, and strength. Against the city's law she pleads a higher law; she shows herself, though not perhaps in Ismene's sense, as strong as or stronger than Creon; and as to her being by nature a woman
15
16

Cf. Wilamowitz, Aischylos Interpretationen, 92 n.3. Schneidewin as an alternative gives the correct interpretation
auch

of

the

tj:

"Doch

kann Ismene
oder 17

meinen,

nenn

du esyijcpog
17-20.

oder

xodrtj, gesetzmaBige

Verordnung

Gebot des Cf. K. J.

Machthabers."

Dover, JHS 1955,

A
she

Reading

Sophocles'

of

Antigone

157

eighteen

is eloquently sUent. She never uses the word yvvrj, though it occurs times in the play, nor any of the foUowing cognate words (whose frequencies are shown in parenthesis): ylvog (7), ylyvofiai (6), yeved

(3),

yovr\

(3),
of

yevvnfia

(2),

ydvog

(2),

yheBXov
yev-

(1).

Only

thrice

does

she use words

compounded with

the root

evyevrjg

the nobUity

to be tested
and

Ismene (38), avxoydvvnxog the incest of her mother (864), the gods who are her ancestors (938). Between divine birth in the distant past and possible proof of being weU-born in the immediate future lies the marriage of her mother with him to whom she had given birth. The suppression of that link between the future
nqoyevrjg

and of

the

past

is Antigone's

own name and nature as ground of

antigeneration,

out

which

comes

the paradoxical

her

actions.

She

as

fuUy
for
and

acknowledges

consanguinity
not

as she

denies

generation need

(cf.

l.l).18

8.7.
she she

Ismene is

impressed
the

by

the

to

bury Polynices;
her
pardon

believes that those beneath the

asks

earth wiU grant constraint

not

if,

when

them,

she

cites

triple

of

law,
her
rovg

nature,
argument
vnd

strength
soften

(cf. Th. 4.98.6).

she

Ismene does

expect soften

to

Antigone, but

does
of

expect

it to

yfiovdg.

Antigone's intransigence to Polynices and the nether gods forces Antigone to give the first of her three major defenses (69-77, 450-70, 905-15). If the obhgation to bury one's own is not absolute, Antigone is planning to do what is superfluous (neqiaad
appeal over

Her

the head

nqaddew)

Antigone begins very severely. She wiU no longer help should Ismene later change her mind. If remorse overtakes her, Antigone wiU not grant her pardon. We do not know as yet whether Antigone's denial of repentance has the sanction; but that Creon's remorse, which foUows so quickly on his reiteration of his intransigence, does not alter the truth of prophecy,
accept

9 (69-77). 9.1. Ismene's

gods'

Tiresias'

would

seem the

to

confirm
of

Antigone's

rejection

of

Ismene. One

apparent

defect in
to

plot

Tiresias,

the

Antigone, that if Creon had submitted at once suicides of Antigone, Heamon, and Eurydice would
gods'

have been averted, seems in fact to argue for the agreement with Antigone. As soon as Creon issues his decree he already is too late. The irrelevance of time makes known the eternal presence of the gods.
9.2. country had heard
when the

A story in Herodotus illustrates this (6.86). A Milesian who of the justice of a Spartan and knew the stability of his
MUesians'

requested that

sons came much

he hold in safekeeping later to

one-half of

his wealth; but

sum

ask

for the

deposited,
Septem
and

is

The

strongest evidence of

the genuineness

of

the ending of

Aeschylus'

(at least
Ismene

most of as

it) is

the

contrast

between the Chorus

of maidens and

Antigone

mature and

women; for

Sophocles'

invention mainly
Aeschylus'

consists
see

in unsexing

Antigone

giving her the attributes

of

Eteocles;

S.

Benardete,

Wiener Studien

1967, 22-30.

158

Interpretation

the Spartan denied that he had

it; he decided, however,

and

to

ask

the

Delphic

oracle what of

he

should

do,

the

oracle

threatened the complete

disappearance
pardon, to
act are
noifjaat,

his race;

whereupon

the Spartan begged the god for

make

which the oracle replied:

"To

trial of the god and to

xov

equivalent"

(rj

de

IJvdirj \ecpr}

\xd

neiq-ndfjvai

deov

xai

xd

dvvaada). If the story seems to explain the inevitabihty of Creon's punishment, it stUl remains doubtful whether Antigone justly extends the principle to include Ismene, whose constrained faUure to
'iaov

comply with divine law is not the same as Creon's wilful obstruction of it. This doubt is the first indication we have that Ismene stands next to Antigone as the most important figure in the play. That Antigone in

her last 9.3.

speech

tacitly denies her very

cf.

existence

only

stresses

her

importance (941,

599-600).

Antigone invokes the noble (xaXov), the dear (cpiXov), and the in her defense. Antigone does not say that once she has buried Polynices it is fair and noble for her to die or be kiUed, but that it is fair or noble in doing it (xovxo noiovarf) to die. Antigone borrows the language appropriate to the patriotic soldier whose dying on behalf of his

holy (ooiov)

country

coincides

with

his

fighting

task accomphshed, it may be good, or as to die (461-4); but for it to be noble, there

(cf. 194-5; Ai. 1310-12). With her she later says, gainful, for her
must

be

between the burial

of one's

own as

and one's

own

necessary connection death. Antigone must

shows

imagine her does

(data
things
so

act of

burying

an act of

fighting. What

that she things

is her saying data

means
not

navovqyqaaaa.

To do the

holy

dqdv)

to avoid committing any offense against the

a

holy
to

to

profane

holy

place, for example; it does

not mean
1349).19

go out of one's
not

way to but

perform some pious

deed (cf. 256,

It is
my

enough,

then,

to translate Antigone's phrase paradoxically as

one must

"by

piety,"

criminal

be

even more
things"

nothing in the
transforms the
to the risking

performance of ordinariness of

into something much more akin life in battle. Creon surely makes that transfor mation possible; but one wonders whether Antigone does not need Creon in order to be what she is.
of one's

holy burying

literal: "having stopped at (cf. 300-1). Antigone thus

9.4. It is not easy to say how Antigone understands the connection between her saying that it is noble to die in this way and that she wiU he dear with him who is dear. Does this mutual dearness foUow from the nobility of her death, her death simply, or her piety? Antigone seems
to supply the missing connection herself: "since it is for a longer time that I must please those below than those here, for there I shaU always
19

Cf. E. Fraenkel, Ag.,

vol.

2, 355; K. Latte, Kleine Schriften, 337. For the

and

difference between Antigone's

the

phrase

Saia doav
of

see

Thucydides in

1.71.1,

where

Corinthians distinguish the

others;
such
a

performance

justice from the

exist

abstention

from
cf.

hurting

distinction does

not

normally

sacred

matters;

Xen. Mem. 4.4.11.

A
he."

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone for
she a new

159
perplexity.20

The

supposed
not

connection,

however,

makes

Antigone does
of

say that
them

she must please

those below because her

wiU

act

piety forever. She

more

wiU

please

forever,

but because
that

he

with

them

combines what

the

pious proposition

she please those

below

because

in

loving

they demand is holy with the hope that she wiU be communion with them for a longer time. She omits from the
holy,"
time"

pious

"more because what they demand is and re places it by "for a longer that properly belongs to her hope. The holy thus turns into a means for making herself dear; but it can only be such a means through Creon's decree. Creon is essential to Antigone's
proposition

obtaining something for herself in nobly devoting herself to The holy entirely resolves the usual tension between the noble dear. 9.5.
The
word

another. and

the

can mean dear as a friend is dear. Antigone seems here to use the word in both meanings at once. She wiU he with those who love her through what she does for them, and she wiU he with those who already love her. She must first, to rejoin her own, acquire them as friends. Antigone proves her right to be by deed what she already is by

cptXog

is

ambiguous.21

It

is dear,

or

it

can mean

dear

as one's own

birth. She
enters.

reconstitutes of

the

fanuly

The love

her

own almost owes

to

which

Antigone partly

as something into which one freely becomes a matter of choice. It is this her awesome uncanniness (376). as

9.6.
yrjoaaa.

Antigone's She
and

xeiaoyiai

is

extraordinary
with

as

her data
and
"he"

navovq-

wiU

not

live but he

Polynices;

suggests

"lie dead
grave as no

buried."

Antigone's imagination does

not animate

not go

beyond the
their
state

(cf.

4.2). She does

the

dead, but

thinks

of

4.3). If, however, one transposes the relation between Antigone and Polynices into a living one, Antigone then seems to be speaking the language of lovers: "I shall lie asleep, dear (cf. Aesch. Ch. 894-5). Per as I shaU be, with him who is dear to
different from
corpses

(cf.

me"

haps
case

neither of

these

extremes

exactly defines
coincide

the

herself
grave.

understands what she

says, but it
should

cannot

way in which Antigone be accidental that in her

the language of the

the language

of

incest

with

9.7.
things
make

Antigone

mentions

the gods last (Ismene never

the

does)

and

the

they hold in honor. The noble, up together xd xwv Betov evxifia

and men

dear,

and

the

holy

probably

to men, the dead, draws the eyes of

the gods,

one could

(cf.

502-4),

they are severaUy assigned say that Antigone's nobihty her dearness elicits the love of the

; but if

20 21
vol.

Cf. R. E. Wycherly, CP 1947, 51-2. On its Homeric usage see E. Benveniste, Le

vocabulaire

des institutions i-e,

I, 335-53; but his

is

assertion

that q>lXog never

cplXe

means

one's own cannot

be taken

as certain: ndxeo

modified

by

but /j.fjxeQ

by i/itf.

160

Interpretation
and

dead,

her piety is
Punishment

confirmed of

by

the

gods'

refusal
gods'

to accept
reward

remorse.

the

impious

is the

Creon's for piety be

(cf. 927-8).
9.8. In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates forced Euthyphro to
gods'

choose

tween saying that the holy is holy because the gods love it, with the consequence that the holy loses its unity in the contradictory affec or that the gods love the holy because it is holy, with the conse tions,
quence that the gods are

dispensable

guides

Now in trying to understand Antigone perplexity. Is it because the holy is

commands,
or

we seem

for understanding what it is. to be caught in a similar Antigone does

what

holy

that

it

because the

what she wants

holy just happens to be in accordance with to do that it looks as if she is obeying what it commands?

We surely are not now in a position to justify our choosing either answer; but the parallel with Euthyphro indicates why in part Socrates and Euthy
phro cannot arrive at a

satisfactory definition
the
relation of

of

the holy. The dialogue

wholly fails to
occurs.22

consider

the

holy

to the soul:

yivxrj

never

Antigone,
Antigone
a

on

the other

hand,

is

concerned with almost no other and even

question.

supplies what

Plato thought it best to omit,

perhaps
omitted

way that Plato did mostly approve. Plato, indeed, may have what he recognized the tragic poet alone could supply. In the Philebus, Socrates lists itself
seven

in

9.9.
soul

occasions

on

which

the

by

experiences a mixture of pleasure and pain:

dqyrj,
for the

cpdfiog,
central

nddog,

dqfjvog,

eqwg,

t,f\Xog,

cpddvog (47el-2).
call

Were it

not

threnos,
the soul.

we should

be inclined to

them

all passions or affections of

affection of

Threnos, however, is not an affection but the expression of an the soul. It is, strictly speaking, the Greek equivalent to a

dirge and, more generaUy, any kind of lamentation.23 In its general sense it can accompany any of the affections that Socrates lists; indeed, accor

ding
strict

to

Socrates, comedy

too is a kind

of

threnos (50b 1-3, c5). In its

sense,

however,

threnos is the artful and conventional expres

in song of the sorrow one has at a funeral; but no word in Greek any other language that I know of names the unexpressed sorrow one has in the presence of death. That mourning for the dead is primarily the
sion
or

expression artful
and

of

that mourning

(nevdog),

that its expression is primarily

occasion
of

conventional,24

and

that the

its

expression

is

primarily
the

at a

funeral

all point

to the possibUity that certain aspects of

soul are

necessarUy only

and

As

these aspects

come

essentiaUy linked with poetry and convention. to hght in poetry and convention, to divorce

from poetry and convention is to destroy them. And yet to leave them in (and to) poetry and convention veUs the seeing of them as
them

22

owe

this insight to Professor Leo Strauss.

23
24

Cf. E. Reiner, Die Riluelle Totenklage der Griechen, 4-5. Cf., e.g., Aeschines 3.77: nolv nevBfjaai xai xd vo/ii^6fieva

noifjaai.

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone
could,
without

161

they

are

in themselves.

Only
are

very

artful poet

destroying

them,

reveal them as

they

in

themselves.25

10 (78-99). 10.1.
cerned with the nature

The thirteen
of

speeches plan.

that foUow are mainly con

imply
goes,
puts what

Ismene says that she is by incapable of acting against the citizens, but that this does not that she holds in contempt xd xwv dewv evxi/ia. Her submission to
not

feasibility

Antigone's

Creon is

based on any agreement with Creon; as far as her intention is on Antigone's side. According to Antigone, however, Ismene forward her natural inabihty in order to conceal her contempt for
she

the gods hold honorable. She herseh

wiU

proceed

to

heap

tomb for her dearest brother. Antigone's

ability.

language far

outpaces

up a her

The

guard reports

that the ground around

Polynices'

corpse was raised

unbroken

(249-50);

and

the tumulus that Creon later has

for

Polynices is
using

the work of

many

men

(1203-4). Antigone

might

then be

loosely one of the many ways of saying that she wiU bury Polynices; but the intensity of her desire to carry out her conventional duty tends to restore to the casual usage of everyday its fuU meaning
(cf. 9.6). If
than
she cannot

in fact do
she
not

greater

Ismene's,

and she must

unclear,

moreover,

whether she

burying

Polynices. If

did

to do, her abihty is no be judged solely on intention. It is succeeds in even a minimal way in finish the rites on her first attempt, she
what she plans

is prevented by the guards from doing so on the second; and if she did finish them on her first attempt, it is hard to understand why she returned (cf. 25.4). There is a further difficulty. If the guards in sweeping away the dust she had sprinkled on corpse nullify her act of as the need to bury him again implies, one must strictiy say that burial, Antigone's plan fails. Ismene, then, would rightly insist on their own
Polynices'

weakness.

If those below look to intention

would

and not

to accomplishment
a reception as

(cf.
would

9.1, 9.2), Ismene

be

guaranteed as

loving

Antigone.
10.2.
not even

Only if they demand that one attempt to do the impossible she be inferior in their eyes to Antigone.
There is
a stiU more
account

terrible possibUity: that those below

wiU

take into

Antigone's

daring
of of

but

wUl

condemn on

her
one

along
to

with

Ismene for her faUure. This possibUity depends

the the
Athenians'

how

understands
pick

condemnation

their generals for

failing
gene

up Athenians later
rals'

corpses

after

the

battle

Arginusae. Although the

why the
onset of a storm

repented of their

decision,

one wonders

defense did

not at once convince

them: that the

foiled their attempt; or, as their advocate puts it, incapacity does not argue for treachery (Xen. Hell. 1.7.33). What made them go against their own law, which laid it down that the accused should be tried individuaUy?

25

it is revealing that Plato has his Athenian Stranger

to illustrate the advantage
a poet claims

use

the example of

burial

in

order

to have over a

legislator in

contra

dicting

himself (cf. Lgs. 719bl2-e5).

162

Interpretation

If intention, then, does not suffice, nor incapacity be a plausible excuse, when one is dealing with holy things, but only the strictest conformity to the law is innocence, Antigone's superiority to Ismene would lack

divine

sanction.

It

would at

be

closer

to

madness. profanes

the sanctuary of the protection, the Chorus Eumenides; ask that Oedipus purify himself for his violation. When the Chorus have carefuUy explained the ceremony, Oedipus turns to his two daughters

10.3.

In Oedipus

and after

Colonus, Oedipus Theseus grants him

Athens'

and asks one of them prevent

to do it for

him,

him: "For I beheve

one soul

to pay this debt even for ten task and leaves; and the next
men ever

thousand"

since his lameness and blindness is enough, if it be gracious there, (498-9). Ismene assumes the

thing

we

hear

about

her is that Creon's

have did

captured

get

her (818-9). One may wonder then whether Ismene to purify her father. If one grants that she may not have,
Oedipus'

discards the possibihty of Oedipus' intention to be purified

and

would

remaining to the end unpurified, be equivalent to his purification.

be the case, Ismene again would merit as much praise for holiness as Antigone. The extremes of Arginusae and Oedipus at Colonus show, if nothing else, how hard it is to understand what holds together If
such

the nobihty and the piety

of

Antigone.

10.4. Ismene is afraid for Antigone, a fear that Antigone takes to be Ismene's fear for herself and the truth of her natural inability to act despite the citizens. She bids Ismene to keep upright her own fate.
Tzdxjiog
control

is usuaUy not thought of as something over which mortals have (cf. fr. 871), nor is it usual for it, without a qualifying adjective (cf. Tr. 88), to lose its ordinary sense of evU destiny or death; indeed,
to
occur anywhere else

neither usage seems uses

in the

tragedians.26

Antigone
of

Tidx/tog twice more, once of the

destiny

that attends the house

Labdacus (860), and once of her own death for which no friend mourns (881). Antigone, then, might be doing more than taunting Ismene for her cowardice. Ismene need not fear for Antigone because her deed and its consequences are her fate and nothing can alter it (cf. 235-6); and Ismene is blind if
she supposes

that her fate is under her own

control and not

simply a part of the doom inherent in her fanuly. If the first of these implications holds, Antigone would seemingly be choosing her own fate (cf.
she

9.5);
is

and

if the

second

holds, Antigone
does,
5.1).
not

would

here

betray

her

awareness

that what she plans,

and suffers

is bound up
of she

with who

and whence she came

(cf.

10.5.

Ismene begs Antigone

to teU

anyone

her plan;

and

that she herself will do

likewise,
as

will show

Antigone,
her
to

hopes,

that she

is willing to do
scorns

as much
of

she can

to further her plan; but Antigone

this

counsel

prudence

and

bids

denounce

her to

26
even

Pindar, however, has

remotely

several

instances

of neutral

ndx/iog, but none where it is

under one's own control.

A
everyone.

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone

163

have a plan; she only has an inten her word, Antigone would have faUed at her first attempt. She would not have done anything for Polynices. Antigone seems to regard it as essential that she be caught and as

Antigone,

then, does

not

tion. Had Ismene taken her

at

inessential that

she succeed.

One thus begins to

understand what she meant

by saying that for her to die in burying Polynices, or rather, as we must now translate, in trying to bury him, is noble (cf. 9.3). That she wUl
stop
of at

nothing does away

with

not entaU

for her the but

use of craft.

Even so, Antigone

after

easily

gets

it,

which cannot and

amaze

us, especially

hearing

Creon's
10.6.

preparations

listening

to Ismene's plausible demurral.

caught provokes

Antigone's indifference to getting

Odysseus'

Ismene into

saying that she has a hot heart for cold things. In the context of the play,

in hght of pun on \pv%rj and ipv%og (x 555), one cannot help but understand Ismene as saying that Antigone shows aU the artless intensity of life itself in her devotion to the heartless coldness of (cf. OC 621-2).27 Ismene now the law about corpses and "dead
and
souls"

realizes

that Antigone is not just

fulfilling

the

requirements

of

law,

compliance with which, she might weU think, does not have to dispense with cunning (cf. Her. 2.1218 e). A cool head may strictly preclude a

but it surely does not check one from the performance of a Antigone's reply as much as admits (dXX') the discrepancy holy between the subjective heat in her concern and its objective coldness; but she reconcUes them by saying that she knows she is pleasing to
pious

heart,

rite.

those

whom

she

most

of

aU

must

please.

Her gratifying

of

the dead

between the law and her passion, for the law seems to be the formulation of the duties of familial love. If one looks to the bene ficiaries of the law, its coldness vanishes in their warmth.
mediates

10.7.
wiU

Antigone

says

that

she

knows

she

is pleasing,

not

that she

be pleasing, to the dead. For the first time she uses the present tense in speaking of how the dead wiU regard her. Her use of the present tense can be understood in two ways: either her intention by itself,
regardless
of

its accomplishment, is

enough

to please the
the
vividness

dead,
of

or,

as

Ismene takes

it,

the

present
can

tense

reflects

Antigone's
,

desire, for,

as

nothing

possibly frustrate her

confidence

(navovqyijaaaa)

she

imagines the deed already done. Ismene

ment alone can warrant

now thinks that the accomplish

Antigone's

needed

depends on her ability, which is that only Antigone's love of the impossible can explain her readiness to try at ah. Antigone does not deny the charge; she merely says that her efforts wUl come to an end whenever she loses her strength.
and that
so
seems

in her pleasing the dead; much less than what is

Antigone
she

to maintain that the

attempt

is all-important,

and

that

does
of

not expect

to succeed. Ismene then points to the utter unseem

liness

hunting

out

the

impossible;

and

at

this suggestion that what

27

On the

ellipse with yivxeoioi see

A.D. Knox, CQ 1931, 208.

164
she

Interpretation

is

doing

is

ignoble, Antigone
of

turns

vindictive:

Ismene is hatred
of

certain

to

earn

the immediate hatred

reward

Antigone
attempt

and
and

the

lasting

Polynices.

The

for Antigone's

the punishment

for Ismene's

abstention

equaUy depend

on

the same

principle:

those below

love

or

hate in

accordance with one's willingness to go after

the impossible. In
seek

loving
own

those who

try

and

faU, they love

those
to

who

deliberately
suicide

their

death. Ismene's

natural

inabihty
/nrjxav-

commit

justifies her

punishment.

10.8.

Words
thrice
says

with

the

stem

occur seven

times,

used

Ismene,
Ismene

by

the

Chorus,

and

once, between the two triads,

by by Creon.
thrice

the citizens

(1) she is naturaUy without a /inxavij to (79), (2) Antigone is in love with things that have
that

act

despite
p,r\%avf\

no

(92), (3) it is

unseemly to hunt

(1) (349), (2) man contrives his escape from diseases that have no p,n%avf\ (363), (3) man has in the fnqxavai of his art something wise beyond hope (365); and Creon says that there is no firjxavrj for knowing

the Chorus say that

that have no firjxavij (92); man prevaUs over the mountain-ranging beast
out things

by

firjxavat

a man's

fvxtf, cpqdvrj/ia,
of

and

yvw/j,n

before he is tested in
matched

pubhc affairs

(175). Ismene's triad

impossibles is

device-less possibles, for their "device-less diseases." The one strictly device-less occasion that confronts man is death (361-2). Antigone's love, then, of the impossible is her love of death (cf. 220). Her hot heart for Bavelv
; and this eqwg,
cold

diseases"

by the means "seemingly

Chorus'

triad of

in turn,

spells out one consequence of

things is precisely this eqwg xov the antigene-

ration of

her

name.
of

10.9. coming

Antigone in her love

of

the impossible and man in to

refute

his

over

the
of

impossible

seem

Creon's

assertion

of

the

impossibility

knowing

the exercise of political

soul, temper, and judgment apart from but if one takes him to mean by extension rule;
a man's

that only in confrontation with the city can man be known, Antigone's artless defiance of the city and artful man's neutrahty to the city (365-70)
suggest

touchstone
which
goal.

understands the city as the indispensable The city somehow stands between the daring for only death is a limit and the daring for which only death is its If, moreover, Antigone's love of the impossible does not just

that

Creon correctly
man.

of

accidentaUy express itself in an unrealizable attempt to obey the divine but there is some connection between them, the city would stand between the human that defies the impossible in one sense and the divine that demands the impossible in another. The city would owe both its existence and the precariousness of its existence to the impossible

law,

demanded

by the gods and the impossible defied by man as man. As the city cannot be without both of these impossibles, so it cannot submit itself entirely to either of them. Antigone thus seems to be defending
unreservedly one basis defend unreservedly.
of

the city that the city itself cannot afford to

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone

1 65

10.10. In saying that she wiU not suffer anything as terrible as an ignoble death, Antigone comes close to forgetting her intention, for she imphes without knowing it that the most terrible thing she could
suffer would
not

be

Polynices'

lack

of

burial (cf.
of

transfers the nobihty

of

her

action

to the nobUity

her

2.2, 8.5). She death, as if

(cf.
9.3).

only her death could testify to the nobihty of her By ignoring Ismene's suggestion that she practice a

action

minimum of guUe

(if guUe is not too strong a word for it), Antigone blurs the issue between them. The alternative to a noble death is not an ignoble death but life (cf. 555); and hfe in one of two ways: either to abandon her intention entirely way
as not and

ignobly

live on,

or make

an

attempt
she

in

such

to get caught. Antigone rejects both ways, but

ironicaUy

first way her dvafiovXia when it applies without any irony to her rejection of the second. Her lack of any plan guarantees her death even if it also guarantees her faUure to carry out her intention.
calls the rejection of the

10.11.
of

Of the

seven occurrences

of

ndaxeiv, five

are

in the

mouth

Antigone (96 bis, 236 [guard], 926, 928, 942, 995 [Creon]). She begins by ordering Ismene to let her suffer "this terrible and
thing,"

she ends
suffers at

by

ordering the Chorus to

at

see what

she, who

reverenced

piety,

the hands

of what sort of men.

Her

scorn of

suffering
xd

finally
deivdv

gives

way to her indignation

her

suffering.

With

nadeiv

xovxo she

ironicaUy

refers

to her
at
not

noble

death

(xaXwg davelv); but if

she can

later be indignant

the truth. xaXcog Oaveiv is

her suffering, its literal meaning must be the equivalent of nadeiv xd deivdv xovxo,

for death in itself does

can

not admit of nobihty, any more than nobUity any account (as Antigone knows and Creon does not) when 4.1). One can show nobUity in the action that one is dead (cf. precipitates one's death, or if the action accompanies it, even in the

be

of

dying

itself (cf.

9.3), but
pretends

not otherwise

(cf. Plato Phaedo 118a6-12).

means about means

Because Antigone

that her action and her death wiU be simulta

neous, she can now hide from herself the knowledge of what it for her to die (cf. 36). Her passionate obedience to the law burial, which is in keeping with her vivid awareness of what it
to be dead (cf.

4.5),

perhaps even thrives on

this

self-delusion.

10.12. doxel

Ismene

ends the stichomythia

dXX'

in the

same

had introduced it. Her

el

doxei

aoi

echoes

way that Antigone Antigone's ool el

d'

Antigone's apodosis accused Ismene of hold in honor, Ismene's apodosis teUs Antigone dishonoring what the gods to proceed, secure in the knowledge that she is dear to her friends (Polynices, herself, and their whole famUy). Ismene thus separates what

(76); but

whereas

Antigone
dearness
that

must and

hold together. Ismene

sees

no

connection

the piety of Antigone (cf.

can

10.3), for

she

between the does not think

madness seems

She

to

fit with piety, however painfuUy it can with dearness. forget that there is such a thing as divine madness.
The
old men who

11 (100-61). 11.1.

make

up the Chorus

are

166
the
measure

Interpretation
of

peculiar greatness, for she is the only Greek tragedy who does not have a chorus of women to console her. Ismene is a token of what such a chorus would be like; hence it is plain before the Chorus enter that Antigone does not need the kind of consolation that only women could give. extant plays lacks the vocative plural of Antigone alone of

Antigone's
extant

suffering heroine in

Sophocles'

cpiXog (cf.

45.1).

11.2. As a hymn of patriotic thanksgiving the parodos could not be bettered; and the same appropriateness holds true for aU that the Chorus sing. Man's skillful daring, Antigone's fatal madness, Love's power, Antigone's predecessors in suffering, invocation, to
Dionysus'

each

of

these

themes

the Chorus

give

the

perfect

expression.

Their

individual

is partly due to the refusal to compromise with each theme. Each is in turn the whole truth; none is put within a horizon larger than itself. WhUe the Chorus are thus as extreme in
perfection
each case as

Chorus'

Antigone
not

or

Creon consistently
far
more moderate

is,
than

their

continual

shift

in

perspective makes them

either can

be. Their
adhere

moderation

does

arise

from

the steadiness with which

they

to sober views, but exactly the contrary. The Chorus effortlessly move from the unlimited power to man (first stasimon) to the unlimited
power of
at the

Eros (third stasimon), for they

and

are

totaUy

persuaded of each

moment,

they

never give

Adaptability,
perhaps

in
so

which moderation

any thought to their reconciliation. to a large extent consists, has never

been

brilliantly
major mouth of which

parodied.

The last
in

words

of

the play, that

moderation are
of

is the

component

happiness,

are

as

true as they
Chorus'

empty in the
sohdity, then,

the Chorus (cf.

aUows

65.1). The

lack

paradoxicaUy it the right Chorus for Antigone, accurately reflect her soul. The law Antigone obeys Antigone. That her hot heart for cold things is not an
but thoughdessly,
makes

them to speak

profoundly
through

whose speeches shines

accidental con

junction,
11.3.

the Chorus can never understand.

The threefold

mention

mention of

her

gates

and

yfj)

of Thebes (compare the threefold holds the parodos together: Thebes for

which the sun

has

never shone more

of

in

answer

to the joyful presence

whose
ruler

beautifully (102), Thebes joyous Victory (149), and Thebes the

aU-night
moves

celebrant

wiU

from the

night whose

terrors the

be Dionysus (153). The parodos sun (note the threefold cpavev, forgetfulness

cpdog, ecpdvQng)
of

has dispeUed to

the night that promises

them. As the first strophe thus corresponds to the last antistrophe, so the first of the anapaestic systems, which refers to Polynices, his
quarrel
with

third,
of the and

which

Eteocles, and his marshaled army, corresponds to the describes the Argive panoplies left behind and the death
and

two

brothers;
and

the first antistrophe, which mentions

Hephaestus

Ares,

corresponds to the second

strophe,

Capaneus

Ares. The

second

anapaestic

describes nvqcpdqog system, which is the center

which

A
of

Reading

Sophocles'

of

Antigone
whose

167

seven parts, is devoted to the overboastful (cf. 1350-3). Within this

the

parodos'

Zeus,

lightning

punishes

"ring-composition"

the parodos

from the war itself, over which the gods Hephaestus, Ares, Zeus preside, to the victory and its aftermath, which the gods Zeus, Nike, and Bacchios determine, with ''Aqr\g degidaeiqog effecting the transition from the first triad to the second. The first triad of Hephaestus,
also moves

and

the fire

of

the enemy's
and

torches, Ares,
of

the

clatter of

the enemy's army

in retreat,
The

Zeus the hurler

lightning

against

Capaneus,

seems

to receive in the second triad their equivalents for triumphant Thebes.

flaxxevwv

Bacchios eXeXlxBwv is to lead replaces the thud of faU (dvxixvna ya) ; the renown Victory /jteyaXwvvpiog brings replaces the ndxayog "Aqeog, and the trophy of brazen armor dedicated to Zeus the god of rout replaces the fire of Hephaestus, who is now to be thought of as ^aAxev? (cf. 52.4).

dancing

Capaneus'

movement from dxxlg deXiov to %oqoig 7iavvv%loig iXeXlxOwv Bdxxiog paraUels the movement of the play as a whole: from the time just before dawn to dawn (cf. 1.1), to high noon, when a sudden dust storm heralds Antigone's return to corpse (416), to Antigone's departure from the hght of the sun (808, 879),28 to the

1 1.4.

The

parodos'

and

Polynices'

Chorus'

invocation
seem

in

whose

of Dionysus as choregus of the fire-breathing stars, honor the frenzied Thyiads dance all night (1146-54). The

Chorus

unfold; but

they

to sense from the start the way in which the day wiU owe this prescience entirely to their absorption in the
not

demands

of

the moment and

one

They

say everything in

to any insight into the nature of things. way or another that has to be said about

Antigone, even to the point of duplicating here the rhythm of the playi but they never understand anything of what they say. They are the
mouthpiece of wisdom without

being

wise themselves.

They

thus aUow

Sophocles to be always invisible whUe being always present. If Antigone finaUy becomes entirely transparent, so that she can be read off as easily from her surface as from her depths (the first indication of which

is the meaning

of

her name), Sophocles,

every

on

the other

hand,
is

remains

throughout opaque, since

manifestation of

his

wisdom

cut off

Perhaps, then, the ultimate conflict does not consist in that between Antigone and Creon, or even between the fanuly and the city, but between Antigone and Sophocles, of whom one is always what she shows herself to be, and the other is never what he shows
from its
source.

himself to be (cf. 37.5). 11.5.

that

The
ways or

shows

the

different
name

one trait of the kind one usuaUy calls poetic astonishing virtuosity. It characterizes in eleven the eleven different beings to which a noncoUective proper

parodos

has

Chorus'

is

can

be

given.

It

seems sun

or mode of animation.

(1)

The

to display every possible degree hovers between being a signal for

28

The

metrical shape of

808-9 is the

same as

100-2.

168
Argives'

Interpretation

the
and sets of an

flight

and the cause of their

in motion; (2)

Polynices becomes
sentence

flight: it is seen, sees, moves, so fused with the metaphor

to him what can only

eagle

that the same

attributes

belong

a name (3) is shghtly more than for fire (cf. 1007, 1126); (4) Ares, however, the clatter of war, for ndxayog "Aqeog is in apposition to dvxmdXov ("not an overcoming of its opponent the dvoxEiqio/J-a dqdxovxog which through the story of the serpent's teeth (cf. 1124-5)

to the eagle;

Hephaestus

seems

to be nothing but

serpent"),29

galvanizes
ever

Ares into

higher degree
a

of

life than

a personification can
god:

have; (5)

Zeus is

fully living

anthropomorphic

he hates,

down the wicked; (6) the anonymous Capaneus hears, sees, (^axxevwv) is something more than human: he is divinely inspired as he blows blasting winds of hatred against Thebes; (7) Ares hke Polynices is fused with the metaphor of a trace horse, which in turn
and strikes

is fused

with

that

of

charioteer

and

warrior,

as

though

Ares

were

the moving spirit tide of battle is

of noXvdqpiaxog

trophies; (9) the miserable Polynices and Eteocles are entirely human, born from the same father and mother and sharing a common death; (10) Nike brings,
the
god
whom with

Thebes (149); one honors

(8) Zeus

who

turns the

feels,
earth

and

shows
god

her feelings

of

joy; (11) Bacchios

present series arrange

who at

shakes

the

is the
for

to whom one prays to be

the

night-long
scale
of

dances. It is extremely difficult to

one

this

on

any

being, If, however, one dares to test them against the consistently literal, the degree, that is, to which the Chorus themselves might subscribe to a literal reading of their language, the Chorus would admit perhaps that Polynices and Eteocles (9) are farthest removed from Polynices the eagle (2); the clatter of Ares (4) from Ares the trace horse, warrior, and charioteer (7); Zeus the god of rout (8) from Zeus the god of just punishment (5); Bacchic Capaneus (6) from Bacchios himself (11); piney Hephaestus (3) from the eye of the golden day (1), and the victory Capaneus strives to announce (133) from Nike who rejoices in
not on what principle scale should

does

know

the

be based.

the

the
we

joy of Thebes (10). Now in a play 4.3, 9.6), being of a corpse (cf.
are presented
at

whose unstated

issue turns
relevant of

on

it

cannot
a

but be
of

that

the

start

with

such

variety

ways

being

alive, from the poetic Polynices to the prosaic Polynices and Eteocles (with many shades between), especiaUy if one recalls Antigone's rj i/j,r] fvxr) ndXai xeBvnxev (559-60), which plainly upsets any 44.2).30 ordinary understanding of life and death (cf.
d'

11.6.
that

they only

To the Chorus Eteocles is politicaUy negligible, so much so refer to him anonymously, without even etymologizing

29

On

xelQCo/na see are

E. Fraenkel, Ag. 1326; here, Miiller.

other passages that confirm

30

There

several

the

significance

of

the ways in

which

the Chorus sing here: 487 (

29.3); 658-9 ( 39.3); 854 ( 46.7); 1007 ( 52.4).

A Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone

169

his is be

name

(cf. Aesch. Septem 829-31),

pitiable
one

(axvyeqoiv)
as

who,

and who along with his brother nothing more; he surely does not seem to Creon thinks, deserved the aristeia (cf. 4.1). The and

Chorus, indeed, never aUude to Eteocles again, any more then they do to Polynices, neither of whom holds any interest for them, once they
cause of anything. Now that they are dead (cf. 3.2). The Chorus therefore do not speak here they nothing of Eteocles as the former ruler of Thebes; Creon is now the king, and cannot are

be the immediate

their

concern is only for what he wiU devise for the new situation (155-61). That Creon deliberately convoked them because he knew of

their

loyalty

to the house

of

Laius

(164-9)
sUence

makes their sUence aU the

stranger.
Eteocles'

What, however,
aristeia, if not

somewhat

accounts

for

their

sUence

about

for their

about

ascribe the triumph of

has

no

place

where

Zeus
the

Thebes entirely to the and Ares directly

gods would

gods.31

his rule, is that they Human exceUence

in battle. To
to
effectiveness

participate

infer, however,
recognizes
no of

from this that the Chorus hold human

be severely limited

by

limit to

man

be mistaken, for the first stasimon but death. The Chorus, then, have merely

fragments
that

convictions,

each of which

lasts just

as

long
than

as

the occasion

provokes

it (cf.

11.2).
more

11.7.

If the Chorus treat Polynices

fuUy

Eteocles, it is

any indignation at his treachery to his country, his impiety to the gods, or dehberate intent to commit fratricide (cf. 199-202), for
not out of

they
only
with

make aU of single
out

the Argive army mdiscriminately guUty of hybris, and Capaneus for particular obloquy. The lacuna at 112
regard

makes

it uncertain, but it would seem that they do not hatred. Polynices is simply the leader of the
thus
of

Polynices
whose

Argives,
him

description
responsible and their chosen

easUy

passes

into that
Chorus'

of

the whole army.

and makes

Only

the

etymologizing for the

his

name particularizes

him

somewhat

war.

The

mUdness, then,
suggest cannot

about

Polynices

indifference to Eteocles together

supporters
wisely.

that Creon has not

gauge

his
of

And if Creon

correctly the
the mark

temper
when

the

Chorus, he

seems

bound to faU wUdly

short of

he has to face Antigone. Creon's

speech

12 (162-210). 12.1.

falls into three

main parts:

the

legitimacy
and the of

of

his

rule

first

act of

(162-74), the principles of his rule (175-91), his rule (192-206), to which he adds a restatement
of

his

principles
which

(207-10). Although the theme

seven

the

speech part and

is the
once

polis,

occurs

times, twice in

each

main

in
its

the restatement
own

(162, 167, 178, 191, 194, 203, 209),

second on man's

each part

has
and

triad on which it turns: the first part turns on the rule of

and

Laius,

Oedipus,

his two sons; the

rpvxij,

cpqdvnfia,

31

Cf. A. Maddalena,

Sofocle,

vol.

I, 55.

170
yvtofirj,
third on
which

Interpretation

only the

exercise

of

political

rule

can

reveal; and the

and

Polynices'

triple crime,

against

his country, its gods,

his

brother (cf. 27.1). 12.2.

after

Jebb's

mistranslation of

the opening
missed:

of

Creon's

speech

brings

out what one might otherwise

have

"Sirs,

the vessel of our

State,

being
then

tossed on

wUd

by
and

the

gods."

Creon,

waves, hath once more been safely steadied however, says that the gods shook xd ndXeog

righted them

(cf. OC 394). He thus

seems at once of

to absolve

Polynices

for
(cf.

the

any guilt for the war and victory. He goes much further than the Chorus
of

deprive Eteocles

any

credit

did,

who

only

assigned

the victory to the gods, but left the guUt of the Argives intact 11.6). Whatever reasoning led Creon to think that the gods were
(Oedipus'

totaUy

responsible
compels
wqBov

curse one

of

his
he

sons says

perhaps), his

aelaavxeg
r\vlx'

wqBwaav

to

reflect

when

four lines later,

Oldinovg
and

ndXiv.

If Creon

aUudes
of the

to the plague, it would be

gods

equaUy true to say

righted

If,

as might

that he shook the city it again, for he both caused and removed the plague. seem more likely, Creon alludes to the Sphinx, one would
of

Oedipus

as

have to say

that the gods shook

the city
either

and

Oedipus

righted not

it.

Creon,

however,
imperfect
either

cannot
wqBov

be alluding to his
riddle

preclude them

possibihty, for both but Creon does

or

not

only does the recaU Oedipus

because

of

own crimes.
of

Creon

mentions

solving Oedipus solely to

because

of

establish

his

own

accession own
right

to the throne through his

to

discovery of his the legitimacy with him, and kinship

his
the

hence his
knows

demand the
royal

loyalty

of

Chorus,

who

he

were always

loyal to the

family. One

now sees

that Creon's

temporal clause about Oedipus aUows him to gloss over the

Oedipus'

irregularity
his
sons'

of succession. one

accession as weU as

the

bearing

of

his

crimes on

The balanced phrases xovxo afflig suggest that is to insert mentaUy some form of line 166 after wqBov ndXiv, but, as Jebb remarks, this is impossible, as the xai of xdnel must link with wqBov. This grammatical peculiarity has the effect
diwXex'

pevxovx'

suppressing any specific mention of the loyalty to Oedipus; instead, Oedipus and his sons are lumped together in the phrase xovg
of
xelvwv

Chorus'

naidag, where
as

xelvwv

refers

to Laius as the father of Oedipus

and

and

Oedipus

the

father

of

Polynices

Eteocles.

Oedipus, then,
Oedipus'

simply as an indispensable transition between Laius and sons (cf. 8.6). Creon is forced to adopt such involuted language because the Chorus could not have been loyal to Oedipus as the legitimate
used

is

successor

to Laius

by birth,

whose reward was

the throne

but only to Oedipus the solver of Laius and marriage to his

Oedipus'

of

the riddle,

own mother.

One
and

confirmed, the Chorus ceased to be loyal to him, xelvwv should, but cannot, mean Oedipus and Jocasta, for only through his sister is Creon entitled to the kingship

easUy imagine that as hence his legitimacy was

can

soon as

crimes

became

known,

ironicaUy

Reading

Sophocles'

of

Antigone

171

without

can to regularize the royal house abandoning the truth entirely. He tries to pretend that succession is through the male line only, so that the Chorus will not remember, as if they could ever forget, that Polynices and Eteocles were the offspring of an

(cf. 486). Creon does everything he

incestuous
xelvwv

marriage
as

(cf.

5.1). He

wants

the Chorus to

understand

xovg

naldag meaning the descendants of Laius but he cannot quite bring himself to say that the Chorus

and was

Oedipus,
loyal to
the

Oedipus

Laius'

as

son,

which

alone

would

have

given

to

x.x.n.

meaning he needs; of Oedipus, for he

normal succession

nor can

he,

on the other

hand,

suppress aU mention of

stiU needs

him to

maintain

the fiction

legitimately
must of

through three generations.

must

12.3.

As Creon
as

here

misrepresent the

line

of

succession, he

mistakenly describe
the throne
not

the

Chorus'

loyalty

to the royal

loyalty fanuly,

to the successive occupants

which,

as

we

saw, it

could

have been. He takes their adaptability to circumstances for their firmness of principle (cf 11 He further does not seem to be aware that this attempt to bind the Chorus to him does not jibe with his attempt to be the spokesman for the city as a whole. If he calls the
. .7).

Chorus together because implies that the city has

of which are not and never

of

their past

loyalty

to the royal

and

had discordant

elements

within

house, he it, some

His first
might

mention
a

be just
with a

have been loyal to the Labdacids (cf. 289-92). gains in significance, xd ndXeog periphrasis for the city itself; but, if the city is not a
of

the city thus

single common interest, xd jidXeog is indistinguishable whole, from the present monarchical regime, and merely a euphemism for xd Aaflbaxibwv Bqdvwv xqdxn. Later, in the anger of debate, Creon wiU have to admit as much and more (738), but now he cannot do so, for his title to rule must be unblemished; this, however, can be the case only if the royal house has consistently identified its interests with those of the city. Creon, then, has another reason for being so vague

about
no

Oedipus,

as weU as

for

implying

Polynices'

innocence.

Polynices,

less than his brother, is needed for Creon's own succession. Their only crime is mutual fratricide, which, as Creon presents it, has nothing to do with the city and its troubles. 12.4.
other as

Creon distinguishes foUows: yivxtf is

fvxtf, cpqdvn/ua,
what

and

yvwfin

from

each and

one

is

most

devoted to
cpqdvn/ia

or

loves,

how
mUd,

one ranks other

things in it
and

relation

to

it; S2

is the temper

of one's

devotion,
or and

whether

shows

firm

weak;

yvwfin

devotion

the

consequences one

itself as intense or lax, savage or is the reasons one has for one's draws from it. Creon Ulustrates this

first about any ruler, xwv aqlaxwv fiovXevfidxwv 8ctxig...ajixexai...dXX'...exei expands cpqdvn/Jia, and takes up yvwytn, and then again about himself, explains [t8iov'...vofiitei yvxv ;
triad in two
ways:

32

Cf. Dem. 18.280-1.

172
ovx

Interpretation

dv...owxnqiag is his
his

cpqdvnfia,

ovx

av...i/j,avxw

his

yvxij,

and

fjd'...7ioiov/ie8a

yvwytn.

Creon does
rpvxr]
or

not

see

the

problem

for the

ruler as

a question of either

yvwfin

they

are self-evident and on what one

ruler

but

of

cpqdvrj/ia,

the way
same

one acts on one's rank

judgment

most ruled

loves. As the fatherland is to

and

highest for both

ruler

and

for the

reason, only the

has in

addition

to be

courageous

and speak out

ipvxt]

and yvwfj,n.
which

His decree,
example of

in warning against what threatens everyone's This is why Creon caUs his decree his cpqdvr]/j,a (207). is the political formulation of his yvx^j, is such an

courage, for the whole city never was particularly loyal to the Labdacids. It does not think so highly of Eteocles or so httle of

Polynices

as

Creon

must.

12.5.

Creon

caUs

his

ipvxrj,

cpqdvnfia,

and

yvw/in

his

vdfioi

because for him they mean his evvofxog yvxrj, evvo/uov cpqdvntxa, and evvofiog yvw/un. He therefore does not consider what relation obtains between the
assumes
vdfioi

of

the

soul

and

the

vd/uoi

of

the

city,
an

for he

that
on

they

are

in

perfect
of

agreement.

But
the

such

agreement

depends
with

the

coincidence
replaces

the

ndXig

with

ndxqa

and

^fMv,

which

he

it in
and

formulating
to

his fv%r\

(182, 187). The

difference between city saying that Polynices Eteocles died have

said on

fatherland
the city

most

wanted of

destroy
(194),
prior

plainly appears in Creon's his fatherland (199), but

though metrically he could
whatever

behalf

*naxqag

vneq/xaxwv.

The city is

its

present regime

is, but the fatherland is thought to be

persists mention

through
ndXig.)

all changes of

to any regime and that which regime. (The Chorus in the parados never

Hatred

of

the fatherland is ipso nomine unpatriotic, but

hatred

of

the regime is

often

thought to be the highest kind

of patriotism.

Now Creon is forced to

employs

identify

the fatherland and the city because he

two different arguments for establishing his right to rule, either one of which would suffice but which together are contradictory. Creon
proves

first
of

the

legahty

of

his

accession and

then the

probable exceUence of

his

rule.

The

legality, however,
loyal to the
royal

turns

on

the regime, the house

the the

Labdacids, but
Chorus to

the excellence turns on the fatherland. Creon

wants

hence to himself, while he himself will show his perfect devotion to the city as fatherland. He thus appeals to the irrational loyalty of the Chorus, which he nevertheless must loyalty.33 esteem, as he declares his own rational By faUing to prove,
remain

family

and

which

he

could not

if he

wanted

to,

that the Labdacids were consistently

a

patriotic, Creon

asks

the

Chorus to love

family

more

than

their

33 of

Cf. Aristotle Ath. Pol. 28.5; L.

and regime

fatherland

is

shared

Strauss, City and Man, 167. Creon's confusion by the commentators: "verissime Suevernius
odio
aeque

monuit
et regis

Creontem
ofjicium

non private esse

censeat

in Polynicem iustum
esse

haec imperare,
adversus

sed quod qui

boni

civis

eos,

ament

patriam,

atque qui ei se

inimicos praebeant;

neque

in Anligonam

severum

esse odio

quodam,

sed quod sustinendum putat

imperium

suum"

(Wunder,

on

198

sqq.).

A
country,
and

Reading

Sophocles'

of

Antigone

173

the very
own

to dishonor. His
to

fanuly, besides, that his decree is designed in part loyalty, on the other hand, to the fatherland is

attaches the Chorus to the Labdacids or one depends for its possibUity on the country's freedom from enslavement. Creon could have avoided this contradiction if he had said that the Chorus had shown exceptional patriotism through

rational, for the love that

countryman
another

three generations of

kings, and that he expects their allegiance to him because he wiU show himself as patriotic as they have done in the past. Not only does the need to prove the legality of his accession prevent him from taking this approach, but he somehow senses as weU that
the love
of a

feUow he
own

countryman grips

everyone

far

more

deeply

than

love but

of country:

speaks of

the

Chorus'

reverence

for the Labdacids,

not

of

his

reverence

exercise of pohtical rule reveals as undivided

for Thebes. The ipv%ij that only the love of country is not the
whose

ipvxxi

of

those

who
cpiXoi

do
and

not

rule,

between their

country Perhaps Creon, then, does not avoid the and second parts of his speech out of
sacrifice

the

that makes

love is necessarily divided that love possible.

contradiction

between the first

unique

pride

in his

his deeper feelings for the

of an

His swearing 12.6.

one
can with

oath

his country (cf. here may indicate this pride (cf.

sake of

ability to 38.1). 19.3).

The

phrase

xovg
aU

cplXovg
cpiXoi

noiovfieBa

(instead
of

of

*x.<p.
and no

xexxrj/ieBa)

assumes

that

are

matter
a

choice,
at

is

cpiXog

by

necessity.

One
act

picks

or

drops

friend

wiU.

One

therefore calculate

whether such a

friendship

wiU come

into

conflict

love

of

country
out

and

country,

however, is far
aU

more

accordingly (cf. OC 607-15). Love of deliberate, for it even begins in calculation.

and
of

One has to figure

the need for it. Love of one's own, on the other

survives

hand,

precedes

calculation

in

spite

of

calculation

(cf. 98-9): Antigone

sUence, then,
and of one's
about

never

speaks

her

yvw/j,n

(cf.

4.3). Creon's
of one's own

the possible
shows

conflict

between the love he is to

country

how

unprepared

confront

Antigone.
matter

That Antigone, too, somehow regards the love of her own as a of choice is part of her strangeness (cf. 9.5), and does not

justify
of

Creon's
12.7.
the laws

omission.

Creon's proclamation,

which

makes

up the third

part

his

speech, is the brother

(dbeXcpd)

of

the second part, in which

he

presented

he intends to magnify the city. It is a special case of the general laws of the country, which are in turn the laws that inform Creon's soul. Creon commits the democratic error of identifying 8.4).34 But decree and law on a completely nondemocratic basis (cf. is his decree the brother of his laws? His laws stated in what way

by

which

that

he

counts as

nothing

anyone who puts a

friend before his

fatherland,

34

The Chorus
recalls

characterize

Creon's

convocation of an

themselves

with an expression

that

the technical phrase at Athens for

extraordinary assembly (160-1).

174
and
of

Interpretation
that he himself
would make no one must

friend

who

was

an

enemy
and

his land. To

bury Eteocles,
of

then,
an

be

an act of

friendship,

to deprive Polynices
equate of

burial
and

act

of enmity. with

Creon thus

seems

to

honor

with

love

dishonor
or

honor

given without reverence

love,

understand

and

awe

hatred. He knows nothing dishonor without hatred. He does not as distinct from love. He does not
not

understand that one can without ever

honor but

love

someone at a

distance

and

seeing him (cf.

xovxov

1.1);

and that contempt as

with

indifference

ovda/nov

Xeyw

as with

easUy squares hatred (cf 35). For

.

Creon, then, to let Polynices be seen disgraced, the prey of birds and dogs, would disclose more his hatred than his dishonor; but just to order Eteocles to be buried, without performing the rites with his own hand (cf. 900), would be a mark of honor and not of love (cf. 524-5). Creon
could,
after
of

burial
ment

aU, without violating his patriotism, have prohibited the Polynices in Theban territory, which was the Athenian punish

1.7.22).35 That he for treachery and sacrilegious theft (Xen. Hell. Polynices but not his love goes out of his way to express his hatred for of Eteocles shows how imperfectly Creon understands his own equation

of

honor

and
of

love;

an equation

that
of

seems

to have

arisen

from his taking

the laws
speech as

he

obeys
of

9.4). Creon is in his country (cf. passionate as Antigone when it comes to the law: but the laws do not shine through him, for he simply is not up to the his
soul

for the laws

degree

intensity

needed

to

bring

about such a

transparency (cf.
in
the

10.6,
law itself

11.2). Perhaps, however, Creon's faUure to due no less to his own inabUity than to the
to

represent

the law perfectly is

recalcitrance can show

being
12.8.

perfectly

represented.

Only
of

Antigone

up Creon.

For the interpretation

of

194-206

see

4.6,

and

for 198-200,
the
ritualistic

see

19.2. Despite the fact that

women,
neither

xwxvaai

strictly

means
else

lamentations
Polynices'

Creon

nor

anyone

suspects

that

sisters might

have tried to

violate

the prohibition. Creon seems

to assume that women would perform their part in funeral rites only if
there were men to prompt them.

Precisely
of

because it is
the

ritualistic

and

therefore
as

not

spontaneous

expression could

heart, Creon
originator of

regards

it

inconceivable that any woman to bury Polynices (cf. 22.10). 12.9. Of

the
seven

be the

the

plan

occurrences

of

ndXig

in Creon's speech, the

and

first
city,

three

concern, respectively, the gods,

and

Oedipus,

any

ruler

(162,

167, 178),
and stands

the last three refer, respectively, to

Eteocles,

the whole

any loyal citizen (194, 203, 209); between the pair of triads Creon's reference to himself (191). The first triad has to do

with
city.

ruling Creon

(wqBwaav,
now sees no

wqBov,

evBvvwv),

difficulty

the second with obeying the in his combining both. His enhance-

3<s

Cf. Eur. Phoen. 775-6, 1629-30; Wolff-Bellermann, Riickblick, 121-3.

A Reading of
ment

Sophocles'

Antigone his devotion to the

city.36

175
city.

(avfw) of the city is the same upholding the city, he is going to improve
13
use
of

as

In

the

(211-14). 13.1.
with regard and

The Chorus distinguish between Creon's

to Polynices
and

pleasure

(dqeaxei)

Eteocles
same

and

his

power

to make

any

barely
more

suggest that

every law concerning the his pleasure is not on the

living

and

the dead.
as

They
even

level

law,

and,

tentatively,

that there is a difference between the

living

and

the

dead. Creon has said that whoever is kindly disposed to Thebes wUl be honored alike alive or dead; the Chorus imply that personal pronouns
in the
nominative strictly apply to the 35.1). The dead cannot be subjects whether one can speak of either the

living
of

but

not

to the dead (cf.

active

verbs. or

It is

doubtful,

then,
of

benevolence

the malevolence

wUl of

the dead. Creon surely does not beheve that Polynices, if left unburied, be powerless to injure Thebes, for he does not employ the magic
maschalismos

to

Polynices'

ensure wiU continue and

impotence;
his
can

nor

does he beheve

that

Eteocles, if buried,
given
a of

support of

Thebes.
as a

Eteocles,
model of
Polynices'

if pubhcly

funeral

monument,

serve

patriotism regardless

the city's opinion about

burial;

but

unburied corpse cannot serve as a

warning p.gainst treachery unless the supposes that burial is needed, and because a divine law commands city it. Honor to the dead can share the same basis as honor to the living;

but dishonor to the dead necessarUy has a different basis from dishonor to the living. To bring dishonor into line with honor, Creon would have to prove that the gods have the same perspective as the city; and later he is forced to give such a proof (cf. 19.2), but now he is entirely
unaware of

the difficulty.

13.2.
the
of

This

difficulty
of

can

be

more

exactly

defined
cf.

as

foUows.

jxlaafia occurs

three times in the play, all in the

mouth of

Creon:

mutual

fratricide

Polynices

and

Eteocles
which

(172,

first, of 12.3); next,

out

Antigone's
such
of

punishment

by

starvation,

Creon has
poUution

worked

in
not

way that the

whole

city

might

avoid

(776);
of

and

third,
a

Polynices'

corpse,

whose

devouring by

the

eagles

Zeus is
slayer unless

poUution

that he fears

(1042). If fratricide
an

makes

the

unclean, the
one
assumes

city

should no more

honor Eteocles than Polynices,

assumption

turn

would seem

that death automaticaUy cleanses, to weaken Creon's case against

that in
crime

Polynices, for his

would cease to
make a

his death. In order, then, for Creon to distinction between Polynices and Eteocles, he must regard
be
punishable with poUution as
of

fratricidal
the
gods

politicaUy irrelevant: the

gods of

the city are

not

the fanuly. Antigone's punishment,

however, is politicaUy
the entire
as
of

relevant,
city.

since avoid

faUure to foUow the

poUution, then, is

proper rites would poUute not a matter

To

honor: Antigone

36

Cf. Xen. Mem. 3.1.2; Lycurg.

c.

Leocrat. 76-7.

176

Interpretation
not

Antigone is
seems to

taken into

account.

Now in

the case of

Polynices Creon

have two

ways open

to him. If

nonburial were a poUution

like

fratricide in
not poUute

being

politicaUy

irrelevant,
and

not

to

bury

Polynices

would

Ismene only (cf. 7.2); but then to honor Eteocles could not solely consist in his burial, for that in itself would be politically irrelevant too. To honor Eteocles would need some
the city but Antigone
special ceremonies

(cf.

4.1),

which

would

burial

such, though they Polynices. If, on the other

as

could

accompany
nonburial

it,

have nothing to do with to distinguish him from

like Anti
Polynices'

hand,

were a poUution

gone's punishment
would not

burial politicaUy relevant, to aUow honor Polynices, any more than the burial of Eteocles would

in

being

honor him. Creon

the

chooses neither of

these

ways.

He

argues at once of

for

pohtical relevance of

burial,

and

hence to deprive Polynices

it is to

dishonor him, and for the pohtical irrelevance of nonburial, and hence the city cannot incur poUution if Polynices lies unburied. Creon tries to politicize burial, so that it is nothing but a question of honor or dishonor; but such a pohticization requires that the gods be indistinguishable from
the city, for if they are not, the gods could equaUy insist that the city bury Polynices to avoid poUution and honor Eteocles to glorify patriotism.

Creon's
city.

pohticization of

burial

wiU thus

lead him to the divinization

of

the

14 (215-22). 14.1.
the decree
what

Although Creon

omitted

from his formulation

of

the penalty is for its violation, the Chorus know that the

4.7). Do they assume that aU crimes are capital penalty is death (cf. crimes? Or that Creon would as a matter of course impose the death
penalty?

which

As they assume that the death penalty is an infaUible deterrent, automaticaUy discharges them from the task Creon has asked them
perhaps

to perform,
everyone

they imply
be

from

disobeying

that only such a penalty would prevent Creon's decree. They would thus agree with
an

Ismene that

suicide cannot

obligation

(cf.

10.7). That disobe

dience, however, is suicidal follows only if Creon's preventive measures are perfect; and they can be perfect only if those whom Creon has appoin
ted to guard
Polynices'

corpse cannot

be

corrupted or overwhelmed

by

force
the to

or

deceit. To

guards are

the possibihty of corruption would imply that either fanaticaUy loyal to Creon or mortaUy afraid of him;
rule out
superior rule out

rule out

in Thebes

are

the possibUity of weak; and to

cannot

force,

that the disaffected

elements

Creon's
deceit to
the

guards

the possibihty of deceit, either that be guUed or that no one would think of using

bury

Polynices (cf.

Chorus'

assumptions

shows

10.5). That nothing in the play contradicts again how easUy their simplicity can

pass for prescience (cf. 11.4). Without any awareness of the possi bilities they reject, they pick the one possibihty only a fool has the eros 10.8). to die that applies exclusively to Antigone (cf.

14.2. penalty is

Creon,
an

unlike

infallible

the Chorus, does not beheve that the death deterrent, but he beheves that, though the hope

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone
no one can

177

for

gain can
a

be

stronger than

the fear

of

death,

commit crime
of

crime

(cf. 313-4). Not the

and

prevention

successfuUy but the detection of

is infaUible (cf. 494-5);

he too is

not contradicted of

in the

course

the play: Tiresias knows

at once who

is guUty

polluting

the city's

altars.

Creon's first oath now yields its meaning: Zevg d must hold if Creon can be certain that no crime goes (184)
should

dqwv del
undetected.
extent

That this
which

apply

even

to the present case shows the

to

Creon relies on divine support for his decree. The gods must approve of his decree if it is guaranteed that whoever buries Polynices wiU come to hght (cf. 327-8). Creon thus disregards the possibUity that
the
gods

could, in

disapproving

of

his decree,

known. His
gone

punishment could not

have been

what

undetected.

punishing Creon

as with

The gods, it seems, are at cleansing Thebes of poUution (cf.

The first
speech of

let its violator be it was if Antigone had least as concerned with

stiU

9.1, 9.7).
The fact his

15 (223-43). 15.1.

the guard is the

need

strange.

that he is now before Creon seems to

superfluous.

make

to

justify
on

delay
own

Creon
whose

can

know

of

his tardiness only through his

admission;
the

and

Creon is keener
uncaUed-for

on

learning

the

news

than

blaming

guard,

Creon. To
though

the

guard

the

(xdfiavxov).31

The

crime

only serves to exasperate important thing is his own situation in his eyes is scarcely a crime (247, 256),
self-defense
most

he later dust from

expresses no repugnance at

sacrilegiously sweeping

off

the

corpse; indeed, he speaks of the good job he and his feUow guards did in laying the clammy body bare (409-10). If one supposes that those below pardoned him because he acted impiously

Polynices'

duress (cf. 1199-1200), Ismene's expectation of pardon for not 9.2). The guard, then, Antigone seems to be reasonable (cf. recognizes the sacredness of burial, but not its obligatory character. He
under

helping

is,

Creon

moreover, whoUy indifferent, as a slave, to the political purpose affects to find in his decree. Unmoved by the religious or the

political

issue, he lives
curious

solely between fear

without reason

and

hopelessness;

so

fearful
of

that he not only

confesses

to the

imaginary

crime

tardiness (a

confirmation

of

Creon's belief

that no crime goes

undetected), but continuaUy increases the likelihood of his punishment by the very speeches supposedly designed to assuage Creon's anger; and
so

hopeless that he beheves Creon's faUure to

can

punish

him for his

innocence 15.2.

only be due to the

guard

gods

(330-1).

person in the play to treat the soul for the soul, in Creon's understanding, is nothing as something separate, 12.4). If Creon had spoken but what one loves and honors the most (cf. and yvch/xn as names for different aspects of men, of rpvxij, cpqdvnfia,

The

is the first

meaning. With the guard, however, nothing would have been lost of his it is otherwise. He explains that his soul by much talking delayed his

37

On the

guard see

F.W.

Schneidewin, Einleitung, 12.

178
coming, for he always took
translation of soul
own

Interpretation
as a command whatever

it

said.

The Loeb
soul

here is

"conscience."

He thus

assigns

to his

his

(The guard, like the Chorus, assumes that death is the penalty for any crime.) He separates himself from his soul in order to save his own skin (cf. Xen. Cyrop. 6.1.31-41). Were it not for his soul, nothing would have kept him from breathlessly reporting

desire for

self-preservation.

the

crime.

His

soul

pieces of

being
come

contradictory advice, neither of checked by the other. The soul is

is guUty, he is innocent. His soul gave him two which he could foUow without not a reliable guide, for it is
of punishment.

dominated

by

the fear

Only

hope

can make the out of

guard

forward. The soul in fear offers hope way it itself has made; but the hope it offers is in fact resignation to fate (cf. 274); the guard, if punished, wiU be unjustly punished. Fate thus seems to be the discovery of the soul confronted with the inevitabihty of unjust punishment; and the soul itself as something separate seems
as the

the impasse

to be the discovery of the fear that such a confrontation arouses. However this may be, the first interpretation we are given of the soul is that it is separate and weak, guUty perhaps but unpunishable, and
prone

to paralyzing

calculations.

15.3.
could
not

If the soul, in Antigone have

being

resorted

separate, to an

is

separate

from the body,

guard's

argument

like the

to
of

justify

the burial of Polynices? Polynices is guilty, but the guUt

and

is

his soul,

by losing it,

what remains of

Polynices is

unpunishable.

His

body, it is true, obeyed his soul; but his soul, by balancing the injustice he suffers in being deprived of his throne against the injustice he wiU
his country, may have first brought him to a to condone his initial indignation, held out the hope that he would if he failed only suffer what was fated (cf. 170). He is thus absolved from the crime his soul made inevitable. The debate between Antigone and Polynices in Oedipus at Colonus, which proceeds
commit

if he

attacks

standstill;

and

then, in

order

on not dissimilar
case

(1416-44).

lines, shows how Antigone here could have made a Antigone, however, has barred herself from resorting
As
she

to any

such argument.

does

not mention

the war or the

reasons

for it (cf.
nices'

2.4),

she cannot make use of grounds

cannot appeal

that are in any way

of

connected with

it. She therefore

of

to the innocence
at

Poly
her

corpse, for its innocence

would

be bought
turn

the

price

of

arguing on behalf herself to do (cf.

Polynices

as

individual,

which she can never

at

bring
on

1.1). Her

own arguments

different times

different things, but they never touch the individual Polynices, with 4.1).38 his distinct virtues or defects (cf. She argues on the basis of the Polynices whom she loves, of the law in its generality, and of the Polynices

38

officium

Cf. Ai. 1342-5; H. Grotius, de tare belli et pads, 11.19. 11. 6: "hinc est quod sepeliendi, non tarn homini, id est personae, quam humanitati, id est

naturae

humanae

dicitur."

praestari

Reading
.

Sophocles'

of

Antigone

179

who is her brother (cf 9, 27, 48), but never in a way that would aUy her understanding with the guard's understanding of the soul (cf. 10.4).

16 (245-7). 16.1.

The

guard

talks

as

if the

corpse

were

properly

buried, and no more needed to be done. If Antigone had poured libations (420-1), the thirstiness of the dust and the hardness of the soU (250) must
have he is
is
wiped out

any trace

of

them. The guard,

who

then,

either

is thinking in

terms of a passer-by
not

(256),

did

aU

that

a nonrelative should

do,

or

scrupulously

exact

in his report,
not concern

and the possible omission of

some part of the ritual so circumstantial crime that

or

does

him; but
conclude

the rest

of

his

report
a

it
the

reads

like

detective

story's presentation of

clueless

one

should

rather

that

the

guard,

no

more than

Creon

Chorus,

ever considers

the possibihty that Anti

gone and/or

Ismene

could

be responsible.
(no

16.2.

As the

guard says that someone sprinkled a one else

dust

on the corpse's skin

learn that Polynices before

we should not

was

lying

light covering of in the play mentions its skin), we naked in the plain (cf. 410); a fact
Polynices'

have inferred from the parodos, which excluded armor from the panoplies dedicated to Zeus (141-3). The burial of a corpse, in any case, consists in the hiding from sight, not a body of flesh
and

bones, but its

skin

alone.

Burial

ceremony (cf. Her. 2.86.3-7). involves the entire body, aU the boneless
superficial

is, hteraUy Nonburial, on the

not avoid

speaking,
other

hand,

parts of which are

hable to the

devouring
eaten, for

of no

dogs

and

birds. Burial does

the

threat of

being

provision, however

(cf.

Her, 3.16.4), but the threat (258, 1198, cf. 4.5). Burial conceals the looks and shape of man (255). It therefore poses at first, prior to the questions of body and soul, body
and self, and self and soul, the question of skin and soul. It is that turns out only to look less profound than the others (cf.
a question

flimsy, has to be made against worms of being (seen) naked and torn apart

25.3).
the discov
of guilt of

17 (249-77). 17.1. ery

and and

The
of

guard's crime

speech

is in three
the

parts:

description
of

the

(249-58),

accusations

declarations
and

innocence among the

the
guard

guards

(259-67),

the

casting

lots

the
are

appointment of

(268-77). What holds the

reaction:

speech

together

the three stages in the

and

guards'

disagreeable
wonder,

surprise

(254),
17.2.
gives

just indignation,
The first

fear (270).

One

can

however,
of which
guards'

whether

their indignation differs from their fear.

part again

is in three subsections, the first

second state of guard

the setting

(249-52),
and

the

the

discovery

and

the

reaction

(253-54),

the last the that the

the buried corpse (255-58). The

impression

of exactness

conveys

is primarily due to his

eXBdvxog

dyadic

phrasing: yevfjdog

nXfjyfiadixeXXng

aqqw^enrjiJia^evfievri, r\cpdvlaxoxvnp'r\qr}g,
andaavxog.

ix^oXij, oxvcpXdgx^6a0?> Bnqdgxvvdjv,

The first

subsection

Polynices'

one

thinks at once of
suggests

pickaxes

that men

of

how surprising it is that no sisters, for the absence of carts and the city were not involved. But its true
shows

1 80
significance
emerges skiU

Interpretation

trace

of

human
passed

only in hght (cf. 23). The

to the

of

the first

stasimon:

there is

no

guard's own

inference,

on the other

hand,
who

that the casual means of burial is

exphcable

just

by

points

difficulty
had
yet

burial (cf.
that it was

13). If

some

non-Theban

Creon's decree
the

that no

animal

in terms of someone in Creon's attempt to politicize with no intention of violating discovered the corpse implies
rout,
and perhaps even

buried

soon after

the

Argives'

before

felt obliged to bury the corpse, it was, Creon has a much harder task than he imagines to prove that the dead belong exclusively to the city. In order to rule out the guard's inference, as he sUently does, Creon has to
promulgation of the

decree

perhaps

without even

knowing

whose

suppose
crime. of

that

the

gods

guarantee

the prevention

of

the

unintentional

As

soon as

Polynices

feU,

the

gods must

have
a

erected a

barrier
a

some

sort

around

the corpse to forestaU

chance

such

chance

occurrence
requires

(cf.

26.1). To

eliminate

and

yet

not

invoke fate

behef in the unfailing agreement between what law prohibits and what cannot happen accidentaUy. Creon must partiaUy adopt a behef of the

Persians,
for
a

who

deny

one would always or

that any son ever kiUed his own mother or father, find on inquiry that the supposed son was either

bastard

supposititious

(Her. 1.137.2). If Creon does

subscribe

to

the

Persians'

belief,
attempt

even after

Jocasta, his
simply does

witnessing the suffering of Oedipus and to regularize the royal house would not, as it first
prompted that

appeared, have been

not patricide occurred.

by

seh-interest

alone

(cf.
of

12.2). He incest
and

beheve

those

unintentional

crimes

Fratricide is
(cf.

another matter

then,

understands

his decree

as a

law that

can

(cf. 170, 200-1). Creon, neither be unintentionaUy

violated nor go undetected

which needs

14.2). It is
not need

almost a self-evident
of

law,

laws);

scarcely and if promulgated, does

speUed
out

to be promulgated (it is the brother

his

soul's

transgression

(cf.

14.1). Creon

to have the penalty for its wants to believe that no

one will violate

it,

not

even

because its

violator wiU

because the death penalty wiU deter everyone, nor be caught, but because it cannot be done.

He cannot,

however,

quite

bring

himself to believe it. His low

estimate

of men prevents

him (221-2).
the wild beast to dogs (cf. 1081-2).

17.3.

The

guard opposes

Dogs,
cities.

domesticated animals, which Antigone's faUure to mention dogs as

then,

are

belong
a

to men

living
to

in

possible

threat

Polynices'

corpse
could

(cf.
thus

4.6)

might

imply

that she cannot admit that man's

friend
self-

how necessary and evident it is for her that the dear and the holy coincide (cf. 9.4, 9.8). The corpse must be as precious as the man to those who love (cf. 4.7).

betray

him. It

might

be

sign

of

17.4.
and walk

Each

guard

grandly boasted to the

were aU

others

his

own

innocence

ignorance.
through

They

fire,

and swear

ready to lift up hot ingots in their hands, by the gods. Of this triad, the play puts
the guard admits that his return

to the test only their

swearing:

belies

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone
guards'

181
willingness

his

oath

(388-94). However this may be, the

to

undergo two

fiery
soul

ordeals gives us

by implication
guards separate

the second

interpre

tation
to

of

the

bochly
of

pain

(cf. 15.2). The from their souls, or

of

themselves
their

as subject

whatever one should caU the reposi

and

tory

their

knowledge
it

their

innocence;
from any

innocence is

so

powerful that

can preserve them

as

possible punishment.

The

body, then, is inviolable

5.93). Each
outdone

guard seemed to

long as the soul is guUtless (cf. Antiphon lay claim to this behef in an effort not to be
As his peers could not force him to kind of boasting. The guard, in any
offer

by

what another might say.

submit to the

ordeal, it
power

was a safe

case,

when alone with

himself,

abandons the view that

not

limits to its
replaces
sees

he does

to prove his

it

with an abject submission of

to

fate,

which

soul has no innocence and is the only way he

his

to maintain the innocence

the punishable

body

and

the

un

punishable guUt of the soul.

aBv/iia

CoUective
gods'

(237). Behef in the life turns into resignation in the The swearing of oaths turns into the soul's speaking to oneself. It is not easy to say whether hope of worldly vindication or hopeless submisrepresents the
greater
piety.

individual providential care of innocence in this face of an undeserved but fated death.
/ueyaXofvxla yields

to

siveness

The

guard

never

suggests,

as

Antigone does, that the gods Antigone's piety is not based

17.5.
guard now

wiU vindicate
on either

him after his death (925-8). worldly hope or fear (cf. 896-7).
aU

The

unlimited power of the soul puts

as the

the guards into

as

much of an

impasse

vacUlatory

weakness of the soul

later

puts

the

the way

(cf. 233, 268, 274). The soul then discovered fate as a way out; out is through chance. The casting of lots condemns
seems to

the guard. It
confronted

(xadaiqei)

be the

with

coUective
election

to understand his
answers the comfort

way of finding a scapegoat when innocence. The scapegoat, however, prefers otherwise. Fearful of punishment, the guard
coUective
me?"

question,

be ironicaUy (275). Antigone's wiUingness, on the other hand, to sacrifice herself forbids her from so invoking fate. She cannot thus console herself for her unjust punishment. And yet Antigone never caUs her sacrifice
which

than

with "Why involuntary self-sacrifice,

"It is my

fate."

Fate is

more a

only

can

caUed good

good;
"good"

indeed,
she

the
calls

ironicaUy:
his
nor private

only time she uses the word, Creon the good Creon (31).

she

too

means

it

Creon

alone

uses

in its only other occurrence, without irony: whoever subordinates interests to the city remains in the stress of war a just and
sacrifice can

(671). Could it then be that neither Antigone be caUed good? That the city (Creon) has made ayabdg so exclusively its own that not even Antigone can appropriate it?39 It would be consistent with this that of the three occurrences of dqiaxog
good
comrade-in-arms

her

39

Cf.

PI.

Ap.S.

24b4-5:

MiXr\xov

xdv

dyaBdv

xai

qjtXonoXiv,

&g

cp-nai

Dem. 24.127.

1 82
aU are spoken

Interpretation

(179, 197, 1114), and of the four of xQVar?> three are spoken by Creon, and Haemon uses the other to speak un may be grudgingly of Creon's good sense (299, 520, 635, 662). word for Antigone, whose noble sacrifice is "good for too worldly a

by

Creon

"Good"

nothing."

She surely does

not

help

anyone or

anything, for

neither

the

law
that

nor

the dead has to be helped (cf.

makes

doing
be

good

actions are

Antigone splendid would 8.7). Only if Creon's punishment, for which Antigone's (cf. indispensable (cf. 14.2), is to be considered just would one
to
revise this conclusion.

4.3). The very superfluousness thus prevent her from being or

compeUed

18 (278-9). 18.1.
the

It is

not

just the

absence

of

clues

that makes

have buried Polynices, but rather on their assumption that the death penalty is an infaUible deterrent that, (cf. 14.1), only immortal beings could have done it.
Chorus
think that the gods might

19 (280-314). 19.1.
proves

Creon's

speech consists of

three parts: the first

that the

gods could not

reveals

those

truly

responsible

have buried Polynices (280-9a), the second and how they managed it (289b-301), and

the third threatens the guards unless

they find

Creon is far
or passive
comes
gods'

more

certain

that the guards

the one guUty (302-14). have been bribed than that

their active which
or

they did it (294, 306). He

complicity
to
close

prefers, in any case, to believe in

than in their carelessness (cf. the god's
concern

rather

14.1),

implying

either

for Polynices

the

indifference to Creon's decree (cf.

17.2).

In arguing that to prohibit consequence of his soul's laws, Creon burn to the
ground the

19.2.

Polynices'

burial is

the self-evident
wanted

says

that Polynices

to

land

of

(or country), taste

of common

his father(s) and the gods of his race blood, and lead the rest of his city into
order

slavery (199-202); but now, in have buried Polynices, he says

columned

to prove that the gods

could not

that

Polynices

came

to

set

fire to

the
and and

temples,
the

the votive offerings, and the earth

of

the gods

to

scatter

their laws. Creon drops the arguments based on fratricide the

gods'

slavery, for
to

justify

first is too private, and the second too pohtical, for either Polynices' horror at crime (cf. 13.2). He replaces,
yfj
exelvwv

moreover, yfj
with
vaol

naxqwa with

(i.e., Becov),
argued

and

Beol

ol

and

avaBrj/xaxa.

He first

for

Polynices'

iyyevelg treachery

against his own, whether it be bis own land, gods, or brother; but now, in arguing for impiety, he consecrates the city and aU that belongs to it to the gods. The first charge had Polynices firing the gods
Polynices'

themselves, who, Creon pretended, do

but the whoUy
second separate

has him

firing

what

not differ from belongs to the gods,

their

statues;

who are now

from the

monuments

of

their worship. As one could

readUy think of the gods as wUling to forgive their own, Polynices' who was unsuccessful, Creon has to heighten
point that

especiaUy

one

forgiveness

would

be

inconceivable; but

this

impiety to heightening

the

has

A
the
on effect of

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone

183

persons.

stasimon

making the attack on things a more serious crime than that The fact that the Chorus accept Creon's proof the first presupposes it gives us the first inkling that a corpse could

be more sacred than a person (cf. 256). The IJoXwelxovg vexvg of Antigone (26) might differ as much from Creon's LToXweix-ng (198) as Creon's vaol and dvaBrj/uaxa do from his Beol ol 4.3). eyyeveig (cf. Polynices' corpse might have its significance for Antigone not despite but because it is more alien to her than either Polynices her brother (cf. 3.3) or Polynices himself (cf. 15.3).
19.3. As the
gods

could

not

takes to be the

same as

saying

that

have buried Polynices, which Creon they could not have honored him
enemies. of

(cf.

13.2), Creon declares

moves

that the true culprits are pohtical

Creon
city,
those

from

the pohticization of

burial to the divinization

pohtical

the

and

from there back to the purely

Polynices'

ting how
against

sacrilegiousness could ever

conflict, without indica be the rallying point of

who

secretly
gods.

murmur against

him. To
at

revolt against

the

Creon keeps his

original

identification

him is to revolt of his regime

of

with

the

fatherland (cf.
replace
cannot assume

12.5)
of

the

same

time that he has been

with

compeUed to

the land

the ancestors
gods

the land

the

gods.

As he

that the

are the ancestors

gods'

for he has to

deny

every

possible

basis for

the

(cf. 938), forgiveness of Poly

nices, Creon implies that not only is he the legitimate heir to the throne, which in turn truly expresses the fatherland, but that he is the present
regent

for the distant

with

gods

legitimacy
the

his

divinely
It is
no

(cf. 304). What plainly links his political appointed role are the laws of his soul,
statesmanship, the wonder, then,
refute ground of the

which are at once the test of

wUl of the gods.

city,

and

that Creon

swears so

freely
that

(184, 305, 758)

divine law

and never

deigns to

Antigone's

contention

Polynices'

sanctions

burial (cf.

29.1). He is

the

first to

speak of mortals and

human beings (295, 299).

the bad
their
effect of

19.4.
sacks

Creon

exemplifies

cities, it

expels men of mortals

from
in

homes,

and

money in three ways: it it perversely instructs

and

the

good wits

shameless

deeds. The city

wits
of

the

family,
can

Creon implies,
either good or

are

unqualifiedly good; only the

shows no awareness

(cpqeveg)

be

bad. Creon

an essential conflict

12.6). Were is not for money they between the city and the family (cf. furthermore suggests that, though money would always be in harmony. He
necessarUy belongs to the city, which in itself is good, the city does not need money, which in itself is the source of aU impiety. Money is the worst
convention

(vd/itofia)

that

ever grew

(efiXaoxe) among human beings.

is entirely conven burial rites, which

It

owes

its

quasi-natural status

to its universahty. It

tional and yet universal. It therefore reminds one of

equaUy
to be

seem

to be

conventional

and yet

universal;

indeed, they
to do

seem

even more

closely connected, for

they both have

with what

is

1 84

Interpretation
earth

beneath the In
the
one

(cf.

22.8):

another name

for Hades is Plouton

coined

(1200).40

god of the

decisive respect, however, Plouton the god of dead differ. The conventionahty of

wealth and

Plouton

money does

not stand in the way of exchange between one currency and another; but the conventionality of burial rites forbids the discovery of equivalents between two different rites. Darius offered money to both Greeks and
either were willing to foUow the burial practices of the other (Her. 3.38.3-4). This difference has its ground in another difference. Any set of burial practices takes its character from what is held about

Indians if

the

soul.

No

other
on

practice,
the other

as

far

as

directly.

Coinage,

hand,

carries with

I know, implies so much so it no such implications.

god

exchanged

may be held to preside over the ways in which money is (cf. Od. 19. 395-8); but no god determines the values, let
of

alone

the use,

this or that piece

melt

of money.

One

can without sacrUege

deface it,
always
and

bury it,
or

it,

or even not use

it;

and when

it is in use, it
obol).

remains

neutral,
even

whether

the transaction be between one man

and

another,

between The

man

god
soul

(Charon's

But

the

corpse
with

is

never neutral.

gods and

the

have

stamped
of

it

indelibly
and
wiU at

themselves.

Creon, however,
pieces
of
Polynices'

treats the corpses

metal

Polynices
coined

Eteocles as if they were in any denomination: now to be discontinued;

valuation.

that could
old

be

corpse

is in the

currency,

which

is

Eteocles'

is in the new, currency

which gives

it

higher

But Creon issues his

new

without

altering the beliefs

that alone can validate the change. Creon does not pretend to understand
either

the gods or the soul

on each

he

puts

corpse

is independent

differently. He believes that the price (xi/itf) of such beliefs. He does not
assigns

realize

that the neutrahty he thus

the corpse in itself entails a

reassessment of not a radical

both the

gods and the soul

(cf.

13.2). His

impiety

is

impiety.
gives

19.5.

Creon

the third

interpretation

of

the soul. He threatens

the guards with torture

leading

to

death,
and

so act

that in the

future they

might

know the limits

of

rightful

gain

accordingly. which

The torture is

justified be the
as a

not so

much as a punishment

(for

education.

Creon is the first to

mention

Hades;

and

death suffices) as an though it seems to

of

equivalent of where

death,

Creon
can

must assume

the existence

Hades

place

the

guards
guards'

learned
torture

so painfuUy.

The

the lesson they wiU have future reformation presupposes that under
practice

they
pain

wiU

blurt
not

out on

that which

they

and

for the

inflicted

the

body
it.41

opens

up the

Creon already know; truth hidden within

which

(the soul) but does

M esp.

distort

The soul, then,

and

is too
Dem.

guileless

For 213:

the
elnslv

connection

between

vdpog

v6/iio/*a

see
/xiv

24.212-4;
elvai xwv

[SoXcova

Xiyerai]

I8xi

avxdg rjyeixai

dgyvgiov

vd/uof*'

Idicov
41

ovvaXXay/idxcov elvexa roig

Idicbxaig

evQ-n/xivov, xovg di v6/xovg

v6fita/ia

xfjg

ndXeiog elvai.

On the

pros and cons of

torture in the orators

see

Wyse's

note on

Isaeus 8.12.1.

A
to invent to
a plausible

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone

185
which

he, is tightiy bound

which and

to the

body,

is too

weak

resist and

through

it learns. The
of

soul when subordinate assumes

to the to be

body
of

lacks both nobUity

from the

deivdxng. Creon thus

the

the inverse
soul

the second interpretation

soul,

which

held the

separate

body

and yet

strong

enough

to protect it from pain

(cf.
pain
or

17.4). Both interpretations,

is
the

however,

share the view that

bodUy

true touchstone

of

the soul, whether to prove its innocence

its guUty knowledge. 20 (315-22). 20.1. After

Creon's

threats that

of

torture,

the

guard

presents a

topology
of other

of the

nonbodUy

pain

accompanies
ears

indignation. only to

Indignation is
speeches, the

two kinds. One resides in the

resides

and reacts and reacts

in the soul,

or

cpqeveg,

deeds (cf. Her. 7.39.1). Creon, however, is unaware of He has confused the pain he feels at the report of the crime with the pain he feels at the criminal; and as the criminal is unknown, his indignation discovers the criminal in the reporter of the crime, the only
person
avaUable.
guards

only to this difference.

bribed the
always

Creon's instant suspicion that his pohtical enemies is merely a gloss on this confusion. Indignation of "the criminal"; it
must

the soul cannot be satisfied with the emptiness of

vent

"this criminal"; but as it has no special sense which it can detect him, it finds the guilty everywhere. The guard by thus seems to give the obverse side of his interpretation of his own itself
on showed the soul in self-induced before fate; this interpretation shows the soul in righteousness lashing out at everyone but itself. What holds the two together is the pain of frustration, whether born of its awareness soul

(cf.

15.2). That interpretation

fear

and

guUt prostrate

of of

undeserved

but

unavoidable

punishment,

or

born

of

its ignorance
of

those who
one
of

deserve to be
Odysseus

punished.

The first kind

frustration
second guard

reminds of

confronted

with

AchiUes slaying Hector for a crime would thus be an ignoble Odysseus, who

Posidon's wrath; the that is his own. The

as

cleverly talks his way

out of danger; and Creon would be an ignoble AchiUes, who also is forced to aUow the burial of his enemy. Creon's remorse, moreover, atonement has as httle effect on his subsequent punishment as has on his fate. 20.2. It would not suffice, if one wished to paraphrase what the
AchiUes'

reaUy makes you indignant, for if the guard means only that, I am just a irritant"; he would not have to assign separate regions to Creon's twofold pain, but merely discriminate between its two external sources. The guard,
guard

says, to have him say, "The

superficial

criminal

rather, means,
your superficial
separate

"The

criminal

makes

the

real

you

indignant, I irritate

self."

The
of

soul

thus stands for the true self, which is

and scarcely communicates with it. his former view of the soul's paralyzing influence on the true self, which is subject to punishment for crimes it was whoUy unwilling to commit. Creon accepts this identification

from the

rest

oneself

In this sense, the

guard reverses

1 86
of

Interpretation
soul

the

and

"Not only did you commit the worse you betrayed your soul for into giving up his true self. Here for
meaning
of

the self, but he denies that it is something separate: he tells the guard, "but what is Money seduced the guard
crime," money."

the

first time
one

soul

keeps its primary

most

life, but

at

the same time it bears a trace of Creon's first inter

pretation,

which

made

it the

same

as

what

should

love

and of

honor (cf.

12.4). Creon thus insists

as much on

the

inseparability
ipvxv

body

and soul

he

alone uses awpia on

as

the

equivalent of

(675)

as the guard

does

Creon's
who
or

away from himself, but Creon thwarts him in a way that leaves nothing
anger

their separateness; for the guard wants to deflect wants to punish anyone
of one's own unpunished

uncorrected.

20.3.
pretations

The
of

scene

between Creon

and

the

guard

presents

five inter

the

separate
separate

and
and

strong

The soul is: (1) ( 15.2), (2) ( 17.4), (3) connected and weak ( 19.5), (4) oneself ( 20.1), (5) connected and oneself ( 20.2).
soul. separate and weak maintains

What

no an

one

is

that

the

soul soul

is

connected

and

strong.

much rely be resistant to all bodily pain and, unlike 5, be 3, 2, but, contemptuous of life. One is therefore tempted to conclude that, as these traits exactly characterize Antigone, the ground for her devotion

Such
as

interpretation
unlike

would

have the

on

the

gods

as

to

Polynices'

corpse,

which

is

so

great

that she unnecessarily returns

paradoxical

to it (cf.

10.1), hes in her living

this

interpretation

of
at

the soul (cf. 95). Whether this is the true ground of her actions, or

best only a fragment of the true ground, only Antigone's two remaining defenses can properly determine (cf. 27, 48).
21 (323-31). 21.1.
reiteration
of

The

guard

is

no

longer

afraid.

In

spite of

Creon's

they

wUl

his threats that, be punished, he does

unless
not

the guards discover the culprits,

seriously.

take him

Not his diligence,

the
culprit wUl

spurred on

by fear, but
guard

pure chance wUl

decide

whether

be found. The
to

fate,

with

thus moves from expressing his own resignation which he had entered, to expressing the indifference of

chance,
gerated
as

with which either

he leaves (cf.

his initial fearfulness

or

17.5). The guard, then, has exag his final lack of concern; and

he later indicates that he did take Creon seriously (390-1, 408, 413-4, 437-40), one must say that his relief at not being punished at
once
makes

him

veer

to the opposite
escape nor

he

neither

hoped for his

ultimately due, not to his own verbal gods do not intervene on behalf of the innocent in
of

extreme. He acknowledges that judged it probable; for it was dexterity, but to the gods. The

the spectacular

the ordeal (cf.

one

17.4),
of

but in

the

than

to be the

hopelessly discovery
opens

feared they
the
at

would.

way The

of events

turning

out

way better

providential gods

thus seem

soul cheated of which

the future its own fears had

devised. The debt,

the
gods

any rate,
our

the guard beheves he owes to

stasimon's

the way to

understanding why the first

Reading
the

Sophocles'

of

Antigone

1 87

as a limit to man is in overcoming the seemingly impossible, equipped as he is with a wisdom beyond hope (366; cf. 10.8). The first stasimon, however, shows man in his limitlessness only by suppressing any mention of his soul (cf. 11.2), the significance of Aeschylus' which clearly emerges if one compares the first stasimon of

implicit

assertion

that

gods

do

not

stand

necessarily

connected with man's artfulness

The guard therefore is just as necessary as the first for the fuU understanding of man. That the soul comes to light in the element of the ridiculous, whUe art comes to hght with the greatest solemnity, although art has seemingly nothing to do with the
stasimon play's action
and soul

Choephoroi.

everything, Ulustrates the way in

which

man's almost

competence always outstrips

unavoidable error

his

self-knowledge.
more

It is
to

a great

but

for
and

us

to

give

weight

the first

stasimon

than to the guard

his

speeches. stasimon not

22 (332-75). 22.1.
of

The first

presupposes

the

correctness

Creon's

proof

that the gods did

bury

Polynices (cf.

19.2), from

the Chorus sUently concluded that men of great daring and skUl involved in perpetrating so clueless a crime. Man's navovqyia, which according to Creon constitutes man's impiety and hybris (300-1, 309), is now given the morally neutral name of deivdxng, for which
which were

the

Chorus, in charting

the

extent of man's

stoppmg-at-nothing, do

not

try

to account. Creon had given the love of base gain

(money)
might
some

as

the

cause of man's
replace

criminality; but the Chorus do not, as one that cause with the neutral love of gain. Neither

expect,
ulterior

end nor a

Prometheus

explains man's

inventive daring. It is

an

irreducible

part of man.

22.2.
of

The

stasimon presents man's

each of which

four aspects, to
and of

uncanny awesomeness as consisting it devotes a strophe: man's restlessness,

aU

man's

superiority to,

and

mastery of,
and good verbs. man's
or

other

living beings,
which strophe

man's

devising
the

understanding,

freedom,

leaves to him
thus

choice

foUowing

the
of

the

bad. Each
echoed
at

has

its

own characteristic set

The first begins

and

with

neXei,

which

retains

its

original sense of motion

noXevwv

is

the strophe's end

rest:

by
a

the

cognate

and

these two verbs frame the

xmQeh
aU of

neqwv,

dnoxqvexai, IXXofievwv. piece: djMpifiaXwv, dyqei, xqaxel,

second strophe and

The first
and

antistrophe

is likewise
en
ovbev

Schoene's

plausible

dxfid^exai.
eg^era,

The
with

in turn has:
the
second

ediddaxo,
antistrophe

anoqog

gvpnecpqaoxai;
his
Throughout the

contrasts

man's

freedom
cpqovwv.

sociahty:

naqslqwv,

naqiaxiog,

yevoixo,

laov

stasimon of

the prepositions, compounded or uncompounded,

confronting,

and rising above swamp him: ndqav, neqi-, every dno- (first strophe), (first antistrophe), d/icpt-, vn, vneqxdxav, v/j,- (second strophe), vndq, en (second antistrophe). in', vn-,

carry the

notion

man's

outflanking,

chaUenge, even those that threaten to

neqi-

22.3.

The

stasimon

seems

to

progress

from showing

man's

mastery

188
of the

Interpretation

inanimate

sea and earth and

(first antistrophe),
which

from there to his for his

(first strophe), to his mastery of relation to himself

own self-preservation
with

animals as one

who contrives the means

(second strophe),
and

then leads

by

contrast

to his relation

others, the city

the

gods

(second
of which

antistrophe).

This
are

schematization

is

open

to

the

scarcely aware, that the unwearied difficulty, earth, which man tries to wear out, is a goddess, and the highest of the gods besides; which should place her as such in the second antistrophe,
where
high.42

the Chorus

the

Chorus
man's

speak of

the earth's

laws,

and

how the city

stands

Man's
are and

violation of

iUustrates
the
arts gods

beivdxng,

the highest god, which, the Chorus recognize, does not fit with their later assumption that

its

only wilfully but not essentially subversive of the city, laws. For all the narrowness of Creon's belief that money
aU of man's

accounts

for
of

navovqyia,

he

understands

better than the

that art,
man's as

Chorus its

essential

impiety. The Chorus do

not

see

the

breaking
across

apparent

the

dividing
of

sea

hmits, (i.e., traveling

whether

it be in allowing
to
other

passage

cities)

or

in its
to

ignoring
the

the
not

surface

the

earth

as

man's

proper of

place,

points as

only
crime.

as

the

unwUling

harborer
of

crime

but

city itself founded

on
of

The descendants
which

Cain,

who

offered

God the first fruits

God did not find acceptable, discovered the arts and founded the first city. However unaware the Chorus are that the city can only be high at the expense of the highest of the gods, the Chorus do see that the city cannot be, as Creon assumes, unqualifiedly
the

land,

(cf. 19.4); for man's beivdxng partly consists in his teaching himself daxvvdfxoi dqyai, which are evidently not the same as man's submission to the laws of the land. Although the city must rest on
good

both the

arts
with

and one

the gods
another

(their (cf.
or

laws), its
10.9):
43

two

supports

are

not

in
not

harmony
through
as such

for the city,

preserve

which

serves

the

arts

man's

need

desire to

himself, does

man's beivdxng is revealed: (1) sailing, (2) farming, (3) hunting, (4) taming, (5) speaking, (6) thinking, (7) daxwdjioi dqyai, (8) housing, (9) medicine. The first four have

necessarily find the gods useful. 22.4. The Chorus list nine ways in which

to do

with

man's
and

relation

to himself

other

men.

taught speech is
yet

central

with his relation One is therefore inclined to say that selfbecause it separates men from non-men. And

to non-men, the last five

there

are

the

gods

and

their

evoqxog

blxa.
and

Oaths

and

prayers prevent

prevent the

hmiting
us about

of speech

to man's
with

hearing,

divine laws

its limitation to

man

speaking

man.

What, then, does

guard,
who

the play

itself teach

them?

Leaving

aside of

Creon's
the

three vain oaths suggests

(184,
that

305, 758),

we

have the testimony

swear, "for the
dxptnoXig,
see

mortals should never

afterthought

belies

one's

judgment"

42 43

For the meaning

of

F. Sommer,

op.

cit., 174.

Cf. Arist. Politica 1328M1-3.

A Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone

1 89

(388-94). If a change in circumstances sanctions one's right to depart from what one has sworn to, oaths could not be a way of ensuring

truthfulness, in
The
to
guard speech

which

justice has

so

large

a share

(cf. Her.
not

1.138.1).44

would

thus unwittingly

confirm

the
were

Chorus'

attribution

of

to man's own

discovery

(cf.

17.4),

it

that divine

law,

Antigone appeals, contradicts it. But even apart from the speech of the gods, which is divine law, one cannot forget that Tiresias first suspects that Creon has violated divine law through hearing the barbaric sound of birds (1001-2). The light-witted birds speak more wisely than men. The Chorus do not recognize ornithroscopy or any
which

other kind of divination as showing the limits of man's unaided resource fulness. The future is whoUy open to man as man (360-1). If speech, then, is entirely a human invention, and oaths, prayers, and omens are not ways of communication between gods and men, it remains mysterious

how the Chorus

city.

would unite man's seem

inventiveness

and

divine law in

the
a

The Chorus
of

to take their actual coexistence in the city as

of

inventiveness, despite the im neutrahty plication in their own description of it that denies it any such neutrality. By starting from Creon's proof that the gods could not have buried Polynices, the Chorus have drifted into a view that completely cuts off
proof

the

moral

man's

the gods from

men.

22.5.

Aeschylus'

Prometheus

also

lists

nine

discoveries

as

his

own:

(1) housing, (2) astronomy, (3) numbers, (4) letters, (5) taming, (6) 450-504).45 sailing, (7) medicine, (8) divination, (9) metaUurgy (PV
The first
of
stasimon most

anything

above or

strikingly differs from this list by the absence in it below the earth: neither astronomy nor metaUurgy,

neither
earth

divination

nor numbers.

Apart from the

ways

slight penetration of

the

that ploughing

involves,

the

stasimon restricts man's

beivdxng

to
and

the

surface

of the earth.

The different
to the
says

in

which

Prometheus
sunless

the Chorus treat

xd
ovqdvia.

housing

also point

stasimon's

dehberate

exclusion of

Prometheus

that

men

first lived in

caves,

he taught them to buUd out in the open houses that face the sun; the Chorus imply that men first lived under the open sky, exposed to frost and rain, and men taught themselves how to avoid them, but whether by building houses or retiring to caves is unclear. No light, natu ral or artificial, Uluminates the horizontal plane on which man hves and moves. Man's daring is exercised in a closed world. His daring is without
and
aspiration.

There is
of

no

sense

here
of

of man's openness

to things beyond

himself,
neutral

only

the

inabUity

things to

resist

man.

One therefore
as

suspects that what permits

the Chorus to

regard man's

daring

moraUy

is,

besides their
world.

sUence about what motivates

crosses

it, just this

closedness

of

the human
at other

Man

the

sea not

to trade with, conquer, or

outbraves

look
44 45

men

(cf. a3, Her. 3.139.1); he merely

it,

as

Cf S. Benardete, AGON 1967, 160-1. Cf. S. Benardete, RhM 1964, 126-39.

190
though he were
at

Interpretation

Like an engine idling, whose does any work, man's daring has to be gears have to be engaged before it seen in the perspective of the city and the gods before it moves toward a good or evU end. Its terribleness is partly due no doubt to this idling; play
with

the

elements.

but

at

the

same

time the Chorus have

thereby drained it
and

of

its

essential

recalcitrance

to

being

harmonized

with

the city

the gods. Man

is

more

terrible than

even

the Chorus beheve.

22.6.
once
more

The

stasimon

directly

refers

to

man

by

the neuter

demonstrative

pronoun: as

thrice, twice by name, and dvBqwnog there is nothing

xovxo

uncanny, as

dvijq
the

he is nsqicpqadrfg,

and as

he

crosses

the

sea and wears out

man under the sway of Eros for aU her artlessness, shares something in 21. (cf. Antigone, then, 10.8). If the law that provokes her daring needs common with him (cf. the antigeneration of her name and nature, it must somehow be related to the arts that make manifest man's daring, which equally rests on his as

artisan,

stands

Neuter man, furthest removed from

earth.46

which

exactly

characterizes man

1).47

unerotic

nature.

Chorus
culprit

are not as

How they are related one far off in their conjecture

cannot

now

as

to the

character

say; but the of the

relevant

23.1). The as they later imagine (cf. Antigone in more than a negative way.
22.7.

stasimon

is

to

The

stasimon mentions gods anonymously:

thrice,

twice

by

name, and

once

Earth, Hades, Bewv evoqxog bixa. Earth coUectively is the highest of the gods, Hades is the only god or thing from which man and the gods cannot escape (note the triplet cpevyeiv, cpev^iv, cpvydg), are those whose justice men swear by as a guarantee of their own. Both
and

men and gods

in Homer

swear

sun, rivers,
an obstacle and

and

Zeus,

and

the gods

by Earth, and men swear by Ouranos, sea, and

sea

as weU

by

the

80, S 271-4, O
man; the

36-8). For the Chorus the

is

not

Styx ( r 276divine, but merely

outraged

to man;

Earth,
sky
to be

though

divine, is

continuaUy

by

sun and

are conspicuous

by

their absence. Their ab

in Hesiod: Zevg xng, og vneqxaxa bw/iaxa valei (OD 8). Pindar invokes Zeus him self as the highest in connection with his thunderbolts (O. 4.1); Euripides
gods, vneqxaxog occurs

sence, moreover, the highest of the

seems

deliberately
first

referred

to, for Earth is

caUed

vipijUqefie-

has
nes

someone caU

Eros the highest

caU

of aU gods once

(fr.

269.2);

and

Aristopha

he has usurped Pisthetairos, throne, the highest of the gods (Av. 1765). It is not uncommon, however, for "highest" to have entirely lost its literal sense of above the but
earth;48

has the birds

Zeus'

when combined with

Earth this

sense

is

incongruously

restored

to it. The

46
47

On

xovxo

see

Schneidewin; P. Friedlander, Hermes 1934, 59.

Cf. L. Strauss, The City and Man, 95-6. 48 When is not to be literally understood, the object it qualifies is vniQtaxog something the gods have raised to the top (cf. 684, 1138; Ph 402, 1347; OC 105). Are we to understand that the gods hold Earth to be the highest?

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone
impossible

191
com

Chorus
promise

call

the Earth

highest,

perhaps,

as a result of an

between its true owner, Zeus, to

whom

the Chorus

deny

any limit

and its omission, the consequence of which would have been that man as man has nothing to reverence or look up to. As that is far too radical for the Chorus, they attribute the epithet to Earth,

ing power over man,

only god whose presence in the midst of men they believe cannot be denied. Everything divine, which the stasimon's theme forbids the Chorus
the

to mention (in accordance with their brand of moderation [cf.

11.2]),

into the Earth. One has only to compare the second strophe of the second stasimon to see what is properly highest, unaging, and unwearied. Earth, in any case, is the only god who survives in the dominion of horizontal man (cf. 46.7).
compressed

is

22.8.
stasimon

Earth

as a goddess

has

so

far

perplexed our

understanding
of

of

the

in two ways, both

a

of which pertain

to the

difficulty
and

the violation of the earth with the city,

its oaths,

reconciling laws. There is,

moreover,

third

difficulty

around which as

the whole play revolves. The

cannot

stasimon acknowledges

Hades

the only limit man

not such a means. we

by

breach

or

bypass:

immortality

is

It

cannot

any means be acciden

man's

tal, therefore,
violation of the with man's
earth

that the stasimon suggests that

put

together

earth, to

whose surface

his

daring

is

otherwise

restricted,

only limitation, which as a place is somewhere below the 4.1). Its omission of mining now seems to be of some 19.4).49 importance (cf. The whoUy inviolable part of the earth would (cf.

Hades, whose masters are Plouton and Hecate (1199-1200); and in turn are the gods in whose custody the laws and customs of burial they reside (451). Not death in itself but Hades and his laws would constitute
the true limitation
generation of men of

thus be

man, for the death

of

individuals

cannot prevent one

from passing on the fruits of its beivdxng to the next. The human world is not as closed to the gods as the stasimon makes
out.

The
other
of

Chorus, however,
difficulties Earth
calling
man,

are no more aware of makes

this than

they

are of

the

for them.

They do

not understand the

class-

import

man a neuter

this.

They
to a

characteristic of

limitlessness,
in
a

confusedly move from a limitation that though equaUy

not

universal applies to each man

way that does

thus

interfere

with man's

limitlessness. The

consequence of

treating
and

the class

as an

individual

is that nothing
man as man.

then stands
of

between

hence

connects

the city and

The laws
of

gone therefore
provides

standing the laws is

the

under (xBwv) are not in the Earth (/a) i.e., the laws of burial (cf. 382). Anti necessary corrective to the stasimon itself, for she

the land
,

Chorus'

sacred

bond between the land

and

and

the

earth.

It is through

Hades that the particular

22.9.

the

universal come

together.
which

In

way

reminiscent of

the parodos,

displayed

various

degrees

of personification

(cf.

11.5),

the play as a whole seems to give

For the

impiety

of

mining

see

Pliny NH 33.1-3.

192
an exhaustive

Interpretation

hst

of

the

ways

in
of

which

the

earth

can

Of the twenty-one
the dead below the
and
Polynices'

occurrences
earth

(24),

yfj, xQ<*>v, x^Qa> the middle to earth as a goddess

be understood. ^e ^si refers to

(338),
for
of

the last to the tumulus

remains

of native soU

Creon's

servants

erected

(1203). Burial rites, in aUowing for the

country,
appears

sense

earth as stuff

to

coincide with that of earth as

to be the

unifying
earth

core

of

earth's
and

divergent
earth's

meanings. and

Somewhere between the

surface,
which

(24, 65)

the

hard

unyielding

either the goddess Earth or the whether

earth

it be identified
ancestors

with

in itself comprehends, hes the city, the regime, the fatherland (the place

buried), or the possession of the gods (110, 113, 155, 187, 199, 287, 368, 518, 736, 739, 806, 937, 1162, 1163). As the surface of the earth, moreover, no less than its depths, is linked through dust with burial (247, 256, 409, 429, 602), the city and Hades are never far apart. The roots of the city, however, do not aU reach to Hades, for it is also founded on the violation of the earth; and only
where one's
are

in the play aUudes to earth as the mother of aU growing things (cf. 419, 1201-2). That the dead Eurydice can be caUed nap.pi'ijxwq of Haemon's corpse (1282), though nafjtfirjxwq suggests the earth (Aesch. PV 90), seems to point again to the same abstraction from what earth
this passage

primarily

connotes.

ignoring
22.10.
seventh,

of

generation

It is this abstraction, which is of a piece with the existence (cf. 9.2), that allows Antigone as antito represent the laws of earth and hence of the city.
Ismene's

Of the
dorvvd/j,oi

nine

manifestations

of

man's

beivdxng
seem

dqyai,

is

not

at

once aU

intelligible.

only the What further

emphasizes

its

anomalousness

is

that

the rest

to be paired:

hunting-taming, speakmg-thinking, housing-medicine. A to its meaning is given, however, if one contrasts speaking and way swift thinking with the dumb fishes (cf. A]. 1297) and light-witted birds
sailing-farming,
wind-

It would then stand opposed to the savagery of land animals dyqlwv eBvn) and would mean man's self-domestication, the training of his temper without the aid of the gods. Such a self-limitation for the sake of living together on the part of a being that otherwise
men capture.

(Bnqwv

recognizes no

limits the Chorus

regard as uncanny;
man's own

but this very

makes one

claim

that civUity or

decency

results

from

laws

think of

burial. The daxvvdfioi of Athens were charged with the task of seeing to it that aU dung was dumped farther than ten stades from the city's waU;
and

they

themselves

picked

up

anyone who

died in

the streets

(Arist.
ydq
agree

Ath. Pol. 50). One is thus

xonqtwv

reminded of

Heraclitus'

saying,
a

vexveg

exfiXnxdxeqoi precept

(fr. 96). Even if

Socrates

can

laughingly

with

this

(cf. PI. Phaedo

115a3-5),

the city does not treat

corpses

it treats dung; and the difference of treatment must he in the fact that some laws and customs of decency are not self-taught. The Chorus have simply not reflected on the connection between domestication and piety, on the doxvvd/uoi Beot behind the doxwdjuoi dqyai, for they
as

A Reading of
understand

Sophocles'

Antigone

193

form."50 piety only when it has decayed into habit and "good of doiag Svexa altogether eludes them (cf. Eur. meaning IT 1461, Eubulus fr. 110.2, Ephippus fr. 15.4, Wyse at Isae. 7.38). They therefore can caU Antigone, just after she has defended the divine law of burial, savage and from a savage father (471-2). 22.11. The triad of cpBey/ia, cpqdvrjjua, and daxvvdfioi dqyai, which

The

original

man

has taught
yvw/urj,

himself,
which

remind one of

Creon's triad
of

of

ywxij, cpqdvn/j,a,
rule can
reveal

and

only the
cannot

exercise

pohtical

(cf.

$ 12.4). The

triads

be

matched

one-to-one,

for Creon's

cpBey/xa and cpqdvnfia whUe their daxvvd/uoi yvwpirj embraces the dqyai is a partial combination of his rpvxrj and cpqdvnfta. The Chorus thus expand what Creon regards as the easiest aspect of ruling, and they

Chorus'

contract

into daxwd/ioi dqyai

man's

what

Creon
the

analyzes more carefuUy.

For

the

in town

Chorus, life; for Creon,

assert

boldness is
the
ultimate

extrapolitical and

courage of

ruler

astonishingly in abiding by the best

would
man's

sacrificed

deliberations is the
correctly dqyai cannot be
retain enough more than perhaps
as

test

of

his

exceUence.

that for

knowing
as

a man rule

is

Creon, then, indispensable, for

dqyai

mUd

the Chorus beheve. His

must stUl

savagery to defend his country. He must value his country his life. Despite the war that Thebes has just endured, and even because of it, the Chorus do not reckon the ndXignaxqlg,
to the

as opposed place

daxv,

as

constituting
of aU that
with

a part of man's

beivdxng.

They

it

aside as

the haven

is

good and noble

a

because they
that even

faU to consider its connection Creon somewhat understands.

the soul,

connection

22.12. The ordinary punctuation of line 360 makes navxondqog no different from anoqog xxX ; but without the colon it says that man, resourcefuUy resourceless, comes to nothing in the future (cf. El. 1000, fr. 8).51 This is surely not what the Chorus mean, but as an unwitting 871,
portrayal of

Antigone it

could not

nitely resourceful, Antigone man's beivdxng consists in the gap between his daring and his apparent limitations, before which daring these limitations coUapse. The one limitation that is equaUy apparent and real is death; but Antigone shows
goes
.

to death (cf

be bettered: completely artless, but infi 9.3, 10.5). For the Chorus,

her navovqyla within the area that death seems to circumscribe for itself. She does not show that it too is only apparent; she breaks only the

50

The

guards'

willingness

to

go

through

fire

(tivq diigneiv)
to

as

proof

of

their innocence

well

illustrates (and

perhaps

is

meant

illustrate)

the

original

force

of a custom that

later decayed into

a manner of

expression, as in Xen. Symp. 4.16:

did
that
as

nvgog
in'

Uvai
ovdiv comes

bi

(cf. K. Latte, Heiliges Recht, 5-6, n. 2). inl could be distinguished from sgxexai
to nothing
of

man

any

account

for

all

he

ultimately

is (cf. El 245, 1129); but it is

not

ftrjdiv i. as meaning his resourcefulness, resourceless to be insisted upon (cf. Ai. 1231; xo /irjdiv

El

1166):

xaxBavcbv

di nag

dvfjQ

yfj

xai

oxld

eis o-udiv qinei

(Eur.

fr. 536).

194

Interpretation

limits

that

Ismene

thinks

are

insuperable:

8.6). Antigone does Death is brought

recalcitrant

not get around

within

the

realm of

law, nature, and power (cf. death, she sides with it against life. the bvvaxd, though it seems to be
unwritten

to exploitation,

through

the

law. Antigone's devotion

exel

to the law leads to her accepting the conditions of death itself: Death is not the limit but the goal. If one thus xelaofxai. alel
the
Chorus'

ydq

misreads

meaning, one must face the

a colon.

lurk behind
between

navxondqog

question of why Antigone should What is the Chorus looking at when they pause and anoqogl Man's flight from death results in his

daring
finite
future

confrontation with

resources man

everything that threatens death. With his in expands the horizon of possibihty. He thus pushes

to the periphery
what

what

remains

originaUy was right in front

at

of

navxondqog

and

anoqog

that man's artfulness

is grounded has brought about. The

himself has
precedes made

center and puts off into the him. The colon, then, between in the displacement of the horizon

the

Chorus'

sUence represents

the barrier that

man

Chorus

stand which

in

awe.

Man's artfulness,

there, however, does

and

before
not

which exhaust

the

his

daring,
neutral

necessarily The

it,

and which

in itself does

not

have

to issue in it. Man's

to

daring

is

not

just moraUy
omission of

neutral when

it is art; it is

Chorus'

art as well.

the

cause of man's

daring
to

points to what
such a

it is before it has committed itself to art. The commitment would be Antigone's to the divine law

alternative of

burial, in

which there

is

not a

displacement but

a rearticulation of man's original

horizon,
place

that the domain of Hecate and Hades comes to occupy the of death and nothingness. As Antigone recovers the horizon that
so

the

gods once out

imposed
not

turns
man's

to be

original

on man (cf. 456-7), man's daring as radical piety only neutral but hostUe to art: art is the perversion of daring. Art is not at first moraUy neutral and then free

to

choose

the good or the

bad; it is from

the

start

unholy, and the

difference between its subsequent morahty and immorality is, strictly speaking, illusory. Creon's mistake of identifying decree with law reflects a necessary mistake of the city itself, for the city cannot dispense with art; and therefore it must condone its essential unholiness whUe it
punishes

the

accidental manifestations of

its

misuse.

The city
order

must

blink

in the

glare that

Antigone

casts on

this

original compromise of

the city.

Antigone, therefore, has

to forget
once

to be replaced

by

Tiresias in

for the city

again what

Antigone

reminds

it

of

(cf.

51).

22.13.

The Chorus

seem

to enforce their punctuation of line 360

through the corresponding line in the antistrophe, where vtplnoXig stands to navxondqog as anoXig to anoqog. The city is high if man weaves

into (naqelqwv) his artfulness his country's laws and the sworn-by justice 52 but there is no city for him if thanks to his daring he of the gods;
52

This is the only

antecedent

possible

meaning
nag-

of

the mss. reading, with

naQanXixco

supplied

for

the

(cf.

),

which

xixvTl the easily is how Hermann

understood

it; but it is difficult. The

closest parallel

could

find is PI. Lgs. 823a4-5:

A
embraces

Reading of

Sophocles'

Antigone
of

195

the

ignoble.53

The misreading,
repunctuate with

however,

line 360

suggests

that here too one should

of

the line to read that whoever out

daring

aUies

himself

immorality, for him

there is
would

no

city.

This two-edged

consist

in her
same

daringly
time and

sanctions at account
even

the

the city is high and looks like Antigone's. It rerninding the city of one of its divine for the same reason that the city is of no

immorality

characterization of Antigone remains true Antigone that what she does is noble (cf. 9.4), for her morahty undermines the city no less than her immorality. As the gods, moreover, are the source of Antigone's double relation to the city, one

to her (cf.

2.4). This

if

one agrees with

is

reminded of

the city (cf.

support

it

and

Creon's saying that the gods shook and set upright again 12.2). The city uneasUy exists between the gods who the same gods who cannot sanction its unpurifiable impiety.
in herself
so nuUifies and

Just

as

Antigone, then,

the

Chorus'

sUence

between

navxondqog and

anoqog,

between viptnoXig and justifies their sUence between these two words, the answer can only epiol be a hope or prayer for man's submissiveness to the city: When the Chorus caU Earth the highest of the naqeaxiog yevoixo.
jxfjx'

Antigone anoXig. But if

the gods nuUify their sUence one asks what the Chorus think

gods, it is
rest

necessary blunder, for the city must man; and if the city alone determines something the good and the noble, that something can only be Earth, whose ambiguity as itself or one's country conceals the violence it suffers in becoming
not

just

blunder but
of

on

outside

one's

own.

The

Chorus, then,

are

compelled

to point to the

crime

of

the city in praising the city; and this in turn necessarily arises from their mistake as to the character of the culprit. Their behef that only
man's artfulness can account

for the

success with which

Creon's decree
what city's

justifies the seeming irrelevance of the stasimon; but justifies its relevance is that this mistake of the Chorus is the crime. Man's omnicompetence is man's criminality (navovqyia).
was violated

22.14.

The Chorus

end

with

the

hope that the

each one's

culprit not

belong

to their own

hearth;

but their hearth is hearth

of

separate

not some coUective of

the

city.

The

private

hearth and measures the depth

their

without shared

culprit is automaticaUy but he is not thereby automaticaUy without a hearth city, with others. His isolation is only completed by a hope, a hope
revulsion
against

public

crime.

The

Saa

xaXd

244c 1-2). It
stress man's

ifmenXey/iiva yodcpeiv (cf. Phdr. avxcp doxei xai [i^ xaXd elvat, vdfioig deiv6xr\g- theme that the Chorus would be in accordance with the

interlacing (237) does

wem

of art and

law

rather

than man's obedience to

law (ysgaiQav
Hoh'

or

the like).
53

Bockh

put

tiylnoXig

together with

ist

staatlos,

das Edle ferm wohnt"), but only

;

&noXig ("Auf des Staates by taking nageiQcov as

that his

the

equivalent

of

nagafiatvcov

he therefore does

not

recognize

interpretation

is contrary to

what

the Chorus intend.

196

Interpretation

that the Chorus employ to slide over the difference between the
and

fanuly

the

city.

If servants, relations,
of

or

friends
as

of

Antigone had

comprised

the

of such a

Chorus, the presence hope, would be

common

the

arrested

poignant; but

Antigone, after the expression it is, Antigone and the Chorus

11.1). No one,

have in

only

their

however, mentions the indeed, not untU Creon

23 (376-83). 23.1.
accompanied

ndXig

Theban citizenship (cf. in the whole of the Haemon does it

gifts
of

foUowing
(656).64

scene;

confronts

recur and

Prometheus'

fire

the

arts

were

by his settling in men blind hopes, which deprived them of seeing death as the fate in front of them (PV 248). The human being who has no arts, is whoUy without hope, and sees death before
her is Antigone (cf.
man.

3.2, 10.5,
outside man's
of

10.8). Antigone is

pre-Promethean

She thus

stands

mentioned

to Ulustrate

everything that the Chorus have just beivdxng and the Chorus acknowledge this
xd

calling her a baifidviov xeqag (one must reject Piatt's baifidviov fuUy restores to xeqag the "rehgious

by

be),

where aU

nuance"

that

neuters

in

monstrum.

originaUy Whenever xeqag

-ag

had.55

Antigone
to a
shape
or

is

more

than
an

human
event,

refers

living being
origin or

and not

either

that

being
of

is

monstrous

in

(Io

or

Helen), i.e.,
gods
are

composed

parts

that do not

belong together,

the

its

immediate
Hipp.
and

source

1214,

1098, Aesch. Suppl. 570, Eur. Hel. 255-60, PI. Crat. 394d5). Antigone is the only nonvisibly monstrous
(cf. Tr.
xeqag.

whoUy human being that is ever caUed a Chorus do it? Their association of daughter

Why, then, do
suggests

the

with

father

that

origin partly accounts for her monstrousness. She is, besides, deivdv in herself, not through her success but her faUure in breaking any of the apparent limits set for man. Man's cpqdvn/na was for the Chorus an aspect of his beivdxng but now they are confronted

her incestuous

with

Antigone's dcpqoovvn.
which
also could

It had

not

occurred

to them that human

irrationality,
sound,

belongs to rationality as much as sUence does to be terrible (cf. 10.12, 21.1). In the guise of
makes

irrationality
world of the
recedes

the divine

known its intrusion into the

gods are not an outer
are within even with

unlimited always

first
is

stasimon.

The

limit that
start.

before

man's

daring; they
nothing is the
gods'

from the

Human

transgression

as

compared
answer

divine

possession.
xovxo

The
the

particularizing Chorus. With her hot heart for

xdbe

to the generalizing
of

of

cold

things, her love

death,
divine

and
and

her
the

antigeneration, Antigone

shows

that the union of

the

human,

which

(the Chorus thought) the city

harmonized,

is essentiaUy

monstrous.

54

Cf. S.

Benardete,

"Sophocles'

Oedipus

Tyrannus,"

in Ancients

and

Moderns

(ed. J.
55

Cropsey), 3.

homerischen Sprache, 80.

of
Nessus'

Cf. P. Chantraine, Formation des noms grecs, 422; E. Risch, Wortbildung der daifidvwv xigag occurs in Bacchylides 16.35 (Snell)
gift to

Deianeira.

197 BEGETTING AND BELONGING IN SHAKESPEARE'S OTHELLO Mera J. Flaumenhaft

und mit

dem Gefuhl des Vaters hatte

er auch alle

Tugenden

eines

Burgers

erworben.

Goethe, Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre [VIII, i]

Although OtheUo
grandchildren,
neither the
and nor

contains much talk about

birth, delivery,

adoption,
offspring,
chUdren.

the relations between parents and their the viUain in Shakespeare's play fathers any
since the play's single

hero

This is especiaUy tommithi, draws

the chUd.

interesting
attention

source, Cinthio's
great affection

Heca-

to the

viUain's chUd at

a critical moment

in

action; Cinthio

also makes clear the

a

heroine's

for the

Shakespeare's Othello is
human
and nature.

misperceive

play about people who, in different ways, Their views distort their relations with their
towards

community
men come

their

attitudes

love,

sex,

and

cluldbirth,

for

together in pohtical societies and families as no

other animals

do. A community is held together not only by voluntary ties between contemporaries but by natural ties between generations. Therefore, marriage and the famUy are needed for coherent and enduring civU life. Shakespeare's plays repeatedly stress the relationship between "court" and the because, as the song says in As You Like It, '"Tis Hymen
"courtship"

peoples

(V, iv, every Iago and OtheUo both have

Iago
reduces men

town"

143).1

extreme views of

human love

and

human

live to satisfy temporary beasts, desires without concern for the future. To Iago, love is mere lust, and human procreation is no different from animal breeding. OtheUo raises men to near-divinity. He thinks of or, at least, himself and his bride
sexuality.

to

who

himself
or

as constant and

universe.

souls.

unchanging like the permanent features For him, human love is totally spiritual, a meeting of Human bodies, which produce human clhldren, seem
OtheUo
also resemble each other

of

the

minds
almost

superfluous.

Iago

and

in that they both

remain

essentiaUy Iago is a native

outside

the politicial community in which the events occur. Venetian who wiU fully isolate himself from the commu
end

nity

and

in

the

leaves nothing behind him. His

and reputation citizens and

attitudes

towards

love,
to

chUdbearing, possessions,

are related to

his desire
wiU upon
rejected

separate

himself from his feUow

an outsider

to impose his

them. OtheUo is

too. He is a foreign son who has

grafted

his

own

origins

and,

graduaUy, has

himself to the Venetian

community

by defending

it

as a

military commander,

by

converting to

William

Shakespeare, As You Like It,

ed.

Albert Gilman (New York, 1963).

198

Interpretation
of the

its Christian religion, and, at the start its most esteemed daughters. OtheUo's
son

attempt

play, by marrying one of to become an adopted

in this city faUs primarily because he thinks of himself as more than human. His attitudes towards love, cinldbearing, possessions, and reputation, like Iago's, are influenced by his view of his position in the state. Despite his noble aspirations, or perhaps because of them, he dies

leaving

some connections

behind him httle more than the vile Iago does. Both cases suggest between human citizenship and human generation.

/:

Iago

Cinthio's Ensign "feU passionately in love with Disdemona."2 Because "passion" she did not return this and appeared, instead, to love the

Captain,

the Ensign's love "now changed into the bitterest

aU

hate,"3

and

he directed
the wUl.
never

his

efforts

toward

destroying her,

the

Captain,
be

and

the

Moor. Shakespeare's Iago insists He is

constant

that all passions can

in his determination to
is
transferred

turns from his initial purpose, even

by destroy his victims and when discovery is imminent.

controUed a

His

prototype's passion

to

siUy

courtier

who

loves

Desdemona and whose weakness shows Iago's self-control and his ability to impose his wiU on others. Iago's emphasis on the wUl and on self"love" sensual sufficiency permits him to recognize only two kinds of lust and self-love. Both involve the use of another person for one's own
purposes,
the
and neither produces

recognized, legitimate offspring to

confuses

survive

"lover."

With

Roderigo,

whom

he thoroughly

in

the

course

of

the

the relationship between lust and love. Using the language of parent and offspring, he claims "love to be a sect or
speaks of

play, Iago

scion"

(I, in, 327-28)

romantic view.

of

lust,

thus characteristicaUy reversing the

conventional

love,
not

men

In satisfying this resemble beasts which

of

lust,

or

sensual

passion

not

born

of

seek others

to

relieve

themselves. Sex
wiU
not

that is not the product

generate

the fuU human love

which

Iago debases

preserve

fuUy human products. Since lust, unlike love, does lasting fanuly relations, the products which live after it
out

has

burned itself be
satisfied which are

are either unwanted or and

kernel
of

of

immediately sanctioned by lasting social

disregarded. Since it seeks to involve long-term commitments the community, bestial lust does not form the life. It breeds scions who are not conscious
does
not and

their

relations

to their ancestry or their posterity. Human love produces

chUdren,
scene

fanulies, political orders,

of

traditions.
of

Iago's description 1 is
calculated

the

"mating"

OtheUo

and

Desdemona in
about the

to

alarm a

city

elder who cares

deeply

Giraldi

Cinthio,
174.

"Hecatommithi,"

in Othello, All

references to
p.

Othello

are

to

this Signet edition,

3

ed.

Alvin Keman (New

York, 1963),

173.

Ibid.,

p.

Begetting and Belonging

in Shakespeare's Othello
to

199

fanuly
this

line that

wiU

survive

him.

According
not and

Iago,

the products of

lascivious the breed of a

OtheUo
and

elopement wiU

be,

Venetian heirs to Brabantio, but

"gennets."

Barbary horse,

"coursers"

The

joining

of

Desdemona immediately transforms them into beasts, a ram and ewe. These beasts compose, in turn, "the beast with two which lasts only as as their supposed lust does. Brabantio responds long
backs,"

with

contexts and caUs

horror to Iago's description of sex outside famUy and political for his "kinsmen" and his "brother." He is confident

Signory wUl deal justly with him, for Venice is a law-abiding community whose stability is founded on interwoven ties of kinship. Iago's lack of behef in human ties beyond the temporary ones of lust is indicated, in part, by his aUusions to children throughout the play. He assures Roderigo, and later hints to his General, that Desdemona wUl tire of OtheUo as soon as their lusts are sated. Sure that they have else in common, and unable to fathom their spiritual nothing relationship, he forgets that couples in a place like Venice raise children to live after them, to populate the city, and to be honored in it. In Iago's diatribe against women (TI, i), he has The only contempt for them as foolish" "fair and woman has a chUd, as he cynicaUy teaches, "For
that the
mothers.4

even

her

foUy

helped her to
chronicle

an

heir"

(II, i, 135). According

to

him,

the paragon whom Desdemona describes is good for nothing but "to

(H, i, 168). Iago repeatedly fruitfulness with lechery. Thus Desdemona is "framed as fruitful/ As the free (II, iii, 341-42), and Cassio's injuries in act V are the "fruits of (V, i, 116). This association is picked up by OtheUo throughout the later scenes of the play.
suckle and smaU

fools

beer"

associates

elements"

whoring"

The only

other

notion

of

love

which

Iago

understands

is

self-love.

The
who

sincere

admiration serve

which

he

expresses

in the play is for those

to
serve
themselves,6

servants profess

who

their masters

in

order

love for others but reaUy love only themselves. Like the lust "love" for Emilia, Roderigo, Cassio, discussed above, Iago's professed or OtheUo is always intended to satisfy some purpose of his own. He "lusts" after revenge or destruction and his love never goes beyond himself. Although his language throughout
abounds

in images

of

marriage,

devotion,

and

love,

these terms are always perverted

by

him.

Iago's extreme self-love, or egoism, precludes not only a sincere relationship with other individuals but also with the community as a whole. Three times we see him break the peace and quiet of orderly where there is none. In Venice he settiements, once crying
"mutiny"

As

we shall see, mothers of

play.

families

are

oddly absent,
says

not

only from Iago's

view, but from the whole

Granville-Barker
with

that "The three

a pattern

[Desdemona,
See 238.

Emilia, Bianca]
motherhood

provide

the play

something like
sees no

of womankind omissions.
p.

omitted,"

and

old

age

but

significance

in the

Harley Granville-Barker,

(Princeton, N.J., 1965), IV, A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy (Cleveland, O., 1961), p. 178.

Prefaces to Shakespeare

200
urges

Interpretation

Roderigo to

rouse

Brabantio and to

expose

OtheUo, to
poison

Proclaim him in the streets, incense her kinsmen, And though he in Plague him
with

his delight,

fertile, climate dwell, flies [I, i, 65-68].

a

Iago's desire to his

urgings

poison

the "fertile

climate"

is

immediately

foUowed

by

to

give the alarm.

As when, by night and negligence, the fire Is spied in populous cities [I, i, 73-74].

For In

Iago, "people
IV he

swarm

in

cities

like flies in

a
a

hot

damp

climate."7

act

assures

in

a populous

OtheUo that "There's many city, / And many a civU

beast [cuckold] then

monster"

linking

community

fertility

with

lechery..

(IV, i, 65-66), again Brabantio, on the other hand,

"grange,"

thinks the disturbers of the peace are acting as if they were in a a farm in an unpopulated rural area. Iago is the self-professed enemy those who come together in love to populate the city to His goal is either to poison their fertility or to
which associate

of

they belong.
it
with

bestial lust.

IronicaUy, Iago depicts his

fruitfulness:
Our bodies
wills are
are our

sterUe

devotion to himself in images

of

gardens, to the which

so

our

gardeners;

that if
set

we will plant and weed

nettles or sow

lettuce,
many

hyssop

up

thyme, supply it
distract it
with
with

with one gender of

herbs

or

either

to have it sterile

idleness

or manured with

industry
of

why,

the

power and corrigible

in

our wills

[I, iii,

authority 315-21].

this lies

He
and
also

makes

things grow

care, he exercises
expressed

manuring "with his wiU. His self-serving

by

industry."

In

place

of

love

relations with others are

in

the

language

of

love

and

fertUity. To his

"friend"

Roderigo, he urges that they "be conjunctive in our revenge against him (I, iii, 363), and chides him for expecting to reap fruits from
[OtheUo]"

this

union

too soon:
other

Though

things

grow

fair

against

the sun,
ripe

Yet fruits that blossom first

will

first be

[II, iii, 376-77].

"friend"

FinaUy,
of

in the

process

by

which

plays the part of wooer

and

he destroys his devoted lover, and he

OtheUo, he

cultivates the seed

jealousy which undoes him. By depriving his Ensign of

Shakespeare love. But, in

the attractive three-year-old daughter

calls attention

of

Cinthio's story,
sterile notions of

Iago's perverted and Shakespeare's Iago does generate: sense,

to

Hate (New York, 1965),

G. R. Elliott, Flaming Minister: A Study of Othello p. 7.

as

Tragedy

of Love

and

Begetting
I have't! It is Must

and

Belonging
Hell

in Shakespeare's OtheUo

201

engendered!

and night

bring

this monstrous birth to the world's light

[I, iii, 398-99].

Just what is fathered by Shakespeare's Ensign? The product of Iago's inverted self-love is not an enduring chUd but a merely temporary persona in his plot : "honest Iago." speaks of the actor's Stanislavsky creativity and the birth of a dramatic character. SimUarly, GranvUle-Barker, in his discussion of Iago as an actor, remarks that: "the career of a character in a play from its imagining to its presenting on stage has something in common with the begetting and birth of a But, as he says earlier, Iago is an egoist who loves his own art only because it "is stiU a part of him."9 This points to the impossibUity of a man like Iago
child."8

begetting

and loving anything which would not remain part of himself. The dramatic character, "honest Iago," which Iago fathers, is clearly a birth." "monstrous Also monstrous is the whole plan in which he destroys a nobler man than himself. Instead of perpetuating himself in the form of a chUd, Iago fathers a plan which results in his own destruction. Sigurd tragic plot as "art for art's and judges Although Iago delivers his plan perfectly, there are frequent reminders in the play that he is not capable of producing an offspring that is healthy. In his exchange with Desdemona (II, i) he has difficulty delivering his verdict on women: refers
sake"

Burckhardt
a sterile

to Iago's

it

triumph.10

But my Muse labors, And thus she is delivered [II, i, 125-26].

To his
warned

cynical

summary, Desdemona replies, "O

to
"deliver"

most

lame

and

impotent

conclusion"

(II, i, 159). When he

a

testifies about Cassio's brawl he is

by Montano

true account. He

hypocriticaUy attempts
"fathered."

to

make

Many
or

nothing of the events which he can be said to have readers beheve that Iago is sexuaUy inadequate, either homosexual

There is
of

impotent. Shakespeare clearly meant him to be moraUy sterUe. yet another sense in which one can understand Iago's imagery birth. For, in addition to fathering and bringing to hght his monstrous
serves as some

plan, he which,
as

kind

of midwife

to

another unnatural monster

itself"

EmUia says, is "begot upon itself, born on (III, iv, 161). jealousy." Iago may not This, of course, is the "green-eyed monster actuaUy plant the seed in OtheUo, but he is the agent that brings it swiftly to term: "There are many events in the womb of time, which
wUl

be

delivered"

(I, hi, 365-66).

8 9 10

Granville-Barker, Prefaces,

p.

223.

Ibid.,

p.

221. Iago to
also as

Sigurd Burckhardt, Shakespearean Meanings

compares

He

other
are

Shakespearean
On the
"art-for-art's"

plotters

(Princeton, N.J., 1968), p. 17. (Brutus, Hamlet, Macbeth,

morahty
of

Richard

III)

who

childless.

questionable

"knowledge-

for-knowledge's"

in the

Pack,"

W. H. Auden, "The Joker The Dyer's Hand (New York, 1968), pp. 269-72.
well as

sake,

see

202 Iago's
chUdlessness

Interpretation

is

appropriate

and totaUy for himself. If he has any heU" tribe of (I, in, 353). His greatest

because he lives totaUy in the present sense of belonging, it is to "the

satisfaction some

ulating
than to

others

according to his
work

wUl.

Like

of

derives from manip Shakespeare's other

tyrants, his

energies are

securing his
are

devoted to the activity of present tyranny, rather for the future. Richard III, Macbeth, and
childless child-kiUers

Lady

Macbeth

also

who

disrupt the

relations

between

parents and their

chUdren.11

Iago's
and

chUdlessness

is

thus related

to his disregard for the city he lives in

for its future. He exemplifies,

in reverse, what Shakespeare's contemporary Francis Bacon recognized: "it were great reason that those that have chUdren should have greatest care of future times; unto which they knew they must transmit their
dearest
pledges."

12

Iago's
and

peculiar

present-mindedness,
reinforced

indicated
other

his chUdlessness, is

by

his isolated egoism attitudes which distinguish

by

him from ordinary men in political communities. Normal men who know they wUl die generally care to leave behind them, in addition to children, property for their children to inherit. Brabantio is, perhaps, one of these only twice in the play, neither time ordinary men. Iago refers to in the ordinary sense of the word. In the first scene he complains that
"heirs"

the

appointment was

each second
notice

made unfairly "and not by old gradation, where first" Stood heir to (I, i, 34-35). Roderigo does not /
th'

by sending is his quip about foohsh heir." Iago's attitudes women and their "folly that leads them to an towards property are usually thoroughly antisocial. As Robert Heilman he is a petty shows in his discussion of Iago as "Economic
that Iago also violated this principle of
petitioners

"inheritance"

for himself. The

other

reference

Man,"

"thief in the

night"

who

steals

both

literally

Roderigo, Desdemona, Cassio, alistic, he is, once again, amazingly

and

OtheUo.13

and metaphoricaUy from Although he is so materi

present-minded

about

bis

money.

manipulating others, he enjoys stealing in and control them, hence his famous linking of shows no concern with chUdren to inherit his money, he also concern for preserving it for himself. HeUman sees in Iago's Since he
enjoys
"sport"

order

to

"profit."

If he

shows no

"economics"

the same disregard for the future which I have been discussing:

11
also

owe

this
the

point

to

Professor Michael Piatt between

childlessness

of

Dartmouth

suggests

connection

and

disregard for
reputation
Life,"

College, who lasting fame

below. (New York,
saying that
Pericles'

in these
12

political

Francis
p.

tyrants. See my discussion of Iago and Bacon, "Of Marriage and the Single
qualifies

Essays

1966),
single,

22. He

this here
are

and

in "Of Parents
more

Children,"

and

childless

men, if

they

works, while

married men are

inclined, are impeded by their

likely

to

produce great public

wives and children.

See

also

Funeral Oration in
on political

Thucydides'

The Peloponnesian War for the

effect of parenthood

deliberation.

13

Robert

Heilman, Magic in
pp.

the Web:

Language

and

Action in Othello (Lexing

ton, Ky., 1956),

73-85.

Begetting and Belonging

As
a

in Shakespeare's OtheUo
to be the winner taking
. .

203
making

figure

on

the exchange, Iago

indeed."
.

seems
.

all and

his
ics. his
to

victims "poor
. . .

However

Iago

uses

only

a short-term econom

Iago has

good

rational

grasp

of

vulgar streak of own

run

the profiteer; but in the failure

.

how to influence people, and the of imagination, he is reckless of

when resentful malice

coming impoverishment
can no

he's

gambler;

begins

wild, it
of

longer

calculate the end;

like the gambling spirit, it

contains

something

the

suicidal.14

FinaUy, Iago is chillingly

towards reputation.

unconcerned about the

who
homage."

The

man

those who "do themselves

future in his attitudes loves only himself admires only "love" Like the inverted discussed
myself,"

above,

this

inverted

"homage"

homage that endures is his reputation. Without

and

dies when the man himself dies. The Cassio caUs "the immortal part of bestial" reputation "what remains is (U, in, 262what

63). It does not father chUdren who proudly remember their parents, it has no responsible place in an enduring pohtical community. Iago
eloquently
aU,
except
or

speaks

cynicaUy
so

about

the

worth of

reputation, according
cares

to his aims in manipulating others. But for his own reputation, he

not at

in

far
to

as

it is him

also useful

for

those aims.

Perhaps
embraces

this

explains

his

refusal

speak at the end of

on

the play. Iago

his isolation,

now

imposed

by

the community he has rejected,

word"

and refuses to leave a story to live beyond him: "What you know, you know. From this time forth I never wiU speak (V, ii, 299-300).

As

we shaU see

below,

the man who would be part of the community

of

cares about

the reputation which survives him.

Iago,
has behavior
who

who

thinks httle

his fellow

citizens
or

or

of

the

future,

and

no noble
on

expectations

for himself

the grounds that "men are

men"

for others, excuses any (II, iii, 240). On the one

occasion when

he

comes

together with other men to celebrate a com

munity victory (II, iii), he is secretly plotting to jubUandy sums up his outlook in the song he sings:
And let And let
me me

destroy

them.

He

the
the

canakin

clink, clink;

canakin clink.

A O

soldier's a
man's

man;
a span,

life's but

Why then, let

a soldier

drink (U, iii, 66-70).

//. Othello Brabantio is wrong to

"magic,"

and

Desdemona
of

accuse

OtheUo
or

having

won

Desdemona
OtheUo
with

through the
and out of

use of

"drugs
a

minerals,"

or other

"arts inhibited

warrant."

But, in

sense, he
rejected

rightiy

associates

hmits of fanuly, place, changing passions, and, in a strange way, even the body. When he allies himself with Venice, he continues to disregard these limits which, for most men, are not voluntarily chosen. Othello's
the
superhuman.

For OtheUo has

the common human

14

Ibid.

204 vulnerability derives

Interpretation

largely
to

from his

position and
an

in Venice
son of

and

from his

superhuman requirements

for himself

for

Desdemona.15

OtheUo

can

attempt cut

become
off

adopted

Venice only
or

because he has

himself

from his

natural origins.

Cinthio, in The
his
calls

Hecatommithi,
attitude

says almost

nothing

about

the Moor's background

towards
past

it.

Shakespeare, however, repeatedly

present and seems

attention

to

OtheUo's

in presenting his
of royal

his future.

OtheUo's boasted
twice to

in himself descended from "men

confidence of

to derive vaguely from the fact that he is

siege"

(I, ii, 20). But he has

it
again.

never

this to the
parents

Venetians,

and never mentions

He

refers

his

but has

separated

context.

Instead, he mythologizes does him, with magic,

conceive of

them from any human fanuly or pohtical them and associates them, as Brabantio
and an

"mummy,"

Egyptian

"charmer."

It is

difficult to
moment.

Othello

with

his

mother or

father

at

any

specific

Furthermore, the handkerchief myth indicates a certain famUy propensity, or, at least, anxiety on OtheUo's part about such a propensity,
for wandering away from the home. The kerchief OtheUo's father to his wife and, presumably, to his
peculiarities with respect
as

was

needed

to tie to

son.16

In

addition

ordinary

men of

birth, OtheUo apparently did do. He has been, in his own words,
seven, has been
of

to his

not grow

up

"unhoused,"

and,

since

the age

engaged

OtheUo's

accounts

his

past are peculiar

in military battles. FinaUy, in that he usually describes

"foe,"

himself

battling

alone against a generalized and

or as a unique

human
vast

being
and

"anthropophagi"

"monsters"

among
idle."

who

dweU in "anters
the

deserts

These empty,
in
the

"grange"

sterUe spaces remind one of

which

Brabantio

contrasts with populous

Venice

and of the

cave-dwelling,
Gran-

"monsters"

unpolitical,
viUe-Barker

Cyclops

episode of

The Odyssey. As

meaning "is

a world

has remarked, this world in in which one lives

which

OtheUo found life's

not

alone."17

By

abandoned

putting himself in the service of Venice, OtheUo has his past; he has committed himself to destroying

simply

that which

produced against

him. He
and

proves other

his Christian infidels. But

aUegiance after

to Venice

by fighting

Turks

even

he has his "unhoused

to
view

free

condition

/ Put into

circumscription"

(I, ii, 25-26) by marrying into

continues

the populous Venetian community,

Othello

himself

16

Readers familiar

with

Alan Bloom's "Cosmopolitan

will

Man"

in Shakespeare's

Politics (New
owe

York, 1964)

recognize

that

parts

of

the

following discussion

much to Bloom's point of view. Auden, Heilman, and, less interestingly, Moor" Lawrence Lerner, in "The Machiavel and the (Essays in Criticism 9 [1959] : "political" foundations of Othello's sexual passion. 339-60), also discuss the

16

Many
male

readers

have

noticed

that the

handkerchief

was

supposed

to

ensure

against about

infidelity. They interpret Othello's outbursts as projections of anxiety his own shortcomings as a lover. See, for example, Heilman, Magic in the 211-14.
p.

Web,
17

pp.

Granville-Barker, Prefaces,

236.

Begetting and Belonging

as a man alone.

in Shakespeare's OtheUo
seen

205

Many
as

readers

have

instances
of of

of

extreme egoism

in his

pubhc and

domestic
the

conduct.

By

the end

more sees

himself

sole

human inhabitant
seas, moon,
that
and

the play, OtheUo once the vast spaces of the

stars."

universe, among the

heavens,

"chaste has

It is ironic
life
and

and appropriate views

OtheUo,

who

changed

his

entire

aUegiance,

himself
to

as almost

superhumanly

unchangeable

and enduring.

His

conversion

Christianity

has

supported

this view. No
which

longer

associated with a

two-hundred-year-old sibyl and

"mummy,"

dead bodies forever, OtheUo now finds in Christianity another In contrast to Iago, whose kind of immortality that of his "perfect materialistic present-mindedness leads him either to pervert the notion of
preserved
soul."

the
and

soul18

or

to

use

it to

manipulate others who

believe, OtheUo frequently

reverently
murdered

refers

to his soul and its future. When he realizes that he

has

his innocent wife he anticipates with horror the unending 270-77).19 agony his soul wiU suffer in heU (V, ii, OtheUo's view of his own permanence is also indicated in his attitude towards his steadfastness. Like Iago, he denies, from the beginning, that he
might

lose his
at

self-control

and

submit

to

passion.

Unlike Cinthio's

who is his jealous passion, OtheUo appears untroubled behavior. Iago's first description of him teUs how Othello refused to change his mind about the appointment. With Brabantio, Iago, the Signory, and even after the Cassio brawl, the General is in complete himself.20 control of Iago, who prides himself on his own constant wiU,

Moor,

least

"troubled"

"melancholy"

and

before he develops and constant in his

appears

in

different
to be

"honest"

guises constant

although

always

to

different

people, in

order

to himself. His great

project can

be

seen

youth"

as an attempt to deprive the Moor of his "constant, loving, noble (II, i, 289). He teUs Roderigo that "these Moors are changeable and convinces him that Desdemona "must change for in their 330ff.). When he first insinuates that OtheUo has cause (I, hi,
nature" wUls"

to be suspicious, the
Why?

"constant"

Moor

replies:

Why is
still

this?

Think'st thou I'd To follow With fresh

make a

life

of

jealousy,

the

changes of

the Moon

suspicions?

No!

[HI, iii, 177-80].

that the General is
poison"

"moved"

Soon, however, Iago

realizes

and

that "the

(III, in, 322). By the next act, Moor already changes with my vaciUates between his former trust and his we watch in horror as OtheUo His rigid self-control, once shaken, breaks down new
"knowledge."

completely.

As EmUia remarks, "Here's

indeed"

a change

(IV, ii, 105).

is

19
20
must

See Heilman, Magic in See n. 38 below.

Othello's behavior

the

Web,

p.

266.

after

the brawl
strain of

should not

be

wild and passionate.

Actors
it.

be

careful

to

show

the

maintaining rigid control without

losing

206

Interpretation
who recaUs

Lodovico,

OtheUo's former
changed"

steadiness and

control, is

assured

by

Iago

that

"he is

much

(IV, i,

268).
sense

abandons

Although Iago is successful, there is a his desire to be superhumanly bodies he

the
so often

in

which

OtheUo

never

resistant

to

change.

Like the
and

heavenly
regular

mentions, he

must

foUow

a relentless

course,

unaffected

by

human desires his

and acts.

He

now compares

himself to

sea,

which resembles

them in this respect. Once sure of

constant

his

wife's

infidelity, he
change,"

emphasizes

determination to be

avenged.

When Iago

invidiously
to the Pontic

counsels patience and suggests that

his

"mind may

OtheUo absolutely denies

the possibihty:

Never, Iago. Like

Whose

Sea,
on

icy

current and compulsive course

Nev'r keeps retiring ebb, but keeps due

To the Propontic Even
so and

the

Hellespont,

my

Shall

nev'r

bloody thought, with violent pace, look back [JTI, iii, 450-55].
. .
.

At the
night:

end

he

refuses

to

change no

his

plan

to murder

Desdemona that

"Being done,
emotions

there is

pause"

(V, ii, 83).

Othello's insistence
to his

on an almost superhuman self-control with regard

to his attitude about the nature of his and Desdemona's love, which he regards as overwhelmingly spiritual. This may be necessary to divorce himself from the Venetian stereotype of the "lusty" Moor, but his preoccupations with the spiritual side of love do
extends seem

older than Cinthio's and claims only less pressing than in younger "defunct." Seemingly undisturbed that his military duties interrupt the physical consummation of his spiritual love, he accepts his departure for Cyprus on his wedding night "with aU my heart" "pity" with which she (I, hi, 274). He married Desdemona for the responded to his experiences, and finaUy asks that she be permitted to excessive.

Shakespeare's Moor is in him

are not

that "the young men, but that they are

affects"

near

accompany him, not because he wants to enjoy her it, but "to be free and bounteous to her

mind"

body, or even to be (I, hi, 260). In a

it is surprising
of

man whose

language is

permeated with sensual imagery,21

to find none of it attached to Desdemona untU after he suspects her

cuckolding him.

Surely this

indicates

some

inner

strain.22

21 For examples, see Wolfgang Clemen, The Development Imagery (New York, 1952), pp. 124-25.

of

Shakespeare's

22

One

must

account

for the
with must

passages
wife.
said.

in

which

Othello does

refer

positively

to his

physical rarity.

relationship

his be

in their
wife

But

more
at

As I have argued, they are most striking On the first occasion Othello kisses his
to the
"music"

when

he

arrives

Cyprus. (He

refers

their kisses

make

as

"discords.") On
begins: "The
'tween
me
and

the second, he bids her to

come

to bed

as

the victory

celebration

purchase made,
you"

the fruits are to ensue, / That profit's

explains and

yet

to

come

(II, iii, 9-10). Heilman

with

the first

passage

by

noting
at

Othello's

selfish

concern

his

own

happiness

his joyful

self-confidence

Begetting
the

and

Belonging

in Shakespeare's OtheUo

207

OtheUo finds his feminine image of unchanging spiritual perfection in lovely Desdemona. She seems to have fallen in love with him despite his which was eclipsed by his mind and speech. (In act IV she finds Lodovico attractive, not but because physicaUy as Emilia
"visage,"

does,

"divine"

him to share the dangerous and romantic conditions which inspired her love. She refers to her wedding bed only when she thinks of interceding for Cassio (III, hi, 29), and when she has premonitions of her early death (IV, ii, 104). Many characters refer to Desdemona's innocent, unworldly, even
wants
with

"he

speaks

weU"

[IV, hi, 38].) She

to live

qualities.
excels

Cassio

associates
of

her

with

the purity of

Eden;

she

is

One that And in

the quirks

blazoning

pens,

th'

essential vesture of creation

Does tire the ingener [II, i, 63-65].

Only
this

Iago is

wUl make

lady

cynical. He teUs Cassio that OtheUo's desire for his wife "god" him obey her as a (II, hi, 345ff.), and assures him that disposition" of "so blessed a (II, hi, 320) wiU certainly sue

for his
to to
a

reappointment. who

But his

personal opinion

is

more and

directly

expressed

Roderigo,

"votarist"

sincerely (TV, ii, 186):

If

thinks

her

"blessed"

later

compares

her

"Blessed fig's-end! The is

made of grapes.

wine she

drinks

she

had been
have loved the

blessed,

she would never

Moor. Blessed

pudding!"

[II, i, 251-53].

Desdemona's innocence
seem not quite part of point she must remind

of evil and

her

attitude

towards love make her

the

world

of

ordinary

men and women.

At

one

herself

not

to expect too much of them:

gods,

Nay,
Nor

we must
of

think

men are not such

them look for

observancy

As fits the bridal [HI, iv, 148-50].

Unlike Iago, who accepts that "men are because he expects so httle from them, she persists in thinking that imperfect human beings can be improved. Thus, she petitions heaven to send her "such "Not
men" uses,"

Thus, he relaxes and expresses the desires and pleasures of ordinary (Magic in the Web, p. 175). The second passage oddly refers to the consumma tion of their love in economic terms. Othello also kisses Desdemona when he dies:
this
point. men

"I kissed thee

kiss"

ere

(V, ii, 354-55). One

I kill'd thee. No way but this / Killing myself to die upon a unusual feature of the second and third references to
are expressed expansive

physical relations

is that both
ornate,
play.

in rhyming
and

couplets.

distinguished times
and

by his

language,

he

uses

Othello is explicitly couplets only five

during

the entire

On the

other

hand,
at

conventional men

like Brabantio

the

Duke,

and a man who wants

to

appear

conventional, like

Iago, frequently
this superhuman

speak

in them. Othello's
to the

rare use

of couplets

these moments in the play calls

attention

unusualness of what

he is

saying.

Only here does

man, who, with

speak

disastrous consequences, ignores

ordinary

civil conventions and

formalities,

in the

conventional cadences of an

citizen.

208
to
pick

Interpretation

bad from

bad,

but

by

bad

mend"

(IV, hi, 107-8). OtheUo

expects

the same permanence and constancy from Desdemona that he demands in himself. When he thinks he has been cuckolded, he emphasizes the

inconstancy

of

her behavior. In Venice he had

assured

Brabantio

of

his

faith in her unchanging loyalty: "My hfe upon her Cyprus he calls Desdemona back after striking her,
that:
You did
wish

faith"

(I, hi, 289). In

Lodovico

and assures

that I would make

her turn.

Sir,

she can

turn,

and

turn,

and yet go on

And turn

again

[IV, i, 252-54].

Shakespeare seems to suggest that she reaUy is unlike other people who last only as long as the mortal bodies that house their immortal souls. In life she is repeatedly compared to immortal or unchanging, insensible In her eerie last things like jewels, chrysolite, or alabaster
monuments.23

words she seems

to

speak

from beyond the

attention

grave24

and, at the

end of

the

play, Shakespeare
accused of

being

calling false, it does

unable

avoids

to her dead body.

Wrongly
from

not

even

have to be

removed

the

stage.25

Brabantio, like Iago, is

utterly devoid natural human
are
of

to

comprehend a

relationship
mind

which

is

sensual

attractions.

To his

coarse

this is not a
and

relationship.26

Although

we recognize

his limitations

deeply

moved

by

the fineness of this love affair, we must see that

there is

some

truth to Brabantio's point of view, for changelessness and

human. Like Iago, OtheUo faUs to admit the com Iago denies the value of spiritual love and transforms aU men into monsters. OtheUo condemns physical desire as beastiy and glorifies the youth he spent fighting monsters. Like Cassio,
bodUessness
posite are not
of

nature

man.

who

loses "the immortal

part"

of

himself "to be
beast!"

now

sensible and

man,

by

presently a Roderigo, the fool whom Iago urges to be a beast, OtheUo, too, is reduced by Iago's

and

by

fool,

and

(II, hi, 304-5),

and

like
from
to

a man urgings

then turns into

man
act"

to be a

something

more

than

human,

to the agent

of a

"monstrous
man

(V> ii,

187),

to

"Fool! Fool!
animal

recognize

the

(V, ii, 319). The in himself is, at last, more

Fool!"

who

refuses

monstrous

than the
weeds"

ordinary human being: "Lilies that fester smeU far worse than (Sonnet 94). IronicaUy, OtheUo's perfect spiritual marriage begins

at

the

Sagittary,
what

the inn whose centaur sign

refuses

part

man,

part

beast

points out

Othello

to

recognize about

the nature of

man.27

23 24 25 26
27 a

D. A. Traversi, An Approach to Shakespeare (New York, 1969), II, Heilman says she becomes a saint (Magic in the Web, pp. 214-18).

p.

110.

See
The

appendices

for

contrasts of other p.

Shakespearean heroines

with

Desdemona.

Bloom, Shakespeare's Politics,

centaur
horse"

41.

is

part

man, part
will
sire

horse. In I, i, Iago specifically

(Spanish

calls

Othello (war

"Barbary

"gennets"

who

horses)

"coursers"

and

horses).

Begetting

and

Belonging

in Shakespeare's OtheUo

209

As we have seen, however, accepting the centaur as an emblem for human nature may raise other problems. If men renounce their aspira tions to God-like perfection the OtheUo view what is to keep them from sinking to the ways of beasts, in the Iago Shakespeare does
view?28

not offer problem

an answer

by

play. But recognizing that OtheUo's

in this

one

might

begin to
of

consider the

self-elevation eliminates

higher than
effects on

himself,

and thus precludes the

possibUity

worship

anything and its

human behavior. OtheUo is a mercenary soldier who, in addition to being useful to a society which is mercantile rather than military, is also exotic and attractive. Venice is willing to pay him, to respect his position, and to obey him in military matters, but, as the play shows, her citizens do not fuUy accept him as one of themselves.29 Brabantio, although he has
Othello in his home for the last nine has had anxious his daughter and the Moor. His outbursts, which repeatedly emphasize the difference between bis countrymen and the black warrior, indicate his limited acceptance of the General. The Duke is also a father
entertained
months,30

dreams

about

and admits

that

OtheUo's tale

might

have

won

170). But his

sententious

comfort

after

the

his daughter too (I, ii, Signory hears Desdemona

indicates
and

marriage a

sympathy for Brabantio's point of view. He calls the "robbed" "mangled and refers to Brabantio as the "thief."81 OtheUo as the In Cyprus, the greetings of Lodovico are
some
matter"

official and

formal,

rather than warm and

personal,

as one might expect

to a newly married couple. Venice seems to view the marriage by which OtheUo seeks to tie himself permanentiy to the state less as the gain of an than as the loss of a natural daughter. Brabantio describes Desdemona's rebelhon as a "treason of the (I, i, 166). He means that she has married without her father's permission,
adopted son
blood"

but his

is especiaUy violent because she has betrayed her by marrying a foreigner. Her defense before the Signory ignores this second reason for his anger and speaks only of a woman's divided duties
anger

"blood"

to her father and any husband.

Her mother, to

whom

she

compares

herself,

was

also puts

presumably a Venetian who married a Venetian. Her defense her in a position something like OtheUo's with respect to her
say I
would

28

See I, iii, 315-18: "Ere I

would

drown

myself

for the love

of a

hen, I would change my humanity with a "Machiavel." 29 See Bloom, Shakespeare's Politics; Auden, "Joker"; and Lerner, 30 I, iii, 83. Othello says he has been engaged in action until nine months ago. Since then he has been idle in Venice, spending at least some of his time visiting Brabantio. During this period he has wooed Desdemona and decided to join the Venetian community by marrying her; during this time he has decided
guinea

baboon."

to become
a

an

adopted

son.

Is

not

nine

months

an

appropriate

term

to precede

"second birth"?
si

upholds

See Heilman, Magic in the Web, the marriage because it cannot

("Joker,"

p.

261. Auden

suggests

that the
general

afford

to alienate

its best

Signory during

the Cyprus

crisis

p.

264).

210
past.

Interpretation

She

expected as

her

duty

to be divided between the past and the to have anything

more

future. But
shows,

Brabantio's
this:

refusal

to do

with

her

the marriage wiU require a more complete split than she thought.
she realizes
you

In Cyprus
If

haply my father do suspect An instrument of this your calling back, Lay not your blame on me. If you have lost him,
I have lost him too [IV, ii, 43-46].

FinaUy
reasons
father?"

Brabantio for

condemns
chUdren cries.

such

marriage

because it destroys the

having

by

(I, i, 161), he

generating them: "Who would be a "blood" is to be adulterated, he If one's

it"

"had

rather

to adopt a chUd than to get

she can

(I, hi, 189). Fortunately,

has been the
cause of

Desdemona dies before "would thou hadst If Othello

and
never

hear that
chUd

she of

her

father's death. Before he kills this

Venice OtheUo exclaims,

"chUdren"

been

born"

(IV, ii, 68).

capacities as of

Desdemona fail in their

the

Venetian community, Shakespeare also raises some doubt about them as potential parents. The extreme spirituality of the relationship and the emphasis on their own permanence prevents us from thinking of them
as

father

and

mother.

Cinthio's

couple

have been

happUy

married

for

before they go to Cyprus, and his Disdemona is represented as extremely fond of the Ensign's chUd. It is easy to imagine that Cinthio's Moor, who is said to have been "vanquished by her
some time
beauty"

(emphasis added) as weU as by her character, eventuaUy wiU have children. Shakespeare seems
this suggestion.

and

his Disdemona
to
avoid

dehberately
of of

The

action

occurs

in

the

first few days

and speaks

marriage.

Desdemona is
chUd
might order expect

portrayed

as

almost sexless
older

herself
and

as

(IV, ii, 109-12). OtheUo is

to secure his

than Cinthio's

Moor,

one

this adopted son to be eager to become a city father in union with Venice. In the early scenes there is no

suggestion of this. or

Later, like Iago, he consistently

associates procreation
sex.32

fruitfulness exclusively with lust or with animal Thus, his wife's hand" heart" "moist argues "fruitfulness and hberal (in, iv, 38). In the "brothel" "madam," scene he orders Emilia, the to "leave procreants
and
shut

alone

the

door"

origins, he the
which

agonizes over

the thought that

(IV, ii, 29). Emphasizing again his cut-off Desdemona, "the fountain from
else

is to be kept "as a cistern for foul toads / To knot and gender (IV, ii, 58-61). Shortly after, he "honest" thinks that she is as "as summer flies are in the shambles, / my
current runs

/ Or

dries
in"

up,"

That
as

quicken even with

blowing"

(IV, ii, 65-66). Othello

they
are

sees

cuckoldry

the curse of aU mortal men from the moment 'Tis destiny unshunnable, like death. Even then this forked plaque is fated to
When
we

born:

us

do

quicken

[III, iii, 274-76].

32

Except for the

one passage

discussed in

n.

22.

Begetting
The
problem

and

Belonging in Shakespeare's OtheUo

211

is

that

he does

sitates

"fruitful"

sexual or guUty into deep ones.

lustful
erupts

that human mortality neces activity between lawful and pure lovers as weU as OtheUo's high spirituality, which, when questioned,
not recognize

sexual

horror,

seems

to preclude the possibUity

of

human

chUdren

in

human society

as much as

do Iago's low

animal attitudes.

His

place of

bed, which should produce new life to succeed him, is a death. For OtheUo, love's too-spiritual ecstasy "death" leads directly to literal death.33 Like Iago, OtheUo is dehvered only of a itself." monster, the green-eyed one, "begot upon itself, born on
marriage

This discussion
ical
expressions

of

of

OtheUo's chUdlessness has been based on metaphor his attitudes towards himself, Desdemona, and his
makes

love. But Shakespeare

about the probable

it

clear

that other people

are

thinking

offspring

of

this

unusual marriage.

The

main prob

lem,

that these chUdren would be black in fair Venice. difficulties attending the chUdren of marriages which usuaUy disregard the pohtical contexts in which they occur. Although OtheUo and Desdemona are married, Shakespeare avoids references to conven tional formalities (the ceremony, a ring) which would indicate society's of

course, is

There

are

recognition of the

union.34

One

need

only look

at

the products

of other

Shakespearean love
to spot
difficulties.35

affairs which

disregard

pohtical or social conventions

They are either politicaUy ignored, as in Antony and Cleopatra, or ostracized bastards, as in Titus Andronicus3e King John, Much Ado, or King Lear.
problems surrounding OtheUo's perpetuation of himself in chUdren emphasized, like those of Iago, by his attitude to material possessions. "heirloom" The which OtheUo retains from his own ancestors is the are

The

his undoing. He has kept the handkerchief as an exotic totem, rejecting the life it came from, and it appropriately destroys his new alliance. At the end of the play, OtheUo realizes that he has thrown "heirloom" he did receive from the fanuly he married into, away the one "pearl" "jewel," which Othello recognized as "richer than Brabantio's the
cause of
whUe aU

his

tribe."

FinaUy,
of

as the

Venetians
estate:

prepare

to return to their city,

Lodovico disposes

OtheUo's

33 34 35

See Heilman, Magic in the Web, pp. 187-93. Burckhardt, Shakespearean Meanings, p. 274.
Romeo
and

Juliet

are social equals of similar

backgrounds

who are separated are quite

by
ent

a political

barrier

which
and

is

condemned

in the

play.

These lovers

differ

from Desdemona for

physical

Othello. Their
Juliet is
said

attraction

yearn

union,
of

and

to be old

is extremely sensual, they enough to be a mother. I am

of

not speaking are expected

here

"political"

marriages

(like that

Henry V)

whose

offspring

to unite separate nations.

36

separate

Aaron, the type of lustful Moor from whose image Othello so seeks to himself, has a fantastic plan to make his bastard king. The plan is doomed
start.

from the

212 Gratiano, keep

And
seize upon

Interpretation
the

house,
Moor, [V ii> 362-64].

the fortunes of the

For they

succeed on you

end is, again, peculiarly final, since the inheritance which, in circumstances, would pass to the next generation here reverts to ordinary the preceding one, to Desdemona's uncle, the brother for whom Brabantio

OtheUo's

caUed on

the

night she eloped.

OtheUo's desire to

extend

himself beyond human limits

and

his
of

inability

to perpetuate himself as ordinary men do make

reputation

the utmost value to him. He is hke

AchiUes,

who

sacrifices

potential

prosperity, wife, children,

of

and old age

in his homeland for

the promise

everlasting glory based on his mihtary reputation, and who, at one point, even imagines himself in a world devoid of aU comrades but Patroclus.37 Like Cassio, OtheUo believes that reputation is the "immortal
part"

of

himself. Iago

manipulates

him

by

associating

reputation

with

the valuable and unchanging: Good

name

in

man and

woman, dear my
of

Is the immediate jewel

their souls

lord, [III, iii,

155-56].

bad reputation, as weU as a good one, is immortal, OtheUo despairs at the contempt his aUeged cuckolding wUl bring on him:

Knowing

that

But,
To
point

alas, to make me
of scorn at

The fixed figure for the time

his

slow and

moving finger

[IV, ii, 52-54].

He

makes the same extreme no accident

demands

on

his

reputation as

he does

on

his

love. It is
visage"

that his

"name,

that was as fresh

/ As Dian's
terms

(III, hi, 383) is described in

as

the same chaste

and sterUe

(Diana)
37 38

his

love.38

Homer The Iliad

IX.393-416, XVI.97-100.
why
a
man

One

might

ask

who

believes in the

immortality

of

his

soul

should care so much

infamous
seem

one about

for his earthly reputation, a question which may be like the Lady Macbeth, but Othello's behavior and Shakespeare's detail
Although Othello disregards the
usual material

to warrant them.
and

signs

of of

continuity

emphasizes notion

his lasting soul, there

of an as

are

signs

that, for
He

a person
attempts

his experience, the

preserve preserve

everlasting

soul

is too

ethereal.

to

his

reputation

much

his shadowy forebears may have

an

attempted

to

their bodies. His allusions to

Egyptian,

"mummy"

sybil,

and

suggest childhood

that the Islam of the North Africans among whom he thin veneer over a
pagan

spent

his

was a

faith in

magic and amulets.

ity,
the

with

its

spiritual

emphasis, would appeal

rather

Perhaps this is why Christian to him. But again, one might wonder

why he

allied

himself to Christians

than to

Moslems,

who

also

believe in

immortality. The Venetians in the play emphasize not their Christian theology but their Christian manners. Othello seems attracted to them mainly because they are a civilized and self-controlled people, in contrast to the passionate and
soul's sensual
and

Moslems. Thus his

emphasis

Christianity

may

not

be

as

orthodox

his

on

his everlasting

soul

may

not

preclude

the

as he thinks, desire for an

enduring

reputation.

Begetting
faUed

and

Belonging in Shakespeare's OtheUo

as a result of

213

Although he leaves nothing tangible behind him

and

his brief

hved, willing to Venice's posterity, if not his own, a lasting picture of himself. Unlike AchiUes, who knows the poets wiU sing of his exploits, OtheUo must be his own Too grand for human society, unable to limit himself to the institutions and conventions which make possible enduring famUy and
attempt as
poet.39

to

assimilate, OtheUo dies

he

city life, OtheUo seeks throughout the play to perpetuate himself as individual in the legends he teUs. By the last act he speaks distantly

an of

himself in

the third person and presents

at

his death
am,"

fixed tableau

for the memory of his witnesses. Unlike Iago, who refuses to explain himself and who remains, for others, "not what I OtheUo begs bis audience to "speak of me as I and tells them one last story
am"

about

himself.40

Appendices
In examining Shakespeare's
plays
we are
often

fortunate to have

other plays against which we can check our

interpretations. I began

by

noticing how different Desdemona is from other innocent, marriageable maidens in Shakespeare, and found several strong corifirmations of my
thesis
about

Shakespeare's interest in the

relations

between love,

genera

tion,

and pohtical communities.

The Merchant of Venice Othello. The two

marriages and

examines

some

of

the problems raised

by

in this

second

Venetian play

bring

the

union

between Desdemona

OtheUo into

relief.41

39

As both the
great

actor and poet of some

his actions, Othello

adventures,
as

more resembles
noted

Odysseus,
similar

another

general,

of

whose

above,

are man

to those of Shakespeare's Moor. But Odysseus is a supremely politic

words and

whose

deeds

are

calculated. even

Throughout his travels he

and

remembers
used

who

he is,
It
of

resisting

conversion

and

marriage

refusing to be

by foreigners.
exploits

is

no

accident and

that he
that

maintains returns
son.

some

distance from the heroic

and

his

comrades,
and, most
40

he

home to his kingdom

his wife, to his father,

of

important,

to his

As many

readers

have seen, the

about

poet

Othello lacks the insight

creator wrote

the

poet

love poetry as grand and as spiritual as Othello's, and he knew that there could be no such poetry were there no difference between human and animal sexuality. But he also knew

Shakespeare,

especially

himself. Othello's

that the

attempt

to live unremittingly on the highest

spiritual

level

would

lead,

in ordinary circumstances, only to tragedy. Is this why he expressed such notions in a private and literary form, the sonnet, but qualified them repeatedly in the public works which depict the choices and actions of human beings in social
and political situations

? With this

question we

may

end.

Trying

to

answer

it

would

be to begin
4i

another

long discussion.
Jew,"

Shakespeare's Politics, and Sigurd See Alan Bloom, "Christian and Shakespearean Meanings, for views similar to "The Gentle Burckhardt,
Bond,"

mine on

these two

marriages.

214
"Amorous"

Interpretation

tion is

simUar.
6)42

(H,

vi,

Jessica lacks Desdemona's ethereal fineness, but her situa bonds" She forsakes her famUy bonds "to seal love's by eloping in a gondola at night with a man of different

origins. This happens at a time when her father has been dealing with her husband's friends and, like Brabantio, has had anxious dreams of fore blood," Jessica's marriage boding. Like Desdemona's "treason of the requires

the

rejection of
am a

her

ancestors:

But though I I
am not

to his manners

daughter to his blood, [U, iii, 18-19].

Shylock decides to

exact a pound of

Antonio's

"flesh"

in

part

because

he

thinks that

32). Unlike
and

(III, i, Desdemona, who perceives a duty divided between her father her new husband, Jessica coldly forsakes her father for
and

Antonio helped his "own flesh

blood to

rebel"

Lorenzo,
For
who

certain, and my love

indeed,
money which she has Like the sociaUy
the

love I

so much?

[II,

vi, 29-30].

Later

we

hear that
weU as

she an

has

squandered

the

famUy

stolen,
unites

as

heirloom, her
Desdemona
never

mother's

ring.

unsanctioned marriage of

and

her

Moor,

ceremony

which

Jessica

and

Lorenzo is

attended

by Launcelot,

who mistreats

specificaUy referred to. They are his own father and fathers bastards
a

himself. He jokes that Jessica may be daughter." She rephes that she "shaU be 1 8),
again

bastard

and

not

"the Jew's

(III, v, by my emphasizing her rejection of her origins. Although fair Venice is not able to accept black OtheUo and, as a result, loses Desdemona, it is possible to beheve that it might be easier
saved

husband"

for Christian Venice to

there
are

absorb

Jewish
and

adopted

indications that Lorenzo's

their

Jessica's future
night

daughter. However, wiU be as

overcast as

that of the marriage discussed above would have been.

Many

have

noticed that

lovely
Two

talk about
of

lovers in the
parents.43

describes love

affairs with tragic ends.

foreigners
for
no

and

third was opposed

the

help thinking
other

of

interestingly, matches between FinaUy, one cannot by difficulties which they wiU encounter in Venice, if
these were,

Perhaps

this

everyone else

than that they have broken the law by stealing. is why Shakespeare leads them (and leaves them when goes to the trial in Venice) to the protected and private
reason

Belmont. Although there has been much discussion of the limitations of the marriage between Portia and Bassanio, it is clear that it is a more viable match than either Jessica's sordid elopement or Desdemona's saintiy one. It foUows, at least in spirit, the wUl of Portia's father and it pahs her
paradise of
with an appropriate man of

her

own

background. She

objects

to a

proud

42

All

references

to

The Merchant of
Jew,"

Venice

are

to

the Signet

edition,

ed.

Kenneth Myrick (New York, 1965). 43 p. 34. Bloom, "Christian and

Begetting
black

and

Belonging
on

in Shakespeare's OtheUo
"complexion,"

215
and

Moroccan, largely
soldier"

the grounds of his

she

to

several other

foreigners. But

is

eager

to marry

Bassanio,
clear

"a

Venetian,
her father
spiritual

a scholar and a was

(I, ii, 112),

which

who visited

Belmont
eyes,"

when

alive,

and

thus must have had his approval. It is

"fancy,"

that she does

marry only for love as weU. However,

not

is "bred in the
she

but for

although

is described

"goddess,"

as

she
above

lacks the
the
clothes

ethereal qualities which raise

the "divine

Desdemona"

human

community.

She

supervises a valuable estate and

dons

a man's

to participate in the political business of Venice. Unlike Desde

she enjoys a and

mona,

her husband

joke with her waiting woman and, later, with FinaUy, unlike Jessica and Desdemona, she wiU bear chUdren. Her husband's friend, Gratiano, who ends the play with sexual joking, and his wife, Nerissa, offer to "play with them [Portia and Bassanio] the first boy for a thousand (III, ii, 214). The products

bawdy

friends.

ducats"

of these marriages wiU

be equaUy

comfortable

in Venice

and

in Belmont.
man

OtheUo is
advisor,
or

often compared with

Leontes in The Winter's Tale, the

not comphcated

whose morbid and unfounded

jealousy is

by

a treacherous

anxiety about his foreignness. Leontes and Shakespeare's other conventionaUy jealous men differ from OtheUo in that, while they are

horrified

by

their

wives'

supposed
animal

infidelity, they do
Leontes his
never supposed

not view

all

sex

and procreation

as

activities.
and

expects

himself to
not

hve up to
reduce

superhuman

standards,

cuckolding does He
endangers

him,

in his
of

own

eyes, to a beast. Aside from his personal agony,

the main

Leontes'

result

jealous

rage

is

pohtical.

his

country
to his

by depriving

it

of

heirs. But this

self-induced chUdlessness

is the

result of poor

judgment
in

and

temper,

and

is not, like Othello's,

shows

related

peculiar position

society.

Shakespeare

this

by

salvagable.

His

wise wife and

her friends

save

his heirs

and

making him teach him be

seen

to repent so that he can return to his position as a secure political leader.

The difference between

Leontes'

jealousy

and

OtheUo's

can

by

comparing their wrongly accused wives. Hermione is a warm sensual woman who is pregnant and gives birth during the play. There is repeated reference to her children and how they have inherited the
of

features

their parents. Unlike

of cold stone

described in terms
The Winter's
to life as a

Tale, Hermione,

Desdemona, whose saintly chastity is ("monumental alabaster"), by the end of the statue ("dear stone") in a chapel, comes

wife and mother.

Perdita and Florizel also bring into focus the overspiritual sterility of Tale," a play Desdemona and OtheUo. The marriage in this "Winter's about renewal and regeneration, is at first opposed by a parent on the lovers' grounds that the differing backgrounds are not compatible. When
it becomes
marriage clear

that their

fathers

were on

brought up like
premarital

brothers,

the

is

welcomed.

The insistence
so

chastity for these

passionate

young lovers is necessary

inherit

the throne and continue their

parents'

that, when they marry, they can hne. But Perdita's temporary

216

Interpretation
emphasizes contrasts
also

home
we

for the her

audience with

her earthy, fruitful

side.

E. M. W. but strikingly
compares

TUlyard
sterUe.

fertility
for the

Iago's destructive

power

instinct,44

should

compare
cares

her

with

Desdemona,
to
whom

who

is

also

Perdita

"ewes"

Iago nastily

and hves gracefully among the animals with whom OtheUo fears to have anything in common. Desdemona is purer and holier than Perdita, but her purity wiU not produce another like her. Frank Kermode

Desdemona,

comments on the conclusion of

the play:
stands created

At

one

masterly

moment

Perdita herself
remind us

like

a statue

beside the
end

supposed

statue of and

her mother, to continuance in time, is

than

that

things work their own perfection

as well as suffer under

it. And in the

intellect"

the play

seems and

to say (I borrow the language of

dies"

Yeats)
of

that "whatever is

begotten, born,
also,
when

nobler more

"monuments
lasting.45

unaging

and

truly

considered,

truly

Maybe human
that

"nobler,"

not

communities.
show

but certainly more appropriate for human beings in For OtheUo and Desdemona are tragicaUy noble in
permanence and

they

spirituality As
wed

sometimes

how human yearnings for superhuman interfere with human life.

the chess tableau

a

in The Tempest reveals, Prospero

planned

to

husband like her. Unlike Desdemona, Miranda has a Prospero to advise and guide her.46 In connection with the discussion OtheUo above, it is important to wisdom, also provides for
as

Miranda to

of

note that chUdren

Prospero,
to

who

now

has

political

succeed

her.

While

Miranda is be
of a social

preserved

that which

as Desdemona, her chastity is to be properly fertUe within the confines order. Thus, Prospero exclaims, "Heavens rain grace / On breeds between (Ill, i, 74).47 The Juno-Ceres masque and so

"perfect
so

peerless"

only

that she

wUl

'em!"

is designed to

secure the fertility of the couple, "that they may prosperous issue" be / And honored in then 103). This kind of language and (IV, i, theme is strikingly absent from the marriage in OtheUo. Caliban's loyalty to his mother is an aberration in this beast-man, who
"people"

would
or rape.

"this isle

with

Calibans"

(I, ii, 350) by indiscriminate

kin
return alone on the

sex at

When the young

of the

couple and aU then

to the court

the end

play,

Caliban, appropriately, is left

a

island.

As Othello shows, human couphng in

neither

human community
sensual.

must

be

excessively

spiritual nor

excessively

44 45

E. M. W. Tillyard, Shakespeare's Last Plays (London, 1951), p. 44. William Shakespeare, The Winter's Tale, ed. Kermode (New York,
.Frank

1963), p. xxvv. 46 Bloom, "Cosmopolitan

47

Man,"

p.

62.
ed.

All

references

to The Tempest are to the Signet edition,

Robert Langbaum

(New York, 1964).

217 THE LAW OF NATURE IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH

HOBBES'

:
*

ARGUMENT FOR CTVIL AUTHORITY

Robert C. Grady II

The distinction between

a source of

authority
conflict

of

civU authority and rehgious authority has been controversy within the Western pohtical tradition. The final God found in Judaio-Christian teaching, for example, makes and

between the individual behever

the

claims

of

pohtical

authority inevitable. Although arguments for limitations on civU authority identify two legitimate spheres of power, God's and the state's, as in St. Paul's dictum that Christians owe obedience to the state, what is
crucial

to the

notion

that

one renders

to Caesar what is Caesar's

ordained

and

to God what is God's is the presupposition that God has

powers

the

that be and thus to Caesar:

acquires

obedience

to Himself

by

requiring
powers

obedience

"For there is
of

no power

but

of

God: the
shaU

that be
resisteth

are ordained of

God. Whosoever therefore God:

and

resisteth

the power,
receive

the

ordinance

they

that

resist

to

themselves

damnation."1

is taken for both

standard ordained

rulers

Within this framework, whatever political action and ruled is to be taken ultimately under the if
not as a

by God,

direct

result of

God's

command.

any final claims on individuals by pohtical authority are concerned, such a distinction identifying two legitimate spheres of power is otiose; the judgment of secular political authority must always be prepared to be supplanted by a judgment which is spiritual.

As far

as

The dual

spheres

isolating
in

that which is Caesar's from that which is

exphcations of

God's
tion.2

are weU established

the Western political tradi

scope of

That

this

dualism is problematic, affecting the

civU

the political

and

subordinating

authority to religious authority, is recognized in

The

author

thanks George J.

Graham, Jr.,
draft
the
of
research

and

Avery Leiserson,
and paper.

Vanderbilt

University, for
for financial
1

criticism of an earlier

this paper,

the Earhart Foundation

support

covering

part of

for the

Romans 13:1-2. "Render therefore to

custom

all

their dues: tribute to whom tribute

is

due;
2

to

whom

custom; fear to whom

fear; honour

to whom

honour."

Romans 13:7.

ch.

See Sir Ernest Barker, Church, State and Education (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1957), 3, "A Hugenot Theory of Politics: The Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos"; John
and ch.

Society (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), I, ch. 2, esp. pp. 156-98; George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, 3d ed. (New York, 1961), chs. 17-22; Frederick Watkins, The Political Tradition of the West (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), chs. 2-3 passim.
Plamenatz, Man

51-88,

5,

esp.

pp.

218
the

Interpretation
concern of pohtical phUosophers with

Machiavelli's

effort

to

remove

pohtics

from

ecclesiastical

domination,

to free pohtics from its previous

justice.3

dependence
more

upon rehgious norms

the rationale

justifying

political

regarding social authority is characterized

Indeed,

since

by

voluntarism,

is involved than simply the separation of equal claimants to author one civU and one religious, into different sectors on the same plane. ity, view of authority, pohtical authority receives its In this
"voluntarist"

legitimacy
"authorize"

from

specific

source,

the
upon

consent

given of

by

those

who

it. Justice is dependent

the consent

the individuals

affected; authoritative action is taken on the basis of what is perceived to be feasible and necessary to maintain the rationale for authorization
or consent.

In contrast,

proponents of classical pohtical

the position that political authority

of the character or

is

authoritative or

phUosophy support legitimate because

of claims or
criteria cannot

justness

of

its

rule.4

This involves the possibUity

of

achieving
estabhshed withdraw

just

pohtical

order

independent

the

through individual consent their

obligations

but from

which

individuals

Based

on

a rationale

rejecting for seeking the just political order, it is

without

their

common

humanity.
also
an

attempt

to moderate the excesses of

justifying
good or

authority

on consent

alone,
under

which might

be only

a reflection of

the composite of habits learned

the

conventions of a particular

regime, the
on

bad. As

should

be

apparent

in comparing this
central

position with

criterion noted

by

St. Paul,

what

is

to

the

classical of

position

pohtical

authority is the
spiritual of

defining
authority God are

characteristic

the

Christian
and
grace.5

position

regarding

whereby civil both ordained

authorities

the temporal

representatives

by God's

For the identification

recast

of

the problem

as

arising through Machiavelli's

attempt

to

the

political,
pp.

1953),
ch.

ch.

5,

Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, 176-80; Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision (Boston, 1960),
see

Leo

7. The distinction has been

and stated

4 of

aptly

by Jouvenel
ch.
of

as one

between the

"source"

the laws

the

"content"

of

the laws.

See Bertrand de Jouvenel, Sovereignty,

trans.
pp.

J. F. Huntington
ch.

(Chicago, 1957),
200ff. (Much

2,
this

pp.

29-30, 35-36,
draws

ch.

6,

ch.

11,

190-98, 3,
pp.

12,

pp.

section

upon

Jouvenel's

Arendt, Between Past and Future (Cleveland, O., 1963), 92-93ff., 104ff., 120-28; Strauss, Natural Right, chs. 3-5; Eric Voegelin, Plato (Baton Rouge, La., 1966), ch. 2; cf. Wolin, Politics and Vision, pp. 307-9.
ch.

analysis.) See also Hannah

5
can

Cf. Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1134b-35a: "What is just in the

political sense

be

subdivided

into do

What is
what we
other

by

nature or

is just by nature and what is just by convention. just has the same force everywhere and does not depend on
what not
regard as

regard

just. In

hand, it
.

makes

originally
not

no

difference

another.

What is just
the best

by

nature
are.

same everywhere

than constitutions

is just by convention, on the it is fixed one way or but by human enactment is no more the Yet there is only one constitution that is
what
whether

by

everywhere."

nature

See

also and

the distinction between

identifying by
claim

rational

principle

what

is

common

justifying by individual

what

is

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil Authority

the voluntarist
of

219
authority, the
occurs

From the

perspective of

view of pohtical

tension found in the separation

the pohtical and the rehgious

precisely because it is its standard, form of rule

as

possible

for

the religious world to reinstate

its
of

pre-eminence over the political on the

contrasted with

basis

of

the ultimate justness

the voluntarist institutionalization of to be erroneous in the face

of

which can

be

claimed

of natural

law (or
rehgious

of revelation).

The possibUity authority

reinstating the

pre-eminence of
of

authority

over civU

involves,

in effect, the possibUity

chaUenging the voluntarist view of political authority by that perspective in which assent is the derivative, not the source, of pohtical justice. Given this
of

picture of the

dual

spheres and the chaUenge reasonable

it

raises against

voluntarist pohtical

authority, it is

to presume that proponents

a
not

the voluntarist view would seek to

develop
and and

final

solution
a

to the

tension existing

between the two

claims of each

spheres

merely

settlement

recognizing the

as viable

authoritative

within

their

respective realms.

To be effective, this
at,

solution would go

beyond

a mere

separation and arrive

indeed,

come

full

circle

to, the

subordination of

rehgious
upon

authority to political authority. This approach is possible only demonstrating why the status and meaning of God's Law of Nature
conditional upon political

must

be

necessity, the
consent.6

authoritative

action

for

which

is justified through individual

as

authority
political

conditional upon the

By construing limitations imposed by a voluntarist

religious

authority,

spiritual claims cannot as

be

used

to threaten the validity

standard

of pohtical not

authority
of

long

as

it

can claim

the final
actions.

(which is
for why

the same, e.g.,

the

as

divine sanction) for its

of

The

problem

advocates political

supremacy authority is valid as against

political

authority is to

identify

spiritual authority.

of the validity of voluntarist political authority is Thomas Hobbes, who proceeds not merely by attacking by ecclesiastical authority as an irrelevant claimant for external standards certification established

The

but

by

force

at

rejecting monarchical divine right arguments, which merely rein the highest political level the antagonism between temporal and

particular: above.

Politics
an

1280a-81a, 1283a. Compare Romans 13:1-2,

of

quoted

in

n.

For

assessment

Rousseau's

attempt

to integrate the

modern

notion

of a secular

legitimizing

will with of

the classical notion of

Will,"

justice,

see

Patrick Riley,

"A Possible Explanation

Review 64 (1970):86-97.
6

Rousseau's General

American Political Science

From the

standpoint of political

necessity, it

is

crucial

to subordinate church

to state;

indeed, whoever appoints religious authorities controls them. See Plamenatz, Man and Society, pp. 54-56, 58-60, 61-62, 77-88, esp. pp. 78, 82-83. More than

this is apparent, determines the

however;
role

whoever

determines in that

what

is

and what

is

not seditious

actual

of religion next

society.

Hobbes'

recognition of
of

the

first

point

is identified in the
in
sections III-VI of

footnote; his

application

both

points

is

spelled out

this

paper.

220
spiritual
standards.7

Interpretation

standards

the divine law of God

civU

sovereign, and

WhUe Hobbes does make an overt appeal to religious in order to consolidate the rule of his whUe this appeal is crucial for relatively new inter
this
paper shows that

pretations of

Hobbes,
law"

the

appeal

is

symbolic only.

a law In effect, Hobbes makes God's Law of Nature merely pohtical useful in generating popular consensus, but a with "higher appeal, Hobbes' law grounded in pohtical necessity. Nevertheless, although
explication

of

the law of nature is consistent

with

voluntarist pohtical more

authority, the position of Hobbes implies that the sovereign must do

than merely establish

his legitimacy.

II
The
eignty)
voluntarism of

Hobbes (the

covenant and authorization of sover

have left him open to diverse interpretations. Although he has been labeled as the fust theorist
alongside

his "Christian

Commonwealth"

to suggest the possibUity of a politics founded upon atheism, a view not

inconsistent

with

ing
of

a viable argument

his voluntarism, he also has been interpreted for a Christian politics based upon the
position

as present
moral

law

nature.8

This last

deserves brief

attention. of

Relatively

recent and

innovative interpretations

Hobbes have him

a position
a secular

presenting a moral argument for the Christian Commonwealth, juxtaposed to more traditional views of Hobbes presenting

theory
ogy.9

of politics of

based

on

his

scientific

determinism

or egoistic psychol

The fust

these new interpretations involves the claim that there

Of

significance

for the

Hobbes'

present are

points

that

whoever

teaches

eternal

salvation seeks authorities

to

rule men and

that whoever controls the

appointment of religious ed.

controls

what

is

taught.

Thomas

Hobbes, Leviathan,

Michael

Oakeshott (Oxford, 1955), XXXIII (255), XXXVI (282-85); De Cive or the Citizen (hereafter cited as Cive), ed. Sterling P. Lamprecht (New York, 1949), XVIII. 14.
preface to Hobbes, The Elements of Law, Natural (Cambridge, 1928) (hereafter cited as Elements), p. xii, n. 1. 8 On the first position see Strauss, Natural Right, pp. 198-202; cf. Leo Strauss, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis, trans. Elsa M. Sinclair (Chicago, 1952), chs. 5-7 passim. On the second, see A. E. Taylor, "The Ethical Doctrine of in Hobbes Studies, ed. K. C. Brown (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), pp. 35-55; Howard Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of Obligation (Oxford, 1957); see also F. C. Hood, The Divine Politics of Thomas Hobbes (Oxford, 1964). 9 politics and its relationship to Many disputes exist over the status of

Cf. Ferdinand Tonnies, ed., Politic

and

Hobbes,"

Hobbes'

mechanistic

cosmology,

an

observationally derived

egoistic

psychology,

and

moral
tion,"

law

See W. H. Greenleaf, "Hobbes: The Problem of Interpreta in Hobbes and Rousseau, ed. Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters
of nature.

(Garden City, N.Y.,

case."

1972),

pp.

5-36, for

classification

of

interpretations into
the "individualist
can

three types: the "traditional

case,"

the "natural-law
and

case,"

and

Within this schema, the traditional

the individualist interpretations

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil

Authority

221

is

between Hobbes the moralist and Hobbes the scientific that his political doctrine is a moral doctrine of reciprocity resting upon a strict deontology. A variation of this is the
a

dichotomy

plulosopher,
claim

and

that, notwithstanding
interpretation
can

Hobbes'

inconsistencies,

more

logicaUy

be taken from his text when one reads the state of nature as a condition in which the necessary validating conditions of sufficient security for keeping moraUy obhgatory covenants are
coherent

absent.10

The

upshot

of

these

hves

under moral

ing
of

the sovereign the sovereign

interpretations is that man in the state of nature duties as ascribed by God, that the covenant establish foUows the recognition of these duties, and that the role in the Christian Commonwealth is defined by God's
which
with

Law of Nature, to dox in comparison

have
the effect of
natural

the sovereign is responsible. Although unortho

the traditional readings, these new interpretations

placing Hobbes directly in the center of the Christian law tradition as against the tradition of positive jurisprudence.11 In defense of the traditional interpretations, it does not suffice simply
Malmesbury"

to note the negative response as the "devU of

received

that Hobbes

from many

of

his

contemporaries:
others

evidence exists that

perspective.12

he

was can

indeed

weU received

by

many

the argument

prevaU that this new

sharing his position does

Nor

not stand

historicaUy,
intentions,13

i.e., that,
one

given the context within which

Hobbes
of

wrote and

his

can

do away

with

the problem

the meaning of God

within

Hobbes'

text,

and give regard

the status of God a

"logicaUy

coherent"

inter

pretation.

With

to the last point, secondary

analyses

have justified

be

reconciled

in terms

of

the theory Hobbes

what

produces

(but

not

in terms

of

his

Strauss, for example, undertakes; and it is central to Oakeshott's introduction to Leviathan. Neither, however, can be reconciled with the second, the interpretations. See Strauss, Political Philosophy of Hobbes, ch. 8; Oakeshott's introduction to his edition of Leviathan. 10 These positions are and found, respectively, in Taylor, "Ethical Warrender, Hobbes. See esp. Warrender, chs. 2-3, pp. 38-47; ch. 4, pp. 53-79; ch. 5, esp. pp. 87-93, 99-102; chs. 7, 10, 13-15. 11 See the distinction in Edward S. Background of Corwin, The "Higher American Constitutional Law (Ithaca, N.Y., 1955), esp. pp. 66-67. But in contrast to justification of political obligation derives both, see the argument that
motivations and sources).

This is

"natural-law"

Doctrine,"

Law"

Hobbes'

from the covenant, the

argument.

rationale

for

which

depends

upon

his

state

of

nature

in Brian Barry, "Warrender and His Philosophy 43 (1968): 117-37 (see esp. pp. 119-25). As is evident below, the position in this paper agrees with Barry's that obligation derives through covenant in the

This

position

is

Critics,"

presented

process of

authorization; but there are differences over the actual

rationale

effect

of

the
on

state of nature

for the

covenant

and

the status of

sovereign

power

tion,"

holding obligations. See below, n. 28. i2 See Quentin Skinner, "The Context of Hobbes's Theory of Political Obliga in Hobbes and Rousseau, pp. 109-42; Richard Ashcraft, "Hobbes's Natural Journal of Politics 33 (1971):1077-86. Man: A Study in Ideology is esp. pp. 136-42. Skinner, "Political
making
and
Formation,"
Obligation,"

222
the proposition
with

Interpretation
that the Christian politics thesis does indeed faU to square
Hobbes'

body supported by the

the
account polemic

of
analytic

text.14

Others have

argued

that it cannot be
works.15

framework encompassing his of the Christian Commonwealth must stand, then, merely designed to weaken the criticisms by bis contemporaries

Hobbes'

as a who

or, to take a Christian pohtics whUe using its own terms.

advocated a

Christian

pohtics

more severe

view, to subvert
that a more
egoistic
Hobbes'

Moreover,
from

claims

coherent ethical
or mechanistic

doctrine facade

can

be

rendered

within

and

claims
seem

that Hobbes is not less incoherent

and

inconsistent than Locke implausible

political
when

incredible;
context

these interpretations are

of

highly
one care

read

in the

the
and

Hobbes
who

who

is

of

phUosophy's

great

systematizers

takes

great

to foUow the distinctions he develops between absurdity and mere

Yet these interpretations do force attention upon the role of God in the Christian Commonwealth, a question which occupies, for
error.16

example, nearly
account of

one-half of

Leviathan. In contrasting this

Hobbes'

with

the voluntarist origin of pohtical authority, it cannot plausibly

be

assumed

that he is

being merely paradoxical and ironic.

Ill

Whether Hobbes justifies basis

of

and

establishes

the pohtical order on the

he justifies and estabhshes it through the voluntarist creation of the sovereign based on man's sub jective estimate of what is to be gained or lost with or without order God's Law
of

Nature

or whether

can

nature.

only be ascertained on the basis of his explication of the state of Even if the Law of Nature as God's law is inoperative in the
nature,

state of

however, it
within

would stiU

be

possible to assert that

God's

law does

operate

the pohtical

order

justified

by

the voluntarist
examine
operate

the sovereign. Thus it would be necessary to his explication of the Law of Nature as it would appear to
authorization of

14

See

Barry,

"Warrender"; Stuart M.
pp.

Thesis,"

in Hobbes Studies,

Brown, Jr., "Hobbes: The Taylor 31-34, 57-71; Thomas Nagel, "Hobbes's Concept of
ch.

Obligation,"

Philosophical Review 68 (1959):68-83.

15
pp.

See Strauss, Political Philosophy of Hobbes,

2,

esp. pp.

8-12 (cf.

also ch.

8,

138, 152, 154, 159-60, 165),

particular moral view

on

the thesis that

Hobbes'

Hobbes'

politics

derives from
orientation,

his
see

of

man.

On

general

philosophical

pp. 24-28, 33-36; Oakeshott, Leviathan, pp. xix-xxvii, Greenleaf, in Hobbes Studies, lv-lvi; J. W. N. Watkins, "Philosophy and Politics in pp. 237-62, esp. pp. 238, 241-42, 260. 16 Hobbes, Leviathan, IV (19-25), V (27-30), VU (40-41), VIH (51-52); Elements, i, IV, 10-11, V, 10-14, XIII, 3, 9; also Cive, II, n. 1, XVIII, 4. Hereafter,
Hobbes,"

"Hobbes,"

references

to the Hobbes texts

omit

the

author's

name; references to the

are

chapters

in Cive

omitted

in the Lamprecht

edition of

The English Works of

4, 11, 16-17) Thomas Hobbes, II.

edition

(chs.

to the Molesworth

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil

problem

Authority
is
examined

223 in the
present

within the

Commonwealth. The first

the state
of

section; the second, in the two

foUowing

sections.

is the hypothetical limiting condition be made of man as he would live and act toward his claims and his duties when stripped of the artificial constraints of positive civU law. And here man's relationship to moral duty and to God exists, at most, in an unrecognized and unrecognizable state, and his
nature

Certainly

wherein an account can

relationship to
can recognize

other

persons,

at

best, in

a suspended state.

Although he it
operates

the Law of Nature in foro

interno, it is
of

unrecognizable

in

practice or

in foro

externo.

For the Law

Nature

as

in

foro interno is

"improperly"

caUed

concerning preservation The Law of Nature is

who

and not a
not

"law": it is dictate of one

until

a conclusion or who commands

theorem

by

right.

"law

proper"

it is "the

speech of or

him

by

right commands somewhat

to others to be done

omitted."17

itself is
a

More important, however, is the proposition that the Law of Nature not independent in origin from the Right of Nature but, indeed, necessary
consequence of the

Right

of

Nature. WhUe

virtue and

justice

within the pohtical order consist

"the

notions of and

right
are

and

in obeying the law, in the state of nature wrong, justice and injustice have no place.
. . .

Force,
"duty"

fraud,

in

war the

two

virtues."

cardinal

Moreover,

one's

in foro interno
one's
thing."18

consists
own

compatible with

in maximizing one's claim, as far as is fehcity, to the Right of Nature, the "right

recognizes the necessity of making the Law of Nature operational in foro externo because the consequence of maximiz ing his claims, the state of war, also affects the rationale behind his claims: "The passions that mcline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious hving; and a hope

to every

Man

by

their

industry

to obtain

them."19

Peace is

ensured

only

where

it is

17 Cive, HI, 33. Also ibid., HI, 27-28, VI, 4, XTV, 1, 6-8; Leviathan, XV (103-5), XVII (109), XXVI (172); Elements, i, XVII, 10, ii, I, 6, X, 4. On laws
as theorems and aphorisms dictated by reason for the (felicity), see Leviathan, V (29-30), XV (104-5). 18 Ibid., XHI (83-84), XIV (84-86), for the respective quotations; XV (104); Cive, I, 7-10, 14-15, n, 1-2, III, 27n., 29, V, 1, XIV, 3, 14; Elements, i, XIV, 6-10, 13-14, XV, 1, XVn, 10-11, 14, XIX, 1-2, 5. On virtue and justice in the context of society, see Leviathan, IV (20), XXVI (174), XXVH-XXVUI; Cive, XTV; and cf. Leviathan, XV (104-5), Cive, IH, 31, and Elements, i, XVJJ, 14-15, with Leviathan, XV (93-98), Cive, IH, 1-6, and Elements, i, XVI, 1-5. On felicity as maximizing human activity, see Leviathan, VI (39), VIII (46), XI (63); Elements, i, Vn, 7, XTV, 12; Cive, I, 13. 19 Leviathan, Xm (84). Also ibid., XI; Cive, I, esp. 2-3; Elements, i, XTV, of nature

in foro interno

pursuit of success

esp.

2-5. Note that this does

of
violent

not

have Hobbes limit the

rationale

for society to the

death, as has been well established (see Strauss, Natural Right, pp. 180-81, 184-88, and Political Philosophy of Hobbes, pp. 15-29, 56-58, 66-67, 98-107, 113-28, 155, n. 2; Oakeshott, Leviathan, pp. xxx-xxxiv et passim). That is, it is plausible that the explicit motivations of different men may
fear
or

untimely

224
maintained

Interpretation

by

some

force

which rests upon

the

right of command.

With

these reasons established through the state of nature construct, Hobbes

can

action.

demonstrate why pohtical order can be justified upon voluntary Political authority exists because man creates it to fill the vacuum

of interpersonal duty existing in the state of nature. It is justified not through the recognition of natural duty but because of the "known natural

inclinations
Hobbes'

mankind,"

of analysis of

i.e., his

passions.2"

the institution of sovereignty through the process

estabhshment of

of

authorization

foUows the

this

rationale.

Although

significant

is

not

to an understanding of representation, it germane to this context because it is only necessary to identify,

in itself

and crucial

within

the rationale for his thesis that pohtical authority is created

point that such consent

by

consent, the

does

not

derive from

natural

duty.21

differ according to the

on
passion.

context.

What is

crucial

is that

all

of

these

are

based

Nevertheless,

the

proposition

that the fear of death is the ultimate

of man of

motivation
right

is implicit. For if the

things involves the the
extreme case.

essence

is felicity,

and

if the

operative

to

all of

potential

denial

felicity,

the conclusion follows

recognize

in terms

In this

regard

it is important to

that Hobbes
of nature

indeed is utilizing the

construct.

extreme

case.

This is the function

motivation

of

his

state as

Moreover,
would

the fear of death

role of an

explains

much

regards

his

social context
sovereign

because the

absolute, setf-perpetuating
questions of

be unnecessary if only

(artificially eternal) "more or felicity and

less"

of felicity were concerned. Leviathan, rev. and concl. (465-66); also Cive, preface to III, 29. Cf. Leviathan, introduction (6); Elements, i, V, 14; dedicatory (2). not 20
21
Hobbes'

the denial

the reader
cf.

(11),

Cive,

epistle

recognition

acquisition and not

that most sovereigns are established by conquest or by institution (Leviathan, XX [129-30, 132-33]; cf. XX [136]) that his explications
men"

underscores

the

proposition

of

the

state

of

nature

and

of

authorization
sovereign

indicate

not

how "most

are obey.

but why

all men can

justifiably

justified in giving obedience to the This is an important point because

if sovereignty were justified on grounds other than man's "natural inclinations," e.g., on the basis of duty to God's Law of Nature, then individuals could establish
reasons

for

disobeying

the

sovereign

(e.g.,

an

failure to

secure them

from the

state of war.

On the

infidel monarch) other than his sovereign's failure to preclude

the state of war as the only rationale for disobedience, see ibid., XXI (144-45), XXVIH (207-8), XXIX, XXX (219-20); Cive, VH, 18, XII, XHI, 2; Elements, ti, VIII, IX, 1. Actually, it is not a question of disobedience but a question of

acting
avoid

within

the bounds

of

the

state of nature

because the
of

sovereign's

failure to
as

the state of war indicates his

forfeiture
is the

sovereignty,
to
of see
resist

i.e., his failure

sovereign.

(The

other possible

exception prior

right

the death penalty,

whereupon

but this

presupposes

the subject's
war

invalidation
sovereign;

the

covenant

Leviathan, XTV [91-92], XXI [139, 142-43], XXVIII [205, 208]; Cive, VI, 13, VII, 14, XIV, 21-22.) point that tyranny is sovereignty (Leviathan, XIX [121], rev. and concl. [463]; Cive, VII, 2-4; cf. Leviathan, XXIX [214], XLVI [447]; Cive, Xn, 3; Elements, ii, VIII, 4, 10) would be not only inconsistent but irrelevant.
with

he

reinstates

the state of

the

Hobbes*

"misliked"

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil

Hobbes'

Authority
sovereign,
what

225
is the
of

The
of

crucial question remains: given and

role

God

thus

of

duty

under

His Law
the

of

Nature
of

when

the sufficient

condition

for

peace

(i.e., for

cessation

the

state

war)

is

established?

IV
The preceding
nature stands
serve or

examination

of

Hobbes'

exphcation

of

the state

of

falls

upon

the premise that the state of nature does

If we Hobbes' direction in analyzing position, it is clear that the state of nature is not an account of man's obligation to be sociable. Much less is it an account of the ethical rules man would live under were he stripped of positive law; i.e., it is not an account of how moral
as

the rationale for the existence of the political order.

foUow

this

duty

operates

in the hypothetical

limiting

condition
man

of

the

state

of of

nature,

within which one can

imagine how

would

act

if freed
is

mere conventional restraints.

But however

accurate this assessment might

an

be, is it
is it

not possible that

Hobbes'

account of the state of nature

recognize

account of

how
an

man wUl

hve if he fails to
Hobbes'

not plausible to read

as

account of

God's law? That is, God's rule in the social

moral obligation
operation

context

account

of

the

ethical

or

God-given

which exists once certain minimal needs are met and once
of

the

drives

which

are

primarily
are

animal

have been

contained?

If so, this
of

would stUl aUow one to speak of

God's law in

a context

in

which certain

validating

conditions

met,

and

to point to the potential results

failing

to meet these conditions

basicaUy

the position of Warrender.

In effect, one should read account of the pohtical order, the Christian Commonwealth, before one reads his state of nature account because the first wiU explain the meaning of the state of nature. Whether this proposition is correct depends indeed on the role Hobbes God and His Law of Nature in the context of the estabhshed Commonwealth. For if account of God and of His Law of
assigns
Hobbes'

Hobbes'

Nature

within as

the Commonwealth is

consistent with

his

state of nature

previously outlined, then the assumption that the state of nature supphes the rationale for the pohtical order is correct. The
exphcation contention sovereign

here is that Hobbes

estabhshes

power.
which

by making an overt but Using this appeal, Hobbes

purely
can

the civU supremacy of the symbolic appeal to God's

a pohtical avert order

consolidate

is designed to

protect claimed natural rights

(i.e.,

to

death,
On

which would preclude

these natural

rights)

and which

untimely is justified

representation,
argument

Hobbes does
as

present a comprehensive account as

against an

incomplete

Education,
Indirect
Fenichel

pp.

in (e.g.) the Vindiciae (cf. Barker, Church, State and 87-92). See Harvey C. Mansfield, "Hobbes and the Science of
American Political Science Review 65 (1971):97-110; Hanna of Representation (Berkeley, Calif., 1967).

Government,"

Pitkin, The Concept

226

Interpretation

through consent made possible

by

man's

"known

inclinations."

natural

To

support

the Law of
created

Nature, i.e.,

this contention, it is necessary to estabhsh the meaning of of God's law, within the context of an artificiaUy organization,
and

pohtical

to draw

out

the imphcations
which

of

voluntarist

justificatory

argument

for

political

authority

utilizes

the notion of a law of

nature. proper

law as command into two categories, human. The first is recognized by reason and is purported to be the creation and command of God. The second is man-made, specified in a given context and dependent on deductions
Hobbes divides law
or natural or

divine

and positive or

from the first. How law proper, as it operates in foro externo, can be instituted depends upon identifying the eternal cause and His power. How it functions depends on who, in the final analysis, holds "the true

doctrine
It God
can

of

the laws of nature,

...

the true moral

account

philosophy."22

justifiably
the
of
or

be

asserted

that the

of man's represent

discovery
the

of

and

rationale
Hobbes'

provided account

for God's
of
political

role

logical

culmination

Theoretical

phUosophical

knowledge

of

pohtics

reasoning or theorizing. is necessary to pro

duce the conclusions or theorems of the Law of Nature. By phUosophy Hobbes means "the knowledge acquired by reasoning, from the manner
of

the generation of any

thing, to the

properties: or

from the properties,

such as

to some possible way of generation of the same; to the end to be able

to produce, as far as matter, and human force permit,

effects,

human life

requireth."23

The

significance of reason

hes in the its

of results.

universal

ity

of

its

apphcation

and

the

eternal

truth

of

Although

meanings are

contextuaUy

the same; and the results

particular aims

determined, the method are true, immutable, and

reasoning remains eternal. Thus though

and causes of reason

does not; only the applications laws vary with time and place. Since the meanings of things are truth has to do not with something in itself designated or
civil
"signified,"

change, the vahdity of the results vary with the context for example, as

but

with

the use and consequences of speech,

i.e.,

with

the

proper appli

cation of method. senseless. rules

False inferences

are not

merely

erroneous

but absurd,

Properly applied, reasoning develops general conclusions or which function as theorems or aphorisms. The test for truth lies
prediction, based
on

in
of

the results of a

the conclusion,

or of an application

the

rules.24

22 Leviathan, XV (104). Also ibid., XXVI (172, 174, 186-88); Cive, in, 31-32, IV, VI, 9, XTV, 4-10, 14; Elements, i, XVn, 14-15, XVm, ii, I, 10, X, 6-8. 23 Leviathan, XLVI (435, emphasis removed from original). See ibid., V (25-27, 29-30), VII (40), VIII (esp. 42ff. and 46), DC (53); Elements, i, V, 8-12, VI, 1-4, X, esp. 4; also Cive, II, n. 1. Reason is distinct from prudence, which is conjecture based on experience, a capacity men have in common with animals. See Leviathan, III (15-16), V (30), VHI (45), IX (53), XLVI (435-36); Elements, i, TV, 5-11, esp.

10.

24

See Leviathan, II (13), HI (13-15), IV (19-24), V (25-30), VII (40), VIII

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil

Authority

227

Yet reasoning would not be possible without curiosity, from which phUosophy originates through man's "desire to know why, and such as is in no living creature but man: so that man is how, distinguished not only by his reason, but also by this singular passion from other animals; in whom the appetite of food, and other pleasures
aU
. .
.

The sense, by predominance, take away the care of knowing desire to know spurs man's reasoning; the desire for continual success, or felicity, directs reason to identify whatever can secure Only
of
causes."26

success.26

through reasoning
of reason
mankind,"

can

one

understand the
of

Law

of

Nature,

the

dictate
of

based
as

on

knowledge

the

"known

natural

inclinations

the

condition

necessary for

peace.

And only through

reasoning
causes
since

can one

infer

that the authorization of the sovereign produces

reason alone can

the sufficient condition for peace. Since right

for known
the proper

effects and produce predicted effects without error application of

identify i.e.,
method
against
reason

the

phUosophical

or

scientific

is the

key

to success, to the secure life of the Commonwealth as

the tentative life of the state of nature

Hobbes'

the identification through

of the existence and status of nature's cause and

benefactor is the final

position. Indeed the proposition, noted earlier, that to many of his contemporaries his conclusions could only be ironic at expression of

best

and

blasphemous

at

worst underscores and

just how

far-reaching

and

pervasive are

his intentions

his

success. of

It is through the identification

significance of reason of

God

as prime

mover

that the fuU

is indicated. Here Hobbes identifies the "kingdom it is

realized through reason. exists
of

God

by

nature"

as

The
man's

origin of religion

and

the profession that God

arise

from

causes and

his fear
a

and

ignorance

the

unknown.

aUows one to conclude that

if there

are causes of

curiosity about The desire to know other causes there is

of
aU

ultimately be irifinite
the Law
aU

first

cause.

and eternal.

The first cause, as As such, God is the

since
omnipotent.27

creator

causes,

must

creator and commander of

of

Nature. And
must

He is the infinite In the face

and eternal
of

cause

of

causes, He

be

His

omnipotence

(51-52), IX, also XV (103-4), XLVI (435-36); Elements, i, IV, 2, V, 5-6, 8-14, VI, 1-4, XHI, 2-3, 9. Also i, XVn, 11, and Cive, epistle dedicatory (5-6), preface to the reader (16-17), n, n. 1, IH, 27-29, XVHI, 4. 25 Leviathan, VI (35). See ibid., introduction (6), HI (14-15), Vttl (46), also XH (69), XLVI (436); Elements, i, IV, 4-5, IX, 18, X. 26 See Leviathan, VI (39), VIII (46), XI (63); Elements, i, Vn, 7. 2t Leviathan, m (17), IV (18), VI (35), XI (68-69), XU (69-73ff.), XXXI, rev. and concl. (465); Cive, XV; Elements, i, XI, 2. Cf. Oakeshott, Leviathan, pp.
xx-xxi, xxvii,
existence
n.

1. In Cive, Hobbes

argues

that,

although

knowledge

of

God's

is

a product of

reason, atheism is an error punishable

God"

God
a

...

or

by kings
per

constituted under

and not

an

"immediately by injustice punishable by

Leviathan
and of
result

civil

sovereign

se:
not

Cive, XTV, 19
error,
nn.

and

n.

In the

context of

Elements,

atheism

is

a product of and

prudence, but absurdity, a

either

fallacious reasoning (see

16

23). But in

context,

and under

either

228
man

Interpretation is
obhged or

bound to God

as
of

He dictates the Law

of

Nature.

Unable to resist,
The
right of

man

is the property

God:

nature, whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that
not

break his laws, is to be derived,

obedience as of gratitude
show

from his creating them,

as

if he
.

required
. .

how [this] it is

right

for his benefits; but from his irresistible power. may arise from nature, requires no more, but to
away.
...

[T]o in

show

what case

never

taken
of

To those therefore

whose power

is irresistible,

the dominion [right

of

possession] of all men adhereth naturally

by

their excellence

power; and consequently it is from that power, that the kingdom over men, and the

right of

afflicting
and

men at

his pleasure, belongeth naturally to God almighty;

as
omnipotent.28

not as

Creator,

gracious; but

But additionally Hobbes presents the "kingdom of God by which is God's civU sovereignty over a specific people, Christians Jews. God
people
and reveals

prophecy,"

and

to his prophets a

body

of

doctrine

upon which

the

covenant, through these mediators with

God,

for their security

power,
and

governance.

The

covenant

grants

God
of

supreme

the

people

become his property

word.29

by

right
a

civU

omnipotence

exercised

through the civU

of

sovereign who authorizes

the ministers and the teachings

God's

Although Hobbes is

professing

Christian, he

recogni-

"error,"

usage

of

error

does
the

not

excuse:

Cive, 19n; Leviathan, XXVn (191-93).

on whether atheism of

The
of

sovereign's punishment of atheists

and

turns

breaches the Law

the way
the

Nature

whether

sovereign

is final interpreter
to

the Law of Nature.

Hobbes'

sole

caveat

in Cive

with respect
atheism

sovereign omnipotence paves

for him to
sovereign's

make

clear that
of

is

significant

only insofar

as

it

violates

interpretation
also sec.

the Law of

Nature;
Hobbes'

see

text

thereto;

V,

par.

2. See

also

44, and the distinction in Cive, XVI,

n.
Modernity,"

below,

relevant

between

God Almighty, or god simply, and the God of Abraham. This distinction is further Ancients developed in Joseph Cropsey, "Hobbes and the Transition to

Cropsey Leviathan, XXXI (234), also XXXI (237); Cive, XV, 5-7, 13. But cf. the emphasis in Barry, pp. 117-21, against Warrender, on the point
and

Moderns,

ed.

Joseph

(New York, 1964),

pp.

223-24.

28

"Warrender,"

that

"just"

("justifiable,"

action
power,"

in Warrender's

terms), taken in the face

of

necessarily indicate one is keeping an obligation. (The relevant Warrender text involves II, 27-29, XIII, XTV, esp. 301-11, XV, esp. 312-16.) One can be obligated, however, if he is the property of another, the
not condition condition

"irresistible

does

holding
in the
quotation

in the

natural

kingdom (or,
not

if he

covenants

with

God,
of

the

prophetic

kingdom). Moreover,

although

God's "right

nature"

(as in the

in the text) may

state of nature

literally
as

entail obligations

(since
are

obligations predicated

cannot exist upon

in the

in foro externo),

men's actions
are not

maximizing their claims

will account

only insofar

they

incompatible

with

felicity; i.e., they

the
right of

for the

effect

of

another's

action

derived through
no rationale

nature.

If God's

right cannot

be precluded, there is

for

resisting but

rather a

rationale of

they
29

act

under

the Law

for submitting in the face of losing felicity. Thus Nature as it operates in foro interno (see nn. 17-18

above).

XXXVII (291);

Leviathan, iii, XXXII-XLIII, esp. XXXV (266, 270-71), XXXVI (282-85), also XII (76-77), XTV (90); Cive, XVI-XVIH, and II, 13; Elements,

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil

Authority
He
realizes
of

229
the pohtical
philoso-

zes religion as an anthropological phenomenon.

uses of

religion

and

fears its

misuse
of

at

the hands

"vain

phers."30

prophecy represents an doctrine (the scriptures) in behalf of his doctrine, whether this is an attempt to legitimize his doctrine in the eyes of Christians or to discredit the Christian doctrines of others, are questions polemical intent which are regarding beyond the scope of this essay. What is important is that the effect of this kingdom appears to be the same as the effect of the kingdom of
attempt

Whether

the
a

kingdom

God

by

to employ

recognizable

body

of

Hobbes'

God by nature, insofar as the subject and the sovereign are concerned. In short, the Law of Nature as law proper can be construed as originating through two sources, immediately from God and mediated through His prophets, but politicaUy speaking it comes to the same thing, the sovereignty
of omnipotent

God

over all men.

Hobbes'

argument at

this

point, then, is not either theory or justifies the supremacy of the civil
and

polemic.

It is both. As polemic, it

sovereign
both.31

the supremacy
of

of

God

over

logical extension goes further and

merely
political,32

the

method

of

over the earthly church As theory, it represents a Hobbes' argument reasoning. But

aUows

him to

make
which

divine law
requires

at

once supreme

and and

an

assertion

further justification

elaboration.

ii, VI-VH. Note

of of on

that sovereignty

by

covenant

becomes sovereignty by
same right as

right

of

possession or power

("dominion"),

which

is the

that in the kingdom

authorization

God
the

by

nature.

This is identical to

civil

sovereignty because the

act

artificial sovereign

leaves him free to

exercise
power.

in his

natural

capacity,

i.e.,

to

act

his

natural

right

to

See Leviathan, XVI (106), XVII (112),

XVIII (118-20), XIX (esp. 122-23, 125-29), XX (esp. 129-33), XXI (140, 142), XXVin (202-3); also cf. Cive, V, 9, 11, VI, 6-7, 13-14, 18, 20, X, 18; Elements, i, XIX, 10, ii, I, 13-19.
39

Leviathan,

epistle

dedicatory (2), I (8), II (12-13),

IV

XI (69), Xn (73, 77-80), XXXVI (282-85), XLIH (396), XLIV (397). Indeed fears override civil disorder
Hobbes'

(18, 21-22), VIII (51-52), iv, XLIV-XLVn ; vide

or

anarchy

as

his

chief

concern, for he finds

cause of civil 31

vain

philosophy

and

its

absurd

reasoning to

be the

ultimate

disorder.
pp.

Cf. Lamprecht, Cive,

sovereign

is directly

under
with

xviii-xix; Tonnies, Elements, pp. x-xi. Although his God, Hobbes is not arguing the divine right of kings.
supreme

That is
Hobbes'

compatible
sovereign

church

and

divinely

ordained
recipient.

sovereign;

is the interpreter
reception

of

revelations, not their

He is

well

aware of

the

negative

of

his doctrine: Leviathan,

Natural

epistle

dedicatory (2);
as

Cive,
32

preface

to the

reader

(17).

Cf. Barry, "natural public

"Warrender."

Strauss,

Right,
law."

pp.

190-92, identifies it
sec.

law,"

as

distinct from "natural

See

Cf.,
To
the

respectively,
added):

Leviathan, XXXI (232,

rocks

emphasis

added),

V, concluding par. with Cive, XV, 1

and

(emphasis

avoid

both these

[of offending the Divine

of all

Majesty
on

transgressing
what are

commandments of

the commonwealth], it is necessary to know

the

laws divine. And seeing knowledge

law, dependeth

the

knowledge of

230

Interpretation

V
In principle, the kingdom of God by nature is inclusive of the kingdom of God by prophecy, of which there may be as many as there are
prophets, so that it would appear that there are only two categories where individual obligation to God and to civU sovereignty are problematic:

in the

natural

kingdom,
subjects

Christian

subject a

living
are

under

an

infidel

sovereign; in the with some infidel

prophetic

kingdom,

Christian
cases

state

in it. Yet these

(and sovereign) not limiting. The

relationship between Christian subjects and sovereign in a Christian state is indeed most problematic if in principle (not to mention, if in fact) the natural kingdom is inclusive of the prophetic kingdom. In
effect,

by

the logic

Hobbes'

of
appear

argument

the

obhgatory
under

character

of

both kingdoms
obligation

would

to

be
and

unified

the

standard
appear

for
to

in the
to a

natural

kingdom,
can

this

obligation would

be

reduced

matter contingent upon

individual judgment

or

individual
of

conscience,

which

anyone
of

God's
based dictates

"natural"

Law

Nature.

employ to understand the dictates Although individual conscience,

reasoning,
requires

if
the

on right reason of

and not absurd

of

following

God's Law

Nature,

the

apparent unification of

the obliga

tory

character of

both kingdoms

would result

in

dichotomy

between
respect

the doctrine of the sovereign and the

opinion of

the subject with

to the prophetic kingdom that is vouched for

by

the sovereign. For if

individual
claim

conscience

is the

criterion

for obligation,

individuals

may

to pre-empt sovereign judgment regarding civU affairs and

religious

teachings in this kingdom.

appear

Barring
state.

to be accepting the traditional

church

further qualification, Hobbes would dualism, and the inherent tension

But he is
can not.

therein, between

and

For Hobbes, the

disorderly

potential of

this

dichotomy
or

be
of

solved

only

by

establishing

the supremacy of the civU sovereign with respect to both subjects and the "true moral
phUosophy"

doctrine

God. Hobbes does

this

in

two steps. He

the question of what conditions are necessary for salvation, the rationale behind the use of individual conscience, as the
raises

question

which

does

produce
of

the

dichotomy
the

but his

which

also

supports

behef in the doctrine

that

God. He

then answers

question

by

arguing

only the sovereign can vouch for contained in the true moral phUosophy. The
of unification what of

conditions

for

salvation

the

obligations

in the kingdoms is

a consequence
of

asking

is necessary for

salvation

in the kingdom

God,

and

the

sovereign

power,

shall

say

something

in that

which

followeth,

of

the

KINGDOM OF GOD. To both these rocks, it is necessary to know the divine laws. Now because

avoid

the knowledge of the laws depends on the knowledge of the

we
must

[natural] kingdom,
kingdom
of

in

what

follows

speak

somewhat

concerning the

God.

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil

Authority

231

comparing the requirements of each kingdom as described in the preceding section. For salvation, it is necessary to obey the civU law and beheve in Christ. Obedience to civU law is a part of the natural kingdom because the civU law contains God's Law of Nature. Both obedience to law and behef in Christ are a part of the prophetic kingdom
of

because Christ is
civU

ordained
a

by
in

prophecy
which

and commands obedience sovereign the

to the the

sovereign.

In

state

the

is

an

infidel

and

law and maintain his behef internaUy. The subject thus exists in the natural kingdom. In a Christian state, the Christian subject must obey the law and profess his behef in kingdom.33 accord with the doctrine of the sovereign. He is in the prophetic
subject

is

Christian,

the subject must

obey

In the
a

natural

kingdom,

Christian
error

subject

Christian in

sovereign

it is unlikely that an infidel sovereign wiU punish for his behef. Likewise, in the prophetic kingdom, a is to refrain from punishing an infidel subject who is

but is

not subversive

because he

obeys

the

law.34

But toward

Christian subject, a Christian sovereign may appear to err with respect to God's Law. Though a Christian subject may obey and openly profess behef according to the sovereign's dictate, in conscience he instead foUows
about God and His words concerning His son. foUow his belief concerning the legitimacy of the civU He may therefore laws: "if the command be such as cannot be obeyed without being

his

own

internal behef

damned to
of our
cannot

eternal

death;

Saviour takes

place.

then it were madness to obey it, and the councU Fear not those that kill the body, but
. . .

kill

the

soul."35

Within

the context of the prophetic

kingdom, then,
based
on

the existence
the

of this condition represents action of

by

the

subject

kingdom his
obeys not

God

by
of

nature.

The important

point

is that the

subject

obeys

conscience.

If he is

obeys the sovereign sovereign's grounded

he
of

because

the

his conscience,
the

which

in the prophetic kingdom, dictate but because of the dictate in the natural kingdom. In effect,

whUe

prophetic

kingdom,

the teachings for which are authorized

with

by
the

the sovereign, is overfly

consistent under

the

natural

kingdom

of

God,

in actuality it is
subject's criteria

subsumed

the

natural

kingdom insofar There is

as

for his

civU actions are concerned.

a relation

between the conscience of the individual and legal supremacy and between the individual's opinions and the sovereign's doctrine concerning behef in Christ. Were these relationships aUowed to persist, a pandora's box would be opened for the ship only
the
of coincidence sovereign's

authority
of

of

the

sovereign

with regard

to enforcing the

civU obligations

the

subject.

Either

aU sovereigns

and

aU subjects must

be Christians

33 Leviathan, XXXI (233), XLn (327-28), XLIII (384-95), XLVI (448); Cive, XVHI, 1-11; Elements, ii, VI, 5-14. 34 Leviathan, XXXVII (291), XLII (327-28), XLIII (394-95); Cive, XVIII, 13 et seq., XV, 18; Elements, ii, VI, 5 et seq. 35 Leviathan, XLHI (384); also Cive, XVm, I. Cf. Leviathan, XXn (149) and

XLV (427-28).

232
under

Interpretation God
or

in

which

case

the

subject's not

political

obligation

would must

be be
all

accidental

coincidental create a

but

necessary
political

or

something

introduced to
If the

specificaUy

obligation

applicable

to

typologies of sovereign-subject
unification of

relationships.

the obhgatory character of the kingdoms goes

not reconcUed

unrecognized, if individual responsibility to God is

the civU sovereign's supremacy the former are not correlated
profession of
on the over the with

with

individual,

and

if the

opinions of
Hobbes'

the doctrine of the

and

latter,

faith,

on

the

one

hand,
of

his doctrine

of civU

supremacy,

other,

appear at

least siUy category

and

muddled, if not inconsistent and

causal

contradictory. at

The consistency
Hobbes'

the hypothesized

relationships

the heart of

of

reason, which is fundamental to his

therefore for naught. The resolution
Hobbes'

construction of

the

Commonwealth, is
one

of

these dichotomies leads

to believe that
and

theory is

not so
of

much

Christian

as

it is

political

consequently, for Christians

his

day,

polemic, but for

serious readers of

his text it is the

aU contexts

extension of

his category of reasoning to its logical hmits. To estabhsh a pohtical authority applicable in
civU a

in

which

the

sovereign

is the

sufficient condition

way to unify the

where

obligations of

for peace, Hobbes introduces the kingdoms. It is best described as a Based

on

response

to the problem

of salvation.

the description

of

both

kingdoms,
ment of

both in

sovereign and subjects are

Christian it is

a require
sovereign

the combined kingdoms that the individual obey the

and religious

both in law
under

God is

the

supreme

doctrine concerning beliefs. The sovereign interpreter of God's doctrine and of what
supreme

worship is given God. He is the infinitude in the natural kingdom

prophetic

interpreter

by

virtue of

God's

and of

His

revelation

to prophets in the

kingdom. Since

mere men neither understand

infinity nor

receive

direct revelation, they would appear to be obliged to foUow the require ment of the kingdoms. There is to be a unity, foUowing God's command
as

interpreted

by

the

sovereign,

between the individual's beliefs

supremacy.36

and as

opinions and

the sovereign's legal and doctrinal

As

long

this unity stands, there is no uncertainty as to whether there wiU be

peace.

Thus God

appears as

the all-sufficient

reason

for

peace.

But God

as such

is not;

even

in His

omnipotence

He

chooses not

to

exercise

His

36

Ibid., HI (17), VII (41-42), XI (68-69), XII (69-71), XV (96), XVHI (114),

XXI (134-35), XXVI (180, 186-88), XXIX (211-12), XXX (221), XXXI (235-41), XXXII (242-43), XXXIII (246-47ff., 254-55), XXXVI (283-85), XXXVII (290-91),
cf.

XXXIX (305-6), XL-XLII (esp. 339, 360), XLTJI (385-86, 393-95), XLV (424-25), XVI (106-7), XXXVI (272-75); Cive, VI, lln., XI, XII, 2, XTV, 19, XV, 8-18,

XVI, XVII,

esp.
esp.

10-28, XVm,
the

esp.

1-4, 13-14; Elements, i, XI, 2-12, ii, VI,

of

esp.

10-14, VII,
also

10-11. The necessity

state of

from the in
n.

account of

judge for competing doctrines follows nature: see Leviathan, V (26), and the first
a

citations

17.

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil

Authority

233

power

to enforce His Law of

in

return

eternal

Nature,37 for He also promises eternal life for obedience, worship, and behef. As soon as the question of salvation arises, if there are any infidels involved or if the

sovereign

errs, the unity is destroyed

not those that

or

is

preserved

only
of

by

coincidence,
soul."

for

man

is to "fear
not

kUl the body, but

to the
state

cannot

kiU the

Contrary
stand.

to conclusions

appropriate

nature

rationale,
eternal

damnation,
salvation

untimely
response

death,

must

be the

summum malum as matters

It is in

to this that Hobbes

offers

his

solution:

is nothing more, but nothing less, than felicity, that is, the "eternal" felicity of this life. To be specific, there is no life, for that was lost with Original Sin. There is only hope of fehcity "to be saved from

hath brought upon Only upon the Second Coming of Christ wiU there be something more than felicity; Christ.38 Eternal and then the sovereign wiU be irrelevant, displaced by salvation upon the Second Coming is therefore the summum bonum. But
aU

the evU

us."

and calamities

that

sin

until

that time the sovereign is the sole and all-sufficient

produce

requisite capable
peace.

of enforcing the Law of Nature to

the conditions for

attain

And in

the

interim, i.e.,
of

the

present,

men

for the Law

Nature has

a general rule

do know how to knowable by aU which

which of this rule contrasts

felicity,
it

makes

easy to keep: "Do not that to another, done to thyself."39 The negative warning
positive norm

thou wouldst not have

with

the

in the New Testament wording of the Golden Rule. It is not strange in this context that Hobbes should refer to the who has not yet Golden Rule merely as the "words of our
"positive" Saviour,"

returned; the negative that

rule

is,

the

rule

vouched

is "the indubitable everlasting law of law" is The "divine for by the

sovereign.40

God,"

supreme, but
37

supreme

because it is merely
does
not

political.

Hobbes
beyond

says

that God actually

of

have

power sufficient of

to enforce His
revelation

law because the understanding

are mere
men.

infinitude
civil

and

the receiving
can

direct

Only

the

sovereign

enforce

the Law of Nature

because he is God's earthly representative. Hobbes therefore says, in effect, that omnipotent God is not omnipotent, although if eternal salvation involves more than earthly felicity God has no reason to exercise His omnipotence on earth. This implies that Hobbes is
citations
Hobbes'

not

quite

serious

about

God. See the

and

next

footnote for
status of

underscoring this

proposition

in the text

n.

40 for the

intent.
see

38

For the quotation,

problem of

Leviathan, XXXVIII (300),

"failure"

and

cf.

XXXV (266-67).
Hobbes'

On the
response,

God's

to

exercise

His

omnipotence

and

ibid., XV (96), 384-85, 394-95), XLIV (404-5, 409-12); Cive, XIII, 5, XV, 18, XVm passim, esp. 1, 13-14. Cf. Elements, ii, VI, 5 et seq., with Li, IX, 2. 39 Leviathan, XV (103). 40 Ibid., XLII (328). Either Hobbes uses the Second Coming as a ruse and a
see

XXXVIH

(291-96, 300-304), XLn (327-28), XLIII

(passim,

esp.

canard,

and

the

sovereign

de facto
Hobbes'

pre-empts of of

God

and religious always

salvation, or there
perhaps

is

strong implication that the

felicity
text

this life is
the

problematic,
see

wretched.

On the

status

in

Second Coming,

ibid., XXXVIII

(295-96, 301-3), XLI (319-20).

234

Interpretation
VI

The distinction between God's two kingdoms

concession

to the proposition that subjects can

is necessary to fulfill their duties to dictate. Indeed, by going further and unifying the obligations of the two kingdoms without qualification, Hobbes would appear to suggest the
what

initiaUy to be a individuaUy determine God, irrespective of civU

appears

possibUity that the civil sovereign is in the same position as his subjects, as both must give the derivatives of their faith in God precedence over
matters of civU concern.

But precisely this

precludes

maneuver allows

him to

present

the

qualification

which

the
or

use

of

individual
sovereign.

conscience

to

determine
stand

whether

duty

is

owed

God

the civU

By identifying
that the
conditions

eternal salvation as
of

criteria

the natural

earthly fehcity, subjects can under kingdom are contained in the

political salvation as stated

for

peace and order

necessary to
salvation,

in

the pubhc doctrine of the prophetic kingdom.

phUosophy"

Since the "true

moral

is the doctrine
the

of

i.e.,

of

fehcity,

and

since mere

men cannot understand sovereign stands as

God's infinitude
supreme ensure

or receive of

interpreter

direct revelation, the God's wiU. Under God's

command worship intersubjective category

Law
and

of

Nature he

must

felicity

and

thereby
an

doctrinal belief. Although

obedience

is

and

behef is essentially
to

an

extent

which one obeys reflects major problem since

internal category, related to the conscience, the the direction of his behef. With respect
the
sovereign

to subjects, the
civU

faces is how to
reinstate

maximize state of

obedience,

without and

obedience

subjects

the

war

between themselves
with

then sovereign. The extent

of civU obedience

corresponds

the

extent

to

which of
so

there is belief in God's doctrine.

the believers should provide the
that the sovereign can maximize
corresponds with and

Meeting

the felicitous

expectations

conditions

for

and

support moral

belief,

obedience when

the

doctrine taught
the support

the

assurance

felicity felicity of this

that

can

be

attained.41

The worship
peace

belief

attendant upon

the

life

produce

or consensus

the aims of the Law of

Nature,

vouched can

necessary for achieving for by the sovereign.

enforced

This
only
as

guarantee

that the Law

of

Nature

be

is

possible

long

as

its

sufficient

condition

can

be

met. as

As the
the
of

sufficient

condition preter
of

for peace, the sovereign maintains peace the Law of Nature. Men living in the
there

supreme nature

inter

state

have

among the conflicting claims which each one adduces as necessary to his survival. With a Common wealth, the sovereign alone finds this condition only in international
conflict

because

is

no

final

arbiter

relations

where

face

each other

God's Law of Nature is in the "posture of

unenforceable

and

sovereigns

gladiators."42

Thus if reasoning

can

41

42

See Leviathan, V (26),

a proposition

Cf. ibid., XXX; Cive, XIII; Elements, ii, IX. on the incumbent
operating both in the

conflict

in the

absence

of

final
under

judge,

state

of

nature

and

in society

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil

Authority

235

produce certain rules

dictates

can

and since

necessary for peace, nothing the sovereign's reason be contrary to this end. The sovereign's wiU is God's wUl; God does not choose to exercise His power, the sovereign is
only in
matters
of

omnipotent not of

civU

obedience

but

also

in

matters

divine

wUl.
Hobbes'

variety In addition, a paradox Hobbes presents is now clarified. Although at one point he labels atheism absurdity, a product of fallacious reasoning, and innocuous, he declares elsewhere that "they therefore that beheve there is a God that governeth the world, and hath given precepts,
"gods."

condition
of

On this point, the imphcation of for peace can exist in a variety

analysis

is that the

sufficient

of contexts and under a

are God's subjects; Since the sovereign's wUl is God's wUl, non-behevers are not simply God's enemies; they are the sovereign's enemies. The appeal to the divine has the utUity not only of legitimizing the sovereign's actions to his obedient subjects but also of providing him with a peaceful means of placating dissidents without
and propounded aU the

rewards,

and punishments
as

to mankind,

rest,

are

to be understood

enemies."43

threatening
ciously
punishable,

their security. Those who proceed beyond dissent and falla

reason

contrary to the
conditions

sufficient

condition
reason.

for

peace

become

and

necessarily so, according to for

For if the
act

sovereign

does

ensure

the

felicity,

men who

disobey

contrary to

their own interests as men. Disobedience resulting from fallacious reasoning The requires punishment, as the punishment of the wicked is
required.44

the Law

of

Nature (see above,

n.

17). On the

relations

between

sovereigns

in

international relations, see Leviathan, XIII (83); Cive, epistle dedicatory (1-2). If God were omnipotent and irresistible and if sovereigns were to obey His Law
of

Nature,
of

the validating

conditions

necessary to

recognize

the

moral

duty

of

the

Law

Nature in foro
sovereigns

externo

would

be

present

in the international order; i.e.,

to
common

disparate
of

would utilize of of

right reason an

and come

conclusions

necessary to the development reasoning

than
43
see
and

international
of

consensus. are

But the
more

conclusions
and

the

duties

the Law

Nature

no

common

binding

they are for men as men in the state of nature. Leviathan, XXXI (233). On atheism as innocuous error but
n.

error as no

excuse,

the citations in

27.

Leviathan, Vffl (47), XXVn (190-97); Cive, XHI, 3, XTV, 16-23; Elements, i, XV, 10. Fallacious reasoning in this respect, the denial of felicity, can only be
referred action absurd

44

to as

"madness."

is based
or
on

on

his interpretation
that

See Leviathan, Vni (47-48). Although the sovereign's of the Law of Nature, if he does err through
can always reject

fallacious reasoning he
the
grounds

the

claims

of

dissidents

and

disobedients
are

they
are

their

actions,

and

that

they

him his authority, that his actions therefore to blame. This, however, is a
gave and

proposition

for the

question

of representation

is beyond the

present context.

See ibid., XVI (106-80), XVHI (113-14), XXI (141-43), XXTV (162), XXVI (173), XXVTI (197); Cive, HI, 29, VI, 13-14, 20, Vn, 12, 14; Elements, i, XVII, 11, ii, Hobbes' claim that sovereign error cannot be used to Vm, 6. Note, however,
covenant: Leviathan, XXI (144), XXn (147), XXVI (181), XXVIII (207-8), XXIX (209-3 10ff.), XLVII (454-55); Cive, Xn, XIII, 2; Elements, i, Xin,

invalidate the

236
sovereign's

Interpretation
over

supremacy deviant behavior. The

his

subject

is

as

the relationship to the sovereign,

"gods."

of war

to

possible existence of

internal

enemies

however,
men are

expands exist

the problem of maximizing obedience, especiaUy since peace can

a

in

variety

of contexts and under a

variety

of

If

motivated

primarily

for fehcity,
and of

their desire for peace and security as the requisite then one may assume the possibihty of their disobedience or

by

revolt whenever

they foresee

a greater through

likelihood

of

keeping

then security

felicity changing the regime. Whether their is faUacious or correct is essentially irrelevant because the reasoning premises from which they infer their conclusions are derived from the
achieving their
conditions of their own experience.
Hobbes'

Consequently,

to maximize

obedience

apply the Law of Nature through his civU law in such a way that it does not allow one segment of society to raise the question of whether its security is threatened by another. The sovereign's
sovereign must

pubhc

teaching
no
other

of

God's doctrine
whom

must

be

applicable

to aU parties

within would

the Commonwealth for

the possibUity of attaining

as

felicity

leave

grounds

for disobedience. Insofar

he

provides

the

for felicity, he promotes the consensus through the belief in God's doctrine which is necessary to maximize obedience. The public doctrine of the "true moral becomes the basic symbol of the
conditions
phUosophy"

regime

in

proportion

to its correspondence
which

with

the felicitous
attained

expectations

of

the subjects. The extent to

as vouched

felicity

is

throughout the

Commonwealth
with

for in the
subjects

public

doctrine is the basis for

correspond expected

maximum obedience

to the sovereign. If the doctrine does not

cannot

the

felicity

attainable,
position

reasonably be
problem

to

conclude that

it is God's doctrine

which

is

at

fault.45

The
political

sovereign's authority:

characterizes

the

for

voluntarist

having

established

the legitimate regime, how might

that regime provide the

of whether

good political order?

Replacing
whether

the first

question

the regime
political

is just

with

that

of

it is legitimate,

voluntarist

regime which

authority raises the possibihty of establishing the is merely legitimate.46 In this case, political justice can be

9, ii, IX, 1. Indeed,

the
as

since subject

disobedience institutes the

one and

state

of

war

between
so

fallaciously
Sovereign

reasoning disobedient

the sovereign, one

expendable.

could

go

far

to say that disobedient ones make themselves

45 action which of

does

not

promote

felicity
as

would

be

seen

as

the

sovereign's

transgression
moral

God's doctrine.
would and

Hence,
be
seen at

subversive
abetted

doctrine directed

against

the "true

philosophy"

by

the

sovereign.

Leviathan, XXI (139) [sovereigns'] authority there

preached."

See

XLVII first

(454-55,

454):

"For

without

their

more 46

doctrine have been publicly As noted above, n. 30, to Hobbes sovereign failure in this respect is dangerous than allowing conflict in society.
could at
no seditious

Cf. Jouvenel,

Sovereignty; Strauss, Natural Right;

in Power
pp. and

John H.

Schaar, "Legitimacy
Green
and

in the Modern

State,"

Community,

ed.

Philip

Sanford

Levinson (New York, 1969),

276-327.

Hobbes'

Argument for Civil

Authority
are manifested

237
at

identified only
given
made

with

those subjective claims which

of

time in the process

legitimizing

the

regime

through the
of
voluntarist

consent

feasible
of

by

the

nexus

the problem
as epitomized

"known natural inclinations Hobbes' for sovereign for

mankind."

The

pohtical

authority
of

by

its primary antecedent, Hobbes

is to fulfill

the proposition just noted. That

is,

the sovereign must

Nature
of

so

that

no one segment of

apply the Law society feels threatened by another

attained

because

the relatively
of

disproportionate benefits
Hobbes'

by

one at

the

expense of the other.

And it is
the merely

crucial to recognize

that this proposition

foUows from the logic

than to preside
over

text: i.e., his sovereign has more to do legitimate regime, as is evidenced by his
as sufficient condition political

description
with

of

the sovereign's

role

for "eternal justice only

salvation"

(earthly

fehcity). Rather than

identifying

the subjective claims that can be dominant at any given time as the task facing the such, claims which take on the character of faction
regime

is to

realize

the means whereby it may make

within

adjustments

among

the

various

interests

its

purview.
of

By

providing the

good political

hfe for

aU parties concerned

in terms

their own

subjective

perceptions,

long-range stabUity and thereby maintain the consensus for its continued legitimacy. This is, primarily, the problem justice.47 of distributive
the regime can

develop

Hobbes intended to revolutionize the grounds for political theory, as he was quite ready to And he succeeded. Because the sovereign is established by the only process Hobbes understands to be viable by the consent of individuals possessed of common natural rights and based
proclaim.48

upon

their

"known
that the

inclinations"

natural criteria

he

makes are

weU

known the only

with
Hobbes'

proposition

for

public

doctrine
to

established

through

popular

wUl.

It is therefore

possible
of

infer

that

exphcation of the status of

God's Law
this would

Nature is

concerned

only

the "show of

truth"

and not with

"truth"

itself,

as

has been

established extent

in the

case

of

Locke. But

Hobbes'

presentation of

the pubhc

be true only to the doctrine of the "true moral

that

phUosophy"

47 with

Republic 421c-45b
position

Cf. Plato Republic 338c-44d, 358b-59b, 543a-76b, and Gorgias 482c-86d, and Aristotle Politics 1314a-b, 1316b-23a. The implication is that
Hobbes'

in this

argument

for

representation

is

more complete than

respec p.

a narrow authorization account.

On that

position and ch.

its consequences, see,

tively, Pitkin, Concept

In
of contrast
Hobbes'

of

Representation,
representative

2,

and

Mansfield,

"Hobbes,"

108.

to the basis of the

sovereign

representative's

sovereignty, the ongoing operations

received

qua

have

relatively

scant

attention.
Hobbes'

On

one aspect, of

see

the

Theory
point

Taxation,"

in Dudley Jackson, "Thomas Political Studies 21 (1973): 175-82. Indeed, the proper

interesting
score

account

counter as

to

Hobbes

on

this

would

be the

sovereign

majority

of

Locke

developed in Willmore Kendall, John Locke (Urbana, 111., 1965).

48

and

the

Doctrine of Majority-Rule

Leviathan, introduction (6), XX (136), XXX (220-21), XXXI (241),

rev.

and

concl.

(460, 465-66); Cive,

preface

to the

reader

(10, 15-18); Elements, ii, VIII, 13.

238 does The

not contain elements of one complements

Interpretation
truth.49

And this,

of

course, is

not the case.

the other. Popular wUl is necessary for establishing the criteria for pubhc doctrine because the criteria are found in the

"known
"natural

natural

inclinations
means

mankind."

of

inclinations"

that the popular

But the very nature of these wUl is self-destructive without doctrine.

Hobbes'

the guidance and security vouched for

viable and

by

the sovereign, who gathers these

argument

justified inclinations into

criteria

a pubhc

isolates

the

for

pohtical

action

as those which can

be pubhcly
of

identified,
of
truth"

stated,

and

implemented
the
civU of

through the sovereign's whUe

wiU

interpretation

pohtical

necessity,

law,

utilizing the
as

"elements
of support

in

the pubhc

doctrine

God's

source

for

the

sovereign's action.

49

The terms "show

truth"

of

and

"truth"

are utilized

in

reference

to Locke

by

Ellis

Sandoz, "The Civil Theology

truth,"

of

Liberal Democracy: Locke

and

His Prede

cessors,"

ing "elements
of metals

Journal of Politics 34 (1972):3. On the necessity of public dogma contain of see Plato's account of primary education and of the myth in Republic 376e-421c.

social research
.

AN INTERNATIONAL QUARTERLY

OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
VOLUME 42/NUMBER 1

SPRING 1975

A Publication

of

the Graduate

Faculty,

New School for Social Research

Howard B. White IS PEACE POSSIBLE?

Lost IUusions: The End Post-War World?
of the

Erich Hula

Waltei Laqueur

Science

of

Peace: A Rationalist Utopia

Hans J. Morgenthau Hans Speier

The Chances for Peace

Changing

Concepts

of

Peace:

Charles Burton
MarshaU

An American Focus
Social Conflict in the Era
of

Detente:

New Roles for Ideologues, Revolu tionaries, and Youth

Arthur J. Vidich C. F.
von

Can We Plan for Peace?

On the Concept
Changes in the
and

Weizs'acker

of

Peace
of

George Picht

Meaning
of

MUitary

Wolf Graf
Baudissin

von

Political Concepts

Peace

ESSAYS IN HONOR OF ARON GURWITSCH

Individual Subscription:

$ 10.00, Institutions: $ 12.00, Single issues: $ 3.00 ea.

office:

Editorial

and

Business

66 West 12th Street

New

York, N.Y.

10011

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE ASSOCIATION Editorial Board: Richard S. Rudner (Editor-in-Chief), Peter Achinstein, Gustav Bergmann, May Brodbeck, Arthur Burks, C. West Churchman, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Adolf Griinbaum, Edward Madden, Henry Margenau, Gerald J. Massey, Alberto Pasquinelli, Wesley C. Salmon. Kenneth F. Schaffner, Dudley Shapere, J. J. C. Smart, Melford E. Spiro, Patrick C. Suppes, Lewis K. Zerby, Peter D. Asquith (Managing Editor). Book Reviews: James Van Evra. Assistant Editors: Patricia Ann Fleming and Paul CL. Tang.
Vol. 41

Philosophy

of

Science

No. 4

December,

1974

Contents*

Quantum theory and cosmology, C.J.S. Clarke / The ignorance interpretation defended, Grossman / Mechanisms and purposive behavior III, Larry Wright / Extensive measurement without an order relation, Eric W. Holman / Measurement without Archi medean axioms, Louis Narens / Discussion: The conventionality of temporal relations in relativity theory, B. Maund / Discussion: More on Fodor's distinction between strong and weak simulations, Yorick Wilks / Discussion: Strong, weak and functional equivalence in machine simulation, A. Rosenberg and N. J. Mackintosh / Book Reviews / Abstracts from
Neal

Inquiry I Index

to Vol. 41.

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE is publiced quarterly by the Philosophy of Science Associa tion, 18 Morrill Hall, Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Subscription price $17.50 ($18.50 non-U.S.A.) per Volume. Members of the Association receive the Journal as a privilege of membership paid for our membership dues. Inquiries about subscription or membership should be directed to the Managing

Editor.

^Public

Philosophy

Advisory Editors
Stuart Hampshire, John Rawls
Editor Marshall Cohen

C9 Affairs
SPRING 1975 R. M. HARE HAL R. VARIAN Abortion

Associate Editors Thomas Nagel, Thomas Scanlon

VOLUME 4

NUMBER 3

and

the Golden Rule

Bistributive Justice, Welfare Economics, and the Theory of Fairness How to

JAMES C. DICK
ONORA NELL

Justify

Distribution

of

Earnings

Lifeboat Earth

$8.50

a year

$16.00 two
*

years

$21.00 three

years

$13.50
single

a year

for institutions

$5.00

special student rate

$3.50
New

issues

Princeton

$.75 handling charge on foreign Box 231 * Princeton, University Press

orders

Jersey 08540 U.S.A.