Representation of creon`s tragic hero in sophocles` antigone - USD Repository

  REPRESENTATION OF CREON’S TRAGIC HERO IN SOPHOCLES’ ANTIGONE

  AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters

  By:

RR. LIRA DEWI CAHYANINGRUM

  Student Number: 024214023

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS FACULTY OF LETTERS YOGYAKARTA SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY 2007

  Sometimes, I feel afraid of the fear of uncertainty, stinging clear.

  And I can’t help but ask myself How much I’ll let the fear take the wheel and steer.

  It’s driven me before, And it seems to have a vague, haunting mass appeal.

  But lately, I’m beginning to find that I should be the one behind the wheel.

  Whatever tomorrow brings, I’ll be there, with open arms and open eyes. So, if I decide to waiver my chance to be the one of the hive

  Will I choose water over wine, and hold my own and drive? It’s driven me before, and it seems to be the way that everyone else get around. But lately, I’m beginning to find that I drive myself, my light is found.

  Whatever tomorrow brings, I’ll be there, With open arms and open eyes.

• DRIVE- by Incubus

  

Dedicated wholeheartedly to:

My beloved Mother and Father

My dearest Grandmother

  My lovely Sister

My dearly-loved friends

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

  On August 2002, I started my brand new days as a college student in English Letters, Sanata Dharma University. In times I have been spending there, many precious things I can gain: knowledge, skills, wonderful friends, lovely lecturers, experiences whether they make me happy or sad. However, the precious things motivate me to keep learning and they can make me a better person. And after all the years I have been studying in English Letters Sanata Dharma University, the time for me to finish the study has come, by doing this undergraduate thesis. Here, it is my chance to express my highest gratitude for those who has great influence to me, so that I can finish this thesis.

  First of all, I would like to say my highest respect and gratitude to the Almighty, Allah S. W.T. I would like to thank You for the bless and the chances You give to me so that I can finish this thesis. Thank you so much!

  I want to thank my family for being a wonderful family for me and for being the last place I go to, when I end my days. My respect and deepest thank are sent to my dearest mother, Sri Eny Hartati, S. Pd, who always keeps praying for me so that I can be a better person. Without you, Mom! I would be nothing. I also would like to send my greatest thank to my wonderful father, Triyono, for all his pray, and the chance he gave to me to study in English Letters Sanata Dharma University. To my lovely sister, Dian, I would like to thank you for all your supports. I love You, Sis!

  I want to send my deep gratitude to my advisor, Mr. Gabriel Fajar Sasmita Aji, S. S, M. Hum, for the unconditional support, guidance, and patience, which make it possible for me to finish this thesis. Thank you for the time and the ideas. I also would like to thank Mrs. M. Luluk Artika W., S. S for her willingness and her time in correcting my thesis. My gratitude is also sent for Mr. Paulus Sarwoto S. S, M. A., for the suggestions to make my thesis better. Thank you so much.

  I would like to send my great thank to the greatest friends. My special love and thanks are dedicated to my friends at English Letters Sanata Dharma University for their willingness to spend their days at English Letters with me. You are all wonderful friends for me. Thanks for the “Mad Seasons”! Last but not least, I would like to dedicate my deep thank and love for my lovely friends with whom I used to work together at Sanata Dharma University for their endless supports. You are all not only my partners at work but you have been my close friends. Thanks that was fun, don’t forget, no regret!

  And for some special people I do not mention here, thanks for the beautiful moments and supports. I will carry you in my heart! I also would like to thank to the officers in Secretariat of English Literature and Sanata Dharma University Library, who have contribution that make it possible for me to finish my thesis.

• Lira-

  TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TITLE PAGE ......................................................................................................... i APPROVAL PAGE ............................................................................................... ii MOTTO PAGE ...................................................................................................... iv DEDICATION PAGE............................................................................................ v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................... viii ABSTRACT........................................................................................................... x ABSTRAK ............................................................................................................. xi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................

  1 A. Background of the Study.............................................................

  1 B. Problem Formulation ............................................................... 5 C. Objective of the Study..............................................................

  5 D. Definition of Terms.................................................................. 5-7 CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL REVIEW.......................................................

  8 A. Review of Related Studies .......................................................

  8 B. Review of Related Theories .....................................................

  12 1. Theories on Character and Characterization ......................

  12

  2. Theories on Tragedy .......................................................... 17

  3. Theories on Representation................................................ 21

  C. Theoretical Framework ............................................................ 23 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................

  24 A. Object of the Studies ................................................................

  24 B. Approach of the study ..............................................................

  27 C. Method of the Study.................................................................

  28 CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS ................................................................................

  31 A. The Qualities of Creon as a King.............................................

  31 1. Loyal to the city of Thebes.................................................

  31 2. Too strict to the rules .........................................................

  33

  3. Arrogant ............................................................................. 35 4. Obstinate or stubborn .........................................................

  37

  5. Authoritarian ...................................................................... 39

  6. Self-absorbed ..................................................................... 41

  7. Male-chauvinistic............................................................... 42

  8. Unwise ............................................................................... 44 9. Fond of his family ..............................................................

  45

  10. Narrow-minded ... .......................................................... 47 11. Noble ..................................................................................

  49 12. Wealthy ..............................................................................

  50

  14. Intelligent ...........................................................................

  66

  97 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 100

APPENDIX .................................................................................................. 102

  89 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................

  8. Creon as a king with ‘tragic flaws’ that lead him to his ‘death’ ................................................................................ 75 C. The Depth Representation of Creon as a King.........................

  73

  7. Creon as a king who is neither utterly villainous nor eminently virtuous .......................................................

  71

  6. Creon as a king with the qualities of a person with consistency .................................................

  64 5. Creon as a person with significance and importance .........

  52 15. Powerful .............................................................................

  4. Creon as a person who is better than the ordinary people in rank and mind.....................................................................

  62

  3. Creon as a king with the qualities of a person with ‘high character’............................................

  61

  2. Creon as a king with the qualities of a person with ‘high estate’ .................................................

  58

  57 1. Creon as a king with the qualities of a noble person..........

  55 B. The Surface Representation of Creon as a King ......................

  Summary of Sophocles’ Antigone.......................................................................... 102

  

ABSTRACT

  RR. LIRA DEWI CAHYANINGRUM (2007). Representation of Creon’s Tragic

  

Hero in Sophocles’ Antigone. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty

of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta.

  The object of this study is Sophocles’ Antigone with humanity as its theme. The aim of this study is to find the hidden intentions of the text in making Creon an authoritarian king, which drives him to be an oppressor, and then bringing him to his downfall. In order to achieve the aim, the writer is going to find the surface and depth representation of Creon as a king. To define the surface representation of Creon as a king, the writer uses the different perspective from the common knowledge, which sees Antigone as the tragic hero of the play. The perspective of Creon as the tragic hero is used in this study. But, the discussion of this study does not stop in proving that Creon qualifies Aristotelian tragic hero. The writer is also going to define what Creon as a tragic hero is to represent as the depth representation of Creon as a king.

  In order to guide the analysis, three questions are formulated in this study. The first question is to find the qualities of Creon as a king. The second question is to identify Creon’s significant characteristics or traits that make him tragic hero. Third question is to find what Creon as a tragic hero is to represent.

  The writer uses library research to get the data and the theories. The writer applies structuralist approach in doing the research. Structuralist approach means that in analyzing the text, the writer must relate the text with the larger structure they are part of, since the text cannot be understood in isolation. The theories used in this study are theories on character and characterization, theories on tragedy, and theories on representation.

  After doing the analysis, first, the writer finds that the qualities of Creon as a king are loyal (to Thebes), too strict to the rules, arrogant, obstinate (stubborn), authoritarian, self-absorbed, male-chauvinistic, unwise, fond of his family, narrow- minded, noble, wealth, not greedy, intelligent, and powerful. Second, the writer can prove that Creon with his traits qualifies Aristotelian tragic hero. Besides, the writer finds that ultimately, the oppressed gains the readers’ and the audiences’ sympathy, admiration, and respect, and not for Creon as the oppressor since Sophocles’

  

Antigone is a humanity play. The writer also finds that Creon is actually the ‘victim’

  of the system of absolute power. Further, the state of being ‘victim’ means to uplift the message of the text itself wants to emphasize. Finally, this is the depth representation of Creon as a king.

  

ABSTRAK

  RR. LIRA DEWI CAHYANINGRUM (2007). Representation of Creon’s Tragic

  

Hero in Sophocles’ Antigone. Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra,

Universitas Sanata Dharma, Yogyakarta.

  Karya sastra yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah sebuah drama tragedi, yaitu Antigone, yang ditulis oleh Sophocles. Drama tragedi ini bertema kemanusiaan, yang lebih berpihak pada orang-orang tertindas. Si penulis percaya bahwa teks drama tersebut mempunyai maksud-maksud tertentu dalam menjadikan Creon sebagai seorang raja yang otoriter, sehingga membuat dia melakukan penindasan. Dan kemudian, Creon harus mengalami kehancuran sebagai konsekuensi dari penindasan yang dia lakukan. Dalam penelitian ini, si penulis mencoba untuk mengetahui maksud-maksud tertentu tersebut. Untuk mencapai tujuan dari penelitian ini, si penulis harus menemukan representasi ‘permukaan’ dan representasi ‘dalaman’ dari Creon sebagai seorang raja. Untuk mendapatkan representasi ‘permukaan’ dari Creon sebagai seorang raja, penelitian ini menggunakan sudut pandang yang berbeda dari persepsi umum, yang mempercayai bahwa Antigone merupakan tragic hero atau pahlawan yang tragis dari drama tragedi ini. Penelitian ini menggunakan sudut pandang bahwa Creon merupakan tragic hero atau pahlawan yang tragis dari drama ini. Lalu, si penulis menemukan bahwa Creon sebagai seorang pahlawan yang tragis tersebut sebenarnya menggambarkan sesuatu hal yang menjadi maksud-maksud tertentu dari teks drama ini. Dan pada akhirnya, inilah representasi ‘dalaman’ dari Creon sebagai seorang raja. Si penulis merumuskan tiga pertanyaan dalam skripsi ini untuk memandu analisis. Pertanyaan yang pertama digunakan untuk menemukan karakteristik- karakteristik Creon sebagai seorang raja. Pertanyaan yang kedua digunakan untuk mengetahui karakteristik-karakteristik Creon yang signifikan, yang membuat dia menjadi seorang pahlawan yang tragis. Pertanyaan ketiga digunakan untuk mengetahui hal-hal apa sajakah yang ada dibalik Creon sebagai seorang pahlawan yang tragis.

  Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kepustakaan untuk mendapatkan data dan teori. Si penulis menggunakan pendekatan strukturalisme dalam melakukan penelitian ini. Pendekatan strukturalisme berarti bahwa dalam menganalisa teks drama itu, si penulis harus menghubungkan teks drama tersebut dengan teks-teks lain dimana teks drama itu menjadi bagian dari teks-teks tersebut. Teori-teori yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah teori karakter dan karakterisasi, teori tragedi, dan teori representasi.

  Setelah melakukan analisis, si penulis menemukan karakeristik-karakteristik Creon sebagai seorang raja adalah sebagai berikut: setia (pada kota Thebes), terlalu patuh pada peraturan, sombong, keras kepala, otoriter, mementingkan dirinya sendiri, keluarganya, berpikiran sempit, mulia, kaya raya, tidak tamak, pintar, dan kuat. Kemudian, si penulis juga bisa membuktikan bahwa Creon merupakan tragic hero atau pahlawan yang tragis dari drama tragedi ini berdasarkan teori dari Aristotle. Si penulis juga menemukan bahwa pada akhirnya, orang-orang yang tertindas akan mendapatkan simpati, kekaguman, dan penghormatan dari para pembaca dan para penonton drama tragedi ini karena tema dari drama ini adalah kemanusiaan. Di samping itu, si penulis juga menemukan bahwa Creon merupakan korban dari sistem kekuasaan abolut. Selanjutnya, pernyataan menjadi ‘korban’ berarti untuk mengangkat pesan yang ingin disampaikan oleh teks drama tersebut. Dan pada akhirnya, inilah yang menjadi representasi ‘dalaman’ dari Creon sebagai seorang raja.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study Once a man has authority, he must be obeyed. In big things and in small, in every act, whether just or not so just. I tell you this, the well-disciplined man is good At giving orders and at taking them too. Sophocles’ Antigone The statement above can be found in Sophocles’ Antigone. It is said by the

  main character of the play, Creon. The statement above means that there is a strict obligation for the citizens to comply with a “man” who has the most important position in the city. Creon says that the people must obey the man’s orders though there are possibilities that the orders are considered unjust for some people. He also states that the people should believe that the man’s orders are aimed at their prosperity and joy.

  It can be observed from Creon’s statements that the “man”, who is stated above, has the highest position in the society. So, what is meant by the “man” here is the king of the city. Since the king places the highest position in the society, he has the full right to control the city and the citizens, so that his power or his authority becomes unlimited or absolute. It can be said that the situation drives the king to be an authoritarian king with absolute power.

  By reviewing the problem above to Sophocles’ Antigone, the writer finds that what is meant by the “man” who has the absolute power is Creon himself because he is the king of Thebes. That is why the issue of Creon as a king, who possesses an absolute power, occurs in the play and it becomes an important issue in the play. So, the writer sees that the issue is worth to study.

  Basically, by using his absolute power, Creon, as an authoritarian king (a tyrant), purposes to control Thebes and its citizens in order to make the city safe and well-organized, and Thebes can get its prosperity back after undergoing a civil war (the attack of The Argive Army from Argos, which caused a big disaster in Thebes).

  But things that happen after he becomes an authoritarian king with absolute power are not what he expects before. In fact, an adversity or downfall must be experienced by Creon.

  Most of the readers and the audiences see that Creon’s downfall is the consequence of his actions (to unbury Polyneices’ body and to punish Antigone), which are seen as forms of oppression toward the innocent people (later they are called as the “the oppressed”). This is logic because by considering that Sophocles’

  

Antigone is a humanistic play, which tends to stand for the oppressed, Creon’s actions

are seen as an insult to humanity.

  Then, based on Creon’s qualities as an authoritarian king and by considering the tragic incidents that are experienced by Creon (including his downfall), the writer views that Creon is the tragic hero of the play. The writer sees that Creon qualifies

  Actually, until today, there is still a controversy in deciding the true tragic hero of Sophocles’ Antigone. Is it Antigone or is it Creon? The common knowledge states that Antigone is the tragic hero of the play, because she is much more sympathetic than Creon, who is seen as a tyrant (Barnett, Burto, Ferris, and Rabkin, 2001: 87). Moreover, the title is Antigone, which satisfies those who believe that Antigone is the tragic hero of the play. Most of readers and audiences believe that Antigone becomes the tragic hero because she tries to keep her faith and love for her family by burying Polyneices’ corpse (Polyneices is Antigone’s elder brother), which is considered as a noble action. She tries to honor her brother by fighting against Creon’s order to unbury Polyneices’ corpse because Creon considers Polyneices as a traitor for leading The Argive Army to attack Thebes. They also think that Antigone’s suicide is a form of her loyalty to her family. Most of the readers and the audiences view that Antigone has done the right things by disobeying the order of Creon, who is considered as a tyrant, and she dies in honor by keeping her loyalty to her family.

  But, the writer tries to see the issue by using different perspective from the common knowledge. The writer sees that though the title of the play is Antigone, it does not mean that Antigone must be the tragic hero of the play. The writer views that the character of Antigone and her actions are merely used to indicate the subject matter of the play, in order to support and to reveal the more important case of the play. What is meant by the more important case here is Creon, with his qualities as an authoritarian king, is the tragic hero of the play, since his qualities as a king with

  Since this thesis uses the point of view that Creon is the tragic hero, the writer should discuss about Creon’s significant characteristics (traits) that make him the tragic hero in order to prove that Creon qualifies Aristotelian tragic hero. And, the most important thing to discuss is his tragic flaw. According to Hugh Holman and

  th

  William Harmon in their A Handbook to Literature (5 edition) , tragic flaw is an error or imperfection in the tragic hero’s part that causes his or her downfall, which becomes the essential part of the hero’s character (1986: 507). So, the belief that Creon as tragic hero can be justified.

  Then, in the last part of analysis, the writer is going to do an analysis that has never been done before by other researches, because the analysis of this thesis does not stop in analyzing the tragic hero of the play, just like what the common studies do. But, the writer views that the text has hidden intentions in making Creon as an authoritarian king with absolute power (a tyrant), then making him the tragic hero of the play. It means that the writer does not take it for granted that Creon is a tyrant, who claims to force his wills, and in most readers’ and audiences’ point of views, he is not sympathetic. So, in the end of the analysis, the writer is going to find the text’s hidden intentions in entering Creon to the system of absolute power, so that he does oppression, then it makes him the tragic hero.

  It can be concluded from the explanation above that the aims of this study are to find the surface and depth representation of Creon as a king. Creon as a king represents that Creon is the tragic hero the play. This becomes the surface something, which the writer is going to find out. And finally, this is the depth representation of Creon as a king.

  B. Problem Formulation

  The problems above are formulated into three questions below:

  1. What are the qualities of Creon as the king?

  2. What are Creon’s significant characteristics or traits that make him the tragic hero?

  3. What is Creon as a tragic hero to represent?

  C. Objectives of the Study

  The purpose of this study is to answer the questions stated in the problem formulation. First, this study is aimed to find the qualities of Creon as a king. Second, this study is also purposed to identify the surface representation of Creon as a king by describing Creon’s significant characteristics or traits that make him the tragic hero, including his tragic flaw. Third, this study is aimed to define and explain the depth representation of Creon as a king by finding what Creon as a tragic hero is to represent.

  D. Definition of Terms

  It is considered important to give the definitions of some terms used in this undergraduate thesis. It is purposed to avoid misunderstandings and it is helpful to understand the thesis.

1. Representation

  Andrew Gibson in his book, Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative, defines representation as surface representation and depth representation. According to him, “surface representation” is a realism of particulars. The language is seen as innocent and it conceives of language as unproblematically adequate to what it represents (Gibson, 1996: 91). So, if it is applied in a work of art, it will result in something which is “visible”. The term “visible” here is also defined by Gibson by quoting from other theorist.

  Of course, this is only a “visibility” by convention or contract, and is not to be confused with cinematic visibility. But in the terms of the old contract, “surface representation” emerges in the first instance as an “optical realism” (Feyerabend, 1987: 151). Strictly speaking, it is not confined to the “visible”, but equally includes what is heard, felt, and so on, the world as apprehended by the senses (Gibson, 1996: 82). It can be concluded from the theory above that the term “visible” means something that not only can be seen by optical organs, but also by hearing and feeling. It means that “surface representation” sees the work as what it is without any deeper considerations and it does not see the work from different point of view.

  Gibson also defines “depth representation” in the book as follows: “Representation of depth”, on the other hand, means penetrating the visible. In James’ terms, it “guess[es] the unseen from the seen” (ibid. p. 3). This is the representation of essences, general features, types which thus depends on and expresses ontological conviction. It pierces through the veil of the visible to what the visible supposedly secretes or embodies, capturing the distilled essence and saturating language in it (Gibson, 1996: 82). It means that the depth representation observes and defines the invisible work. It can be said that it goes beyond the visible. It tries to find things that lay behind the surface representation by doing deeper considerations of the work, and by seeing the surface representation from various points of views.

2. Tragic hero

  In tragedy, the tragic hero must be a man who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but some error or frailty. He or she must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous. All tragic heroes must have his or her tragic flaw, or hamartia, that leads to his or her downfall in such a way as not to offend the audience’s sense of justice. According to Aristotle, tragic flaw can be meant as some great errors or frailty done by the tragic hero, which brings the hero from prosperity to adversity. The occurrence of tragic flaw is regarded as desirable in an ideal or perfect tragedy (Bate, 1952: 17).

  

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW A. Review of Related Studies Library research is done by the writer to find some studies related to the topic. The studies are written by other researchers. The studies or the reviews are taken from books and internet. It has been stated in Chapter I that this thesis is going to find the surface and

  depth representation of Creon as a king. The writer finds that there are some visible ideas that can be derived from Creon as a king. It is also urgent to understand that since Creon becomes a king, the fact makes Creon posses an absolute power. Besides, the writer also tries to reveal the hidden ideas which lay behind Creon as a king.

  Surface representation is trying to define the visible condition of Creon as a king (without anymore deep considerations) through Creon’s characteristics as a king.

  Then, the writer finds that his qualities as a king construct the idea that Creon is the tragic hero of Sophocles’ Antigone. That is why tragic hero becomes an important issue in this thesis. So, in this part, the writer tries to review other studies that discuss

  

Antigone, especially reviewing the controversy about the tragic hero of the play and

reviewing the studies that support each belief.

  It has been stated in Chapter I that the controversy about who the tragic hero In fact, most of studies, readers, and audiences believe that Antigone is the tragic hero. Most of them concern on the struggle of Antigone in fighting against Creon’s (Creon as the representation of men) oppression toward Antigone (as the representation of women). It can be said that they pay attention on feminist issue. One of the studies that reveal the idea of feminism in Antigone is done by Setyarini. In her undergraduate thesis, which is entitled The Emergence of Feminist Ideas in

  

Sophocles’ Antigone, she states that Antigone performs in herself some feminist ideas

  through her thoughts and actions to be confronted with men’s narrow view of the unfortunate position of women within the patriarchal society in Ancient Greek (2002: 84).

  So, the study above already provides enough explanation about the knowledge that Antigone is the tragic hero of Sophocles’ Antigone, which becomes a common knowledge. But, the writer tries to see the issue about the tragic hero by using different point of view (different angle) from the common knowledge. The writer tries to reveal the issue of tragic hero by using another knowledge, which states that Creon is the tragic hero. But, it does not mean that the writer sees that the common knowledge is wrong and the second knowledge is right. The writer tries to view and discuss the issue by using different perspective from the common knowledge in order to define the hidden ideas behind the issue of tragic hero. But, in this part, the writer is going to provide the related study which discusses that Creon is the tragic hero.

  Based on a study found in internet, Creon qualifies Aristotle’s tragic hero. The completely bad nor extremely good person, which becomes one of the qualifications of a tragic hero. This study concerns on Creon’s ability in making hard decisions. The study writes that Creon tries to make the best decisions he can, based on his belief. The study sees that his condition which forces him to make hard decisions makes him the tragic hero ( http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=60640 ).

  Besides, there are also some related studies that discuss Antigone. The first study is done by Sylvan Barnett, William Burto, Lesley Ferris, and Gerald Rabkin in

  th

  their Types of Drama: Plays and Contexts (8 edition) . They state that few modern readers see that Creon and Antigone are equally right and equally wrong. They state that most readers consider that Antigone is much more sympathetic than Creon for acting bravely against Creon and his laws, without the helps from other people. But, they see that she is a bit too headstrong and a bit eager to martyrdom. While they see that Creon in making the policies is not based on personal hatred, but as a new ruler of Thebes, he has an obligation to maintain order in a city, which has just undergone a civil war (2001).

  The second study is done by Gilbert Norwood in his Greek Tragedy. He states that commonly, people consider that Antigone is a noble martyr and Creon is a cruel tyrant. He views that the principle upheld by Antigone and upheld by Creon are equal validity. He states that it should be remembered that in judging the Attic literature, such as: Sophocles’ Antigone, should consider its belief that we are alive the sanctity of human life, but think far less the sanctity of national life (p. 137)

  The next study which discusses Sophocles’ Antigone is done by H. D. F. Kitto in his Form and Meaning in Drama: A Study of Six Great Plays and of Hamlet.

  According to him, what happens in Antigone is not merely a clash of personal, but more on a clash of principles. Antigone has appealed to the unwritten laws of Heaven, while Creon stands for the city’s laws (1956).

  There is also a study done by a student that discusses Antigone, found in Hans P. Guth and Gabrielle L. Rico’s Discovering Literature: Stories, Poems, and Plays

  nd

(2 edition) . He says that the play is a contest of wills. He sees that both of Creon

  and Antigone are sincere in their beliefs and they are both proud and self-righteous (1997).

  The other study that discusses Sophocles’ Antigone is done by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in his A World Enclosed: TRAGEDY. He states that in Antigone, there are two tragedies. The first is Antigone’s tragedy, and the second is Creon’s tragedy. In his point of view, Antigone is the sacrificial hero, since she sacrifices herself for the spirit of her brother (Polyneices). He also states that the conflict in the play is between Antigone’s dedication to personal integrity and Creon’s belief in the integrity of the state (1973).

  So, the writer has elaborated the related studies, including the study which stands for the common knowledge that Antigone is the tragic hero, also the study which stands for the later knowledge that Creon is the tragic hero. In this part, the writer tries to explain the position or stand of this Undergraduate Thesis. Basically, in this thesis, the writer does a research that has never been done before by other researches. The analysis of this thesis does not stop in only proving that Creon is the tragic hero of the play, which is considered as the surface representation of Creon as a king. Since the writer views that the text has hidden intentions in making Creon an authoritarian king, and then making him the tragic hero, the writer is also going to find what Creon as tragic hero is to represent. And finally, this is the depth representation of Creon as a king.

B. Review of Related Theories

  In order to discuss the topic, some related theories are used in this undergraduate thesis. In this thesis, the writer is going to apply theories on character and characterization, theories on tragedy (specifically theories of tragic hero), and theories on representation.

1. Theories on Character and Characterization

  Character has an important role in a work of art. X. J. Kennedy and Dana

  th

  Gioia, in their Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama (7 edition), defines that a character is presumably an imagined person who inhabits a story.

  According to them, the main character of the story acts in a consistent manner, and the author has provided the character a motivation, which is meant as sufficient reason to behave as they do (1999: 60).

  While according to Edgar V. Roberts and Henry E. Jacobs in their Fiction: An

  

nd

Introduction to Reading and Writing (2 edition) , character in literature, and in fiction specifically, is an extended verbal representation of a human being, the inner self that determiners thought, speech, and behaviour. Through dialogue, action, and commentary, authors capture some of the interactions of character and circumstance (1989: 143).

  Besides character, characterization is also an important element in a work of art. So, theories on characterization are urgent to be applied in the thesis. The first definition of characterization in this study is stated by Mary Rohberger and Samuel

  H. Woods in Reading and Writing about Literature. They define characterization as the process by which an author creates a character. It is also a process with its aim is to make the readers believe that a character is like particular person he is. In order to characterize, there are two principal ways can be used by the author. First, he can use direct means to describe physical appearance. Second, the author uses dramatic means and places the character in situation to show what he or she behaves or speaks (1971: 81).

  Characterization is also defined by Edgar V. Roberts and Henry E. Jacobs in their An Introduction to Reading and Writing. According to them, authors use four distinctive ways to present information about characters. The readers must use their own knowledge and experience as a human being to make judgments about the qualities of the characters. The first way is by observing the characters when they say and think. The readers must consider the situation or total context of a statement. The readers should also consider whether speeches show change or development. The second way is by observing what the characters do. The readers should interpret actions as signs of character. Third, the readers can characterize the characters in the story by observing what the other characters say about them. It is known that in stories and in plays, as in life, people often talk about other people. The readers must always consider the context and source of all remarks before they draw conclusions about character. The last way is by observing what the author says about the characters, speaking as a story teller or observer. What the author says about a character is to be accepted as accurate (1989: 147-148).

  According to M. J. Murphy in his Understanding Unseens, there are several ways how the author describes characters (1972: 161-172).

  a. Personal Description The author can describe a character by analyzing his or her physical appearance. For example, the author can describe the details of the characters’ appearance, such as: the skin, face, eyes, hair, body, or his or her clothes. By analyzing physical appearance of the character, the author can describe the personalities of the character.

  b. Characters as seen by another character The description is gain from the eyes and opinions of other character. The author gives description of the character by showing other characters’ opinion toward the character, which the author wants to describe. c. Speech The author describes the character through what the character says. The readers can observe the character’s personality by observing his or her speech.

  d. Past life The author describes the character’s personality through the events in past life. The readers can analyze by paying attention on the direct comments, the character’s thoughts, and his or her conversation.

  e. Conversation of Others To find the personality of a character, the author can give the readers a clue to a person’s character through the conversations with other characters and the things they say about him.

  f. Reactions The author can describe a character by letting the readers know how the person reacts to various situations and events.

  g. Direct Comment The author also can describe the character’s personality directly. h. Thoughts The author describes the character’s personality through the character’s inner mind or thoughts, or the way he thinks. i. Mannerism

  By identifying the character’s manners or behaviour, the readers can identify his characteristics.

  Since this study does a research on a classic play, so it is considered urgent to find the theories on drama’s characters. Milly S. Barranger in Understanding Plays divides the approaches that can be used to understand classic drama’s characters into four ways. The first way is that the readers observe what the playwrights say about them in stage directions. Second, the readers hear or read what the characters say about one another in dialogues. Third, the readers note general types of physical and psychological side. The last is by construing or analyzing the moral ethical choices that determine their destinies (1994:339).

  In the same book, Milly S. Barranger also states that the characters in drama are the representation of real human beings. The playwright usually visualizes the fictional characters’ clothes, habitat, thoughts, speech, and actions. Characters in drama may have complex personality, based on the playwright’s skills. The characters also represent a class of individuals, such as: kings or servants. They signify the human predicament from the writer’s historical and philosophical perspective (1994:338).

2. Theories on Tragedy

  th

  M. H. Abrams in his A Glossary of Literary Terms (6 edition) states that the term, tragedy, is broadly used in literature, especially in dramas or plays, as the representation of serious and important actions which eventuate in a disastrous conclusion for the protagonist, or the chief character. He also states that “the pleasure of pity and fear” distinguishes tragedy from comic or other forms (1985: 21).

  Based on Aristotle’s Poetics, which is discussed by Walter Jackson Bate, in his Criticism: The Major Texts, Aristotle defines some elements of tragedy. These elements of tragedy are specified as the elements of classical Greek tragedy, which become the most famous tragedy of all time. First, tragedy must fulfill the three unities: unity of time, unity of place, and unity of action (1952: 16). Second, the most important element is the occurrence of the tragic hero (1952: 16). The third element is tragic flaw which is possessed by the tragic hero. Tragic flaw can be said as the acts of pride or ambition of the tragic hero (1952: 16). Fourth, tragedy must include

  

hamartia or hubris, which is meant as error or frailty done by the tragic hero (16-17).

  Lastly, a successful tragedy exploits and appeals at the start of two basic emotions: pity and fear, which is usually called as catharsis (1952: 17-18).

  X. J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia in their Literature: An Introduction to Fiction,

  th

Poetry, and Drama (7 edition) , define the main character in tragedy. They state that

  the protagonist, or the hero, or the chief character in tragedy is a person of “high estate”, apparently a king, queen, or other member of a royal family. They also state that the nature of tragedy is the falling of the protagonist, from his power, and from his happiness. And the most important thing is the falling from his high estate, which gives him a place of dignity to fall from. This fall can be said as his misfortune or his calamity (great and serious disaster), which involves an entire nation or people.

  According to them, the hero is not a superman. He is fallible. And the hero’s downfall is the result of tragedy (1999: 1295).

  th

  Hugh Holman and William Harmon in their A Handbook to Literature (5

  

edition ) state that plot is “the soul of tragedy”. The plot in tragedy must involve a

  protagonist who is better than ordinary people, and this virtuous person must be brought from happiness to misery. They also state that the protagonist must have significance or importance. For them, hero or heroine is called as tragic protagonist. To qualify as a hero or heroine, he or she must be a person of high character and must face his or her destiny with courage and nobility of spirit (1986: 506).

  nd

  In his book, Understanding Plays (2 Edition ), Milly S. Barranger defines more on the tragic hero, who is considered as an important person with certain admirable qualities.

  The tragic hero usually does some deed and suffers as a consequence because, in Aristotle’s point of view, actions have consequences in the moral world. This was also Sophocles’ view. Moreover, Aristotle urged that the tragic hero, or protagonist, be credible; that is, he or she should be neither utterly villainous nor eminently virtuous. The reversal of circumstances is, therefore, brought about not by vice or corruption, but by some great errors-usually a misjudgment-on the hero’s part (1994: 58-59). Based on Aristotle’s Poetics, which is taken from David H. Richter’s The

  nd states that tragedy is not an imitation of man, but of human action and life and happiness, and misery. Both happiness and misery consist in a kind of action, and the end of life is some action, not some quality. According to the character, men have certain qualities, but according to their actions, they are happy or the opposite. Thus, the end of tragedy is the most significant thing of all. Other important factors in tragedy are parts of the plot, which are the reversal and the recognition. (47-49).

  Reversal is the change of fortune in the action of the play to the opposite state of affairs, and it should be in harmony with probability and necessity. Recognition is a change from ignorance to knowledge. It can be meant that the main character has found or realizes the things that he ignores before, or the events that he never considers to happen, such as: the tragic hero realizes the consequences of his deed. In every tragedy, people can find both the complication and the resolution of the action (1998: 49-50).