Creons Speech free essay sample

Creon then approaches the chorus of elders privately and pronounces his first speech, wishing to draw himself support from the group of elite elders to prevent further mutiny against his rule among the Theban public. Through declaring his legitimacy as a ruler, establishing his authority and outlining his manifesto in his speech, Creon aims to mask himself as an apt leader; yet unconsciously exposes his flawed authentic self as a polarized absolutist and an arrogant ruler through the language, the uses of rhetorical and literary techniques, the syntactic and the overall structures of his opening speech. Tension is generated by the speech through the juxtaposition of Antigone and Creons’ equally headstrong character but opposing beliefs- man- made laws which Creon values and that of divine laws that Antigone reveres, presenting to the audience the conflicting concepts of philos and loyalty to polis. Creon as a demagogue employs various rhetorical techniques in his opening speech, including the uses of flattery, pronouns and declaratives to convince the chorus of elders of his beliefs through appealing to their emotions rather than their logic, in turn exhibiting his political astuteness, absolutist and hypocritical nature. At the outset of his speech, Creon commends the chorus on their ‘unwavering loyalty’ in ‘I know you always respected the power of Laius’ throne†¦ when he died, you still stood by his children with unwavering loyalty’ (lines 162- 165). He flatters the chorus with praises on their loyalty to the country and the ruler, leaving a positive impression on the chorus and increases his appeal as a leader. Creon is denoted as an astute and shrewd politician as he understood that flattery will mould himself a more favorable condition to progress on in asking for their support as the chorus feels gratified at the flattery that Creon has bestowed upon them. Thus, Creon will be more likely to achieve his primary goal to draw support from the chorus. In addition, Creon also used the inclusive pronoun ‘our’ in ‘our city’ (line 159) and ‘our city is our safety’ (line 178) in the course of his speech. This on one hand creates a sense of unity and Creon, by using the pronoun ‘we’, identifies himself as a democratic ruler that shares the rule of the nation with his people and as a caring king that sides with his people, considering the common good of his nation; on the other hand, Creon also establishes familiarity and good relations with the chorus by the inclusive pronoun ‘we’, enabling himself to continue on with his speech and gaining trust among the elders and consequentially his subjects, appealing to their emotions. However, it should be noted that the pronoun has changed to ‘my’ at the close of his speech in ‘by my consent’ (line 193) and ‘honoured by me’ (line 194). Creon clearly believes that the city belongs to the ruler by law as shown later on in the Third Episode and hence, the autocratic and absolute nature of Creon is revealed, which he has sought to conceal by the use of the inclusive pronoun at the previous parts of his speech. More vitally, his character is shown to be hypocritical as he soon defies his own proposed principles. Also, declaratives are present in his speech throughout, as in ‘A man in command of an entire city, who does not adhere to the best policies, but keeps his mouth closed through fear, is worthless’ (lines 170-172). Creon uses a series of declaratives in laying down his laws and principles as a ruler in his entire speech; as in the above example, Creon states his belief to man- made laws. The bluntness of the statement gives the audience the impression that Creon is seemingly stating a fact, and the inflexible tone of the statement suggests the assertive, absolute and arrogant nature of Creon yet once again, when he labelled his principles as ‘correctness’. Similarly, the emotive and extreme language of the speech, as well as specific lexical choices discloses to the audience Creon’s character as a polarised and absolute demagogue. For instance, as in ‘Polyneices†¦ returned from exile to the land of his fathers†¦ prepared to burn it to the ground’ (lines 186-188). The words ‘burn to the ground’ contains extreme colours of chaos and tumult, which will arouse the elders’ horror towards the ‘outrageous’ acts of Polyneices, thus affirming Ceron’s proclamation of leaving Polyneices unburied. We can once again see the demagogic nature of Creon. Apart from emotive language that arouses pathos, Creon also uses extreme language as he describes a man that ‘considers someone he loves to be more important than his country’ as ‘he is nothing’ (lines 173- 174). The word ‘nothing’ is radical in nature. The polarised language also suggests the polarised character of Creon himself. His degrading comment to others also gets to depict his arrogant nature as he places himself at a more superior status as the ruler. The lexical choices in Creon’s opening speech have also slit apart Creon’s veneer as a strong and appropriate leader and reveal his traits of absolutism and extremity. When Creon describes Eteocles as the ‘greatest spearsman’ (line 184) in Thebes, he uses the superlative form of the adjective ‘great’, conveying the message that Eteocles died as the best swordsman in Thebes, which again gets to exhibit the polarised and extreme nature of Creon. As well as in ‘he must be left unburied’ (line 191), Creon employs the modal verb ‘must’. The declaration is dogmatic and affirmative in tone, thus the declaration itself is a ‘command’ that Creon has pronounced on the elders and his people. This in turn reveals Creon as an absolute and even arrogant ruler, who demands complete compliance from his subjects. Another means that Sophocles introduces Creon’s contradictory, polarised and cruel character from his opening speech is the inclusion of literary techniques in the speech: hyperbole, imagery and proleptic irony. Creon accused Polyneices of not only burning Thebes to the ground, but also ‘throw the rest into slavery’ (line 189). Creon condemns Polyneices of putting the entire nation under ‘slavery’ hyperbolically. The message of his message suggests an extreme state of suffering of the nation, which is merely Creon’s own projection. Creon here is thus shown to be polarised, by claiming Polyneices guilty of a hyperbolic crime of ‘enslaving’ the nation. This is also to show is arrogant and judgmental nature when he proclaims the position of the judge and jury, accusing Polyneices of a crime which had never occurred and which was a result of his own stereotypical mindset about a ‘traitor’. The Gothic imagery ‘drink blood that he shared’ (line 188) echoes in a certain way with the Chorus using ‘gorge his throat with our blood’ in the Parados- the entry of the chorus. The imagery itself is gothic in nature and extremely bold and vile, therefore it is also another form of yperbole of exaggerating Polyneices’ act of killing his blood- bonded brother- his philoi in the battle by suggesting that he ‘drinks his blood’ metaphorically, creating a shock effect on the audience and the elders as they envisage the act of ‘drinking blood’. Creon’s trait of a demagogue is still evident in the employment of such imagery to emphasise and reinforce the horror of Polyneicesà ¢â‚¬â„¢ act. Another explicit imagery is present in ‘corpse for the birds and dogs to eat’ (line 191). The audience again visualises a cruel and repellent scene of animals feeding on a decayed corpse. The explicit and gory image once again is a showcase of Creon’s sadistic nature, which contradicts with what he previously suggested by using inclusive pronouns in his speech, thus we question his identity as a caring ruler. Creon, in addition, uses the metaphor of a ship to describe Thebes, as in ‘tossing the life of our city on the great waves of the ocean’ (lines 159-160). The verb ‘tossing’ is only applicable to a ship in the context, thus it is deduced that Thebes is out as a ‘ship’ here. The metaphor is highly effective as Thebes is located along the coastline of Greece and is near the sea, thus the metaphor can be comprehended easily by the audience; also Creon conveys the message that Thebes has experienced tumult, just as that of a ship encountering tides and waves at the course of sail, the turbulence however, cannot be righted or controlled by men. The metaphor is further elaborated and completed in ‘only when she sails safely that we can make friendship’ (lines 179-180). The pronoun ‘she’ refers to Thebes and the word ‘sails’ again implies a comparison of Thebes to a ship. Creon aims to draw support to himself by contrasting between the tumultuous Thebes before his rule- the one that is ‘tossed’ on the waves of the ocean and the one that is about to be under his rule. With ‘tossing the life of our city’ (line 179), Creon again tries to identify the chorus as his ‘comrades’ which has experienced tumult with him, appealing to their emotions and thus, it is revealed that Creon is an effective demagogue. One other vital literary device is proleptic irony that Sophocles has included in Creon’s speech. In particular when Creon regards an individual that does not punish traitors accordingly to uphold the rule of law as ‘he is nothing’ (line 174). Yet he later exclaims that ‘I who am less than nothing’ (line 1242). In the end, Creon views himself even more worthless than a weak ruler that does not punish traitors after he has suffered the punishment that the Gods have exerted on him because of his arrogant nature- hubris, when he disregards the divine laws on burial rites in hopes to uphold the man- made laws or punishing the traitor. There is a vivid contrast between the attitudes of Creon as a ruler, from confident and even arrogant to hopelessly desperate. Beforehand, he utters his principles that ‘A man in command of an entire city, who does not adhere to the best policies, but keeps his mouth closed through fear, is worthless’ (lines 170-172) with full confidence and assertively; however, he later on cries in hopelessness and desperation that he is nothing. Another example of proleptic irony will be when Creon declares that ‘It is impossible to learn everything of a man†¦ until he is seen pratising government and law’ (lines 168-170). The audience can later use Creon’s own words in condemning him when the rule of Creon has resorted into fiasco after the triple occurrence of the tragic deaths of Haemon, Eurydice and Antigone. This is ironic in a sense that by making this statement during his first speech, Creon has already presume and even arrogantly confidently that he will be a successful ruler and gain respect from his subjects soon after they have witnessed his rule on Thebes; nevertheless, his rule finally results in chaotic tragedy and he is not only ultimately indicted by the chorus of hubris but also, he is condemned by himself and asked to be taken to his death. Proleptic irony in general reveals the arrogant nature of Creon; it is arrogance (hubris) that is Creon’s fatal flaw (hamartia)and brings about his own downfall, thus Creon is the victim of his own character. The syntactic structures of Creon’s speech is also thought over and through syntactic patterning and the extended sentences, Creon is depicted to be a polarised and an absolute demagogue. In ‘Eteocles, who died fighting for this city, proving himself its greatest spearsman, will be buried in a tomb and honoured with every rite that comes to the noble dead’ (lines 183-185) and ‘Polyneices, who returned from exile to the land of his fathers and the gods of his people, prepared to burn it to the ground, prepared to drink blood that he shared, and to throw the rest into slavery, this man, it has been proclaimed to the city, will not be dignified with burial or lamentation’ (lines 186-190), the structure of the two sentences describing the two brothers mirror each other. Both sentences first start with the names of the two brothers respectively- the described subject in the sentence. Then the sentence proceeds with a relative clause, which elaborating the deeds carried out by each brother respectively- Polyneices destroying his own country and Eteocles that dying as a martyr defending his country. The sentence finally closes with the stating of the arrangements of burial rites and lamentation of the two brothers according to their actions- Eteocles to be buried with all honour and Polyneices, on the other hand, left unburied and be fed on by animals, which follows the modal verb ‘will’, showing the absolutism and dogmatism of Creon as a ruler, demanding full obedience from his subjects to his ‘commands’. The use of syntactic patterning here is to contrast directly the heroic image of Eteocles as a martyr, who died defending his country and that of the demoniac figure of Polyneices as a traitor destroying his homeland and slaughtering his family, placing the two brothers in completely opposite and very extreme categories correspondingly- one a hero and one a traitor. The polarised extremes of the character of the two brothers that Creon perceives and presents to the audience also give us an idea on the polarised nature of Creon himself. Polyneices†¦ will not be dignified with burial or lamentation’ (lines 186-190) itself is an extended sentence with discrete clauses linked by commas. Creon depicts to us the horrors committed by Polyneices through listing, overwhelming the audience with evidence supporting the fact that Polyneices is a traitor, destructor, which again creates a shock- effect on the audience and the chorus, leading the chorus to support and affirm his procla mation of the treatment of Polyneices. Creon is therefore a demagogue as shown here once again as he arouses the chorus’ shock and using this emotion to his advantage in convincing the chorus of his proclamations. In the same way, Creon is portrayed as an astute politician viewed from the adriot structure of the entire speech. The speech commences as Creon expresses gratitude to the Gods for righting Thebes in ‘the gods have safely righted it once more’ (line 160) defeating the Argive army led by Polyneices into Thebes and the quieting of the choas brought about by the tragedy of Oedipus through employing the metaphor of a ship (line 159), implying the turbulence that Thebes has experienced. The conventional commencement of the speech helps Creon in establishing his image as a pious ruler that respect the Gods, sculpting for himself a more acceptable profile of a suitable Theban ruler, appealing to the elders who normally are religious. As revering the Gods should be one of the primary traits of an appropriate ruler perceived by the Theban public and the elders, Creon possessing the trait makes him a more convincing leader and draws support to himself from the chorus, which is the ultimate goal of his speech. The speech then progresses by Creon’s flattery to the chorus as he praises them of their loyalty, followed by Creon’s assertion on his legitimacy to rule by kinship in ‘as I am closest kin to the dead’ (line 167). Creon subsequently lays down his manifesto, his political ideals on upholding man- made laws and loyalty to the city state. The speech ends with his proclamation of the contrasting treatment of Polyneices and Eteocles’ corpses. Through flattery, Creon leaves a good impression and befriends the chorus through bribing them with praises, gathering support for his rule. After Creon successfully get on good terms with the elders, he puts forth his image as a ruler through a series a declaratives to pronounce his rule. He utters his proclamation at last when his status as the ruler and the foundation of his rule is laid. The proclamation not only reinforces his superior figure as a ruler, but also does not undermine his image as a gracious ruler that cares for his people. Hence, the entire speech is constructed in order for Creon to pronounce his proclamation without sounding despotic. He does not only justify his rule in the speech, but also justifies his proclamation by ‘a man†¦ who does not adhere to the best policies†¦ is worthless’ (lines 170-172) and ‘nor could I make a friend of a man who is hostile to this city’ (line 177)- upholding the rule of law to punish traitors and not to show mercy to traitors. The speech is also linked throughout by discourse markers, such as ‘So now’, which connects the Creon’s proposed ideals with his ensuing proclamation on Eteocles and Polyneices respectively as in ‘So now, in accordance with these principles’ (line 181). Then in ‘But his blood-brother, Polyneices’ (line 186), with the discourse marker ‘but’, Creon shows an abrupt turning point in tone- from commending to condemning, followed by the horrors that Polyneices has committed which in turn reflects a vivid contrast between the two brothers. Another example would be ‘Such is my will’ (line 192), which is the conclusive statement of the speech. Discourse markers help establish a logical connection between the ideas of Creon and thus, justify his decisions, appealing to the chorus’ logic in this case. Creon is astute politically as he structures his speech skillfully, gradually creating his evident status as a superior leader. Creon effectively establishes a figure of an authoritative yet likeable ruler by rhetorical techniques such as flattery and emotive language, demagogically appeals to the irrational emotions of the chorus and through putting forth his agenda shrewdly without undermining his established image however, persuasive enough to convince the chorus of elders. Creon also rationalises his verdicts, which are largely based on subjective verdicts, and succeeded in appealing to the chorus’ rational mindset. Thus, Creon appeals to both the logic and the emotions of the elders and the audience in gathering support, which reflects visible traits of an astute politician. The opening speech of Creon gives rise to tension as the audience anticipates a destined collision between the two equally stubborn characters- Antigone and Creon who holds divergent values. In the Prologue, Antigone brings her sister Ismene out from the city to confide in her of the plan to bury her brother Polyneices, urging her to ‘lend your hands to mine’ (line 38). This scene is placed before Creon’s first speech. A parallel between the two scenes can be drawn as both Antigone and Creon aims to persuade by bringing out accordingly Ismene or the chorus privately. Due to the placement of the scenes, it is known before Creon’s opening speech that Antigone intends to defy Creon’s proclamation as in ‘it is not for him to keep me from my own’ (line 44) and bury her brother. Antigone is as extreme and unyielding in character as Creon, as in ‘soon you will show whether you are noble by birth, or a coward from a noble family’ apart from the strong language such as ‘coward’, the idea that there is no grey area in her mindset and the way she categorises people the same way that Creon does to Polyneices and Eteocles showcase her polarised nature. She is determined to bury her brother as in ‘When I have no strength left, I will stop’ (line 83), she is even willing to ‘die doing this’ (line 63-63). It is discerned that both Creon and Antigone share the same stubbornness and absoluteness as ‘such is my will’ (line 192) carries an inflexible and resolute tone. Nevertheless, the values of Antigone and Creon are conflicting in two ways. Antigone persists in not being ‘caught in betraying’ (line 42) ‘those we love’ (line 9) her brother Polyneices whose corpse is left to rot without burial, thus she upholds the concept of philos- loyalty to family members. Yet, Creon in ‘a man who considers someone he loves to be more important than his country, I say that he is nothing’ (lines 172- 174) pronounces his principle of loyalty to city state- loyalty to polis, and that the concept of philos is to be despised and that the believer of such concept is ‘nothing’. Also, Antigone believes that she has to ‘please those below longer than those here’ (lines 65-66) and that she would honour ‘the laws honoured by the gods’ (line 67). It is clear that she values the divine law that every man should be given proper burial rites subsequent to their detah. On the contrary, Creon states that ‘a man†¦ who does not adhere to the best policies†¦ is worthless’ (lines 170-173) in his inauguration speech. Creon thus upholds the rule of human law in Thebes, opposing to Antigone’s faith in divine laws, thus Antigone is viewed as ‘worthless’. Again, we can distinguish a clash of moral values of the two characters- divine law against human law. Antigone even phrases herself as ‘guilty of the crime of holy reverence’ (line 65), it is through the oxymoron that she accuses Creon’s rule of law turning ‘holy reverence’ into a crime. Though the two characters have not come in direct confrontation, however, we can already recognize underlying tension between the two characters through their dialogue with other supporting roles. Sophocles juxtapositions the similar character of Antigone and Creon as headstrong individuals who are determined in their decisions and their completely divergent values of philos against loyalty to polis, divine law against man- made laws. The accusations of ‘nothing’, ‘worthless’ and ‘crime’ provides the audience with understanding of the two characters as moral absolutists. Antigone is determined in burying Polyneices and defying Creon’s proclamation, whilst Creon persists in upholding the rule of law- to punish traitors and thus prohibiting the performance of burial rites on Polyneices’ corpse. Both are determined to uphold their respective moral values to the utmost extent, therefore we can foresee an ultimate collision between the two characters, which is precisely the central conflict presented in the play. To conclude, Creon’s opening speech is an attempt to justify his rule on Thebes. Creon endeavours to masquerade as a sound Theban ruler. However, in due course of his opening speech, his facade is slit open and gradually collapses, unveiling disagreeable traits of a polarised and absolute demagogue, and acknowledgeable qualities of an astute politician through various rhetorical, literary, lexical and structural attributes of Creon’s inauguration speech. The opening speech is an effective catalyst of the play as it sowed the seed of the destined discord between Antigone and Creon by displaying to the audience the similarly persistent character but completely divergent moral concepts valued by the two characters. Creon’s opening speech is a successful presentation of Creon’s multi- facetted character and the audience further anticipates a sudden reversal of fortune (peripeteia) begetting the revelation of Creon as a despotic ruler and his ultimate realisation of his fatal flaw- arrogance (hubris).