How Does Jean Anouilh Influence Creon

Whilst the work was presented in the interactive oral my development of the understanding and significance of the work’s cultural context greatly broadened. The discussion allowed for me to identify and meditate upon the work’s utilization of specifically characterization so as to represent and cultivate broader and perhaps conflicting ideas and perceptions.

I garnered an increased appreciation for the significance of the time period Jean Anouilh had adapted and published the play in. Beforehand, I was truthfully not aware that this had been during France’s Nazi occupation in the 1940s or had least not taken the time period of its publication date into account. Learning specifically about the way in which the playwright had been able to establish

His principal belief is that they must emotionally detach when deciding upon a verdict in order to overcome the moralities of society. As part of his primary response to Antigone’s defiance, he notably articulates that “kings have other things to do besides [wallowing in] their own woes” (33). This is of significance as the statement is in reference to his comparison of Antigone’s actions to “the pride of Oedipus” (32). Creon is emphatically criticizing the rule of the previous authority of Thebes by attributing Oedipus’ demise to his inability to detach himself from the direct social and emotional environment. Therefore, Creon indirectly suggests that in order to operate a society “more sensibly” authority must evade external influences and moralities (33). To further this point, he goes on to explicitly describe his role as king an “everyday job” (33). A characteristic of assigned employment to which Creon is obliquely referring to is the predetermined set of objectives and instruction; his idealized behavior of authority is thereby suggested to purely accept and enforce the foundation of laws and proclamations upon which the role of a king is constituted. This application of political pragmatism is likely derivative from Creon’s gain of responsibility subsequent of his coronation, the time of anointment of this occupation. Additionally, Creon states his role lacks

Although Creon expresses conviction for the predisposition of reason and emotional detachment he is contradictory of himself, his hypocrisy therefore rendering this belief superficial. Comparing the post-war society of Thebes to a sinking vessel, he reduces the general population to simple thieves “who won’t obey orders” and whose solitary intention or purpose is “looting the cargo” (39-40). The dismissal of individuality and prejudicial assignment of criminal behavior to those below him establish his individual power. Creon’s repetitive use of tumultuous nautical imagery: “water on all sides” (39), “the wind’s howling” (40)- [establishes] pathetic fallacy, emphasizing his generalized perception of the unyielding “crime” (39) present in the population. A component of the pragmatism he deems he must embody is rooted in the belief that authority is assigned, determining them as a passive agent to the state rather than fulfilling a personal agenda. Although contradictory to this, Creon’s determination to “grab the tiller” coalesced with his willingness to reduce the population to stereotypes indicates he is placing and actively establishing himself in a position of profuse power (40). Creon’s hypocrisy is additionally evident in his inability to remain emotionally detached when dehumanizing Antigone’s character consequent of his increasing intolerance to her defiance