UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation into Hegel’s theory of tragedy Black, Pamela Ann 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 B53.pdf [ 3.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095030.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095030-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095030-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095030-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095030-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095030-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095030-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095030-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095030.ris

Full Text

CJ,  AN I N V E S T I G A T I O N I N T O H E G E L ' S T H E O R Y OF  TRAGEDY  by P A M E L A ANN  BLACK  B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h  Columbia,  1978  A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS  FOR T H E D E G R E E OF  M A S T E R OF A R T S in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S (Department  We a c c e p t t h i s  of  Philosophy)  t h e s i s as  to t h e r e q u i r e d  conforming  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A October  1982  ( c ) P a m e l a Ann B l a c k ,  1982  In p r e s e n t i n g  this thesis  in partial  fulfilment of the  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of  British  it  freely available  agree that  Columbia,  I agree that f o r reference  permission  the Library  shall  make  and study.  I further  f o r extensive copying o f t h i s  thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f my d e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . understood that for  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  f i n a n c i a l gain  T^ACT-SO fitt •  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3  D  DE-6  a  (3/81)  t  e  r^oW-^os.^-  thesis  s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department o f  of this  It is  ISL  Columbia  tq^-L-  written  ii ABSTRACT In  this  t h e s i s I deal p r i m a r i l y with Hegel's  t r a g e d y , i n an a t t e m p t in t h i s area. observations  theory of  to both e x p l i c a t e and e v a l u a t e h i s i d e a s  The works o f Hegel  upon which  I have based  include the chapter entitled S p i r i t  in his  P h e n o m e n o l o g y o f S p i r i t and t h e s e c t i o n on D r a m a t i c his  Philosophy of Fine A r t .  dilemma which  Hegal  sion  Hegelian terminology necessary  given f o r such  terms  as S p i r i t ,  belief.  f o r this sort of discus-  two c h a p t e r s .  An e x p l a n a t i o n i s  Freedom, the U n i v e r s a l , the  Absolute and the s e l f - d e f i n e d s u b j e c t . Greek  to tragedy and then I  arises out of this  i s s e t out i n the f i r s t  Hegel's  interest  i n the  po1i s - t h e t e n s i o n between the autonomy o f the i n d i v i d u a l  and  t h e demands o f t h e s t a t e and h i s c o n c e p t s  and  Fate are also discussed. In  the second  plored to f urther  x  chapter Hegel's  i s h i s major  tragedy  from  ingredients obligation  historical  c la r if y h i s concept  the c o n t e x t i n which which  Poetry i n  I d e l i n e a t e the kind o f moral  a s s e r t e d as i n t r i n s i c  e v a l u a t e the theory which The  First  my  he f i r s t  presents  of tragedy  can be c l e a r l y  c i v i c duty.  b e l i e f which  i s ex-  o f S p i r i t and to p r o v i d e us w i t h t h e A n t i g o n e ,  At this stage the basic defined, i.e., familial  I discuss the p o s s i b i l i t y of  tragic division within Spirit itself, justifiable  dialectic  vehicle f o r the abstraction of his theory of  the rest of h i s system.  versus  o f C h r i s t i a n agape  the case i n which  morally  b e l i e f a n d a c t i o n may b e a t o d d s w i t h a c t i o n a n d is equally  justifiable.  The ethical  third  chapter offers  d u t i e s which  and the r e l a t i o n  Hegel  a more t h o r o u g h  examination of the  thought were unique to f a m i l y l i f e  these bore to the U n i v e r s a l .  Then a  e x e g e s i s o f t h e A n t i g o n e i s g i v e n , f o l l o w e d by t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e which  Hegal  and i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s In his  the f i n a l  his  chapter I deal with Hegel's  sizes  theory.  the.individual  events  therein depicted.  and c o n s i s t e n c y w h i c h  expanded  philosophical  p e r c e i v e d i n the play's major  t h e o r y to i n c l u d e modern t r a g e d y .  coherence  brief  attempt  to extend  I d i s c u s s the l e v e l  of  he m a i n t a i n s a n d t h e v a l u e o f  As h e c o n t e n d s  t h a t modern tragedy  and t h e needs and d e s i r e s o f h i s  empha-  particular  p e r s o n a l i t y o r c h a r a c t e r , I f o l l o w up o n Q u i n t o n ' s q u e r y whether Hegel's  t h e o r y c a n h o l d up o n c e we  s i g n i f i c a n c e away from t h e a c t i o n Finally,  does  world ultimately  Hegel  ethical  in tragedy. can  be  I s h e t h e o p t i m i s t he i s g e n e r a l l y  t a k e n f o r and a r e a l l s p h e r e s o f a c t i o n ethical  have taken the  I d i s c u s s what "the t r a g i c view of l i f e "  s a i d t o mean f o r H e g e l .  about  and b e l i e f  in his  c o n c o r d a n t and harmonious?  Or,  c o n s i s t e n t l y s u p p o r t a y e s o r no a n s w e r t o t h i s  ter  question, along with a l l i t s ensuing implications  and  Spirit.  indeed, lat-  for tragedy  - iv -  T A B L E OF  CONTENTS Page  ABSTRACT  i i  C H A P T E R ONE - I N T R O D U C T I O N C H A P T E R TWO  - S P I R I T AND H I S T O R Y  CHAPTER THREE - ANTIGONE  1 15 29  A.  The F a m i l y and t h e S t a t e  30  B.  The A n t i g o n e  38  C. T h e R o o t s o f H e g e l ' s T h e o r y o f T r a g e d y C H A P T E R FOUR - H E G E L ' S T H E O R Y OF T R A G E D Y  43 53  A.  Hegel's Theory of Tragedy  54  B.  Conclusion  63  FOOTNOTES  75  BIBLIOGRAPHY  78  - 1 -  C H A P T E R , ONE INTRODUCTION  -  2  -  This t h e s i s deals p r i m a r i l y with Hegel's i n an a t t e m p t area.  tragedy,  b o t h t o e x p l i c a t e and e v a l u a t e h i s i d e a s i n t h i s  This i n v o l v e s a d e l i n e a t i o n of the k i n d of moral  which  Hegel  a s s e r t e d as i n t r i n s i c  the theory which  a r i s e s out of this b e l i e f .  discussion.  F r e e d o m , The ject.  The  first  An e x p l a n a t i o n i s g i v e n f o r s u c h t e r m s  interest  two  i n the Greek  as  polis  i n terms and  also discussed.  chapter also explores Hegel's  dialectic  S p i r i t and  i n order to f u r t h e r c l a r i f y  to p r o v i d e the c o n t e x t i n which  with the Antigone, his  his major  Fate,  sibility which  of t r a g i c d i v i s i o n w i t h i n S p i r i t  m o r a l l y j u s t i f i a b l e b e l i e f and  The ethical and which  are e q u a l l y  third chapter offers d u t i e s which  the r e l a t i o n Hegel  Hegel  these bore  At  us  this defined,  I d i s c u s s the  itself,  a c t i o n may  pos-  the case i n  be a t o d d s  with  justifiable.  a more thorough  examination  t h o u g h t w e r e un i q ue ito. f ami Ty  of  the  life  to the p h i l o s o p h i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e  p e r c e i v e d i n the major  d e p i c t e d i n the A n t i gone.  of  instrument f o r the a b s t r a c t i o n of  o b l i g a t i o n versus c i v i c duty.  a c t i o n and b e l i e f w h i c h  his-  he f i r s t p r e s e n t s  theory of tragedy from the r e s t of his system.  familial  are  his concept  s t a g e t h e b a s i c i n g r e d i e n t s o f t r a g e d y c a n be c l e a r l y i.e.  ten-  the demands o f  o f C h r i s t i a n agape and  torical  Spirit,  of the  the s t a t e , and h i s c o n c e p t s second  sort  the s e l f - d e f i n e d sub-  s i o n between the autonomy of the i n d i v i d u a l  The  chap-  are necessary f o r this  U n i v e r s a l , the A b s o l u t e and  Hegel's  dilemma  t o t r a g e d y a n d an a n a l y s i s o f  ters p r o v i d e the f o u n d a t i o n s which of  theory of  events  and r e l a t i o n s h i p s  3  In t h e f i n a l  -  chapter I deal with Hegel's  his theory to i n c l u d e modern tragedy. of coherence  and  his theory.  As he c o n t e n d s  i n d i v i d u a l , and  c o n s i s t e n c y which  arise from  of l i f e "  the e t h i c a l  ethical world does  Hegel  the view  I s he t h e o p t i m i s t h e i s g e n e r a l l y  are a l l spheres  o f a c t i o n and b e l i e f i n h i s  u l t i m a t e l y concordant  upheaval  caused  Napoleonic wars brought  and h a r m o n i o u s ?  Or,  indeed, this  implications for  by ' t h e s e w i n d s o f c h a n g e .  Hegel.  R e v o l u t i o n and  and p o l i t i c a l  societies  Hegel,  p e r f e c t or  in the study of  by t h e F r e n c h  about moral  the s t r u c t u r e s o f a l ) European  the  confusion  lay exposed  and  to e r o s i o n  upon the c o m p l e t i o n  h i s most s i g n i f i c a n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l w o r k s , The  o f one  Phenomenology  of of  t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f s e e i n g some o f t h e i d e a l s and  p r i n c i p l e s which  he h a d h i t h e r t o p r a i s e d and s u p p o r t e d ,  as i t w e r e , o f f t h e p a g e a n d victory  at Jena  had so c l o s e a g l i m p s e H e g e l was  away f r o m  In c l o s i n g I c o n s i d e r w h a t " t h e t r a g i c  s o c i e t y i s an i m p o r t a n t o n e  S p i r i t , had  be  Spirit.  political  Napoleon's  t h e o r y can  q u e s t i o n o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f an e t h i c a l l y  harmonious  the  person-  c o n s i s t e n t l y s u p p o r t a n y y e s o r no a n s w e r t o  t r a g e d y and  The  the e x t e n s i o n of  s i g n i f i c a n c e is taken  latter question, along with a l l i t s ensuing  The  problems  d e s i r e s of h i s p a r t i c u l a r  can mean - f o r H e g e l .  t a k e n t o be a n d  extend  t h a t modern t r a g e d y emphasizes  the needs and  action in tragedy.  to  I discuss the  a l i t y or c h a r a c t e r , I q u e s t i o n whether Hegel's s u s t a i n e d once  attempt  into life.  (October  I am  13, 1 8 0 6 ) .  referring Few  a t h i s t o r y ' s m i l e s t o n e s and  leap, to  o f us the  have  young  o v e r w h e l m e d w i t h f e e l i n g s of hope f o r the f r u i t i o n  the v i c t o r i e s which  he  witnessed.  of  -  4  -  . . i t i s not d i f f i c u l t to see t h a t ours i s a b i r t h - t i m e and a p e r i o d o f t r a n s i t i o n to a new e r a . S p i r i t h a s b r o k e n w i t h t h e w o r l d i t has h i t h e r t o i n h a b i t e d and i m a g i n e d , and i s o f a mind t o s u b m e r g e i t i n t h e p a s t , and i n t h e l a b o u r of i t s own t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . . . The f r i v o l i t y and b o r e d o m t h a t u n s e t t l e t h e e s t a b l i s h e d o r d e r , t h e v a g u e f o r e b o d i n g of s o m e t h i n g u n k n o w n , t h e s e a r e t h e h e r a l d s of approaching change. The g r a d u a l c r u m b l i n g that l e f t u n a l t e r e d the face of the whole i s c u t s h o r t by a s u n b u r s t w h i c h , i n o n e f l a s h , i l l u m i n a t e s t h e f e a t u r e s o f t h e new w o r l d . 1 Hegel  saw  divisions. he saw  t h e t a s k of  p h i l o s o p h y t o be o n e  As a y o u n g man  what were t o him  at the Tubingen  the important  Stift  concepts  are g e n e r a l l y taken  as o n e ,  c i t y - s t a t e s of  i n such  t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l r e v o l u t i o n of  them i n the dead  in the t e a c h i n g s of Jesus was  an o d y s s e y  t h e p e a k of  i n which  of  although  the Church,  Christ.  at times  a wave from which  a way  from this  immediately  of  T h i r d l y he  revere  philosophical career  he b a l a n c e d p r e c a r i o u s l y on  and s o c i a l  provided  life.  present in the ideas with which  by no  he was  the  toppled  know, i n t o t h e d e p t h s  t h a t t h i s u n i t y was  ideas  B u t t o an  h i s mature y e a r s , Hegel  p e a k , n o t , as f a r as we  p a i r , but to the r e a l i z a t i o n  Secondly  he c o u l d s e e a l l h i s b e l o v e d  p e r f e c t s t r u c t u r e f o r man's m o r a l  be-  he c a m e t o d e n y  as h a v i n g t h e i r t r u e e x p r e s s i o n i n a u n i t y w h i c h  increasing extent throughout  as he  he c o n t i n u e d t o  Hegel's  man  had a r i s e n out  the Enlightenment.  b e l i e f s which,  formulae  These  the past to e x e m p l i f y .  he b e l i e v e d i n t h e s e l f - d e f i n e d s u b j e c t w h i c h  had s t r o n g r e l i g i o u s  another.  in  t o i n v o l v e f i r s t l y t h e i d e a of  p e a c e f u l l y c o h a b i t i n g w i t h man l i e v e d the Greek  i t seems t h a t  t o be g r a s p e d  a l i f e - t i m e , t o be i n p e a c e f u l h a r m o n y w i t h o n e concepts  of c a n c e l l i n g  of  des-  means  working.  To  -  5  -  the  c o n t r a r y , the ideas of the autonomous w i l l  the  c o n c e p t o f t h e c o m m u n i t y as o n e .  a set-back or d e f i c i e n c y he v i e w e d this the  T h i s i s n o t t o be s e e n  raised Hegel's u n f o l d i n g system out of a l l c o w s a r e b l a c k " (J^G 1 6 ) ,  chance of escape.  Hegel  a p h i l o s o p h e r t o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s e e how  Goethe,  depths  the p o l a r i t i e s i t was  and  h i s j o b as  t h e y m i g h t b e s t be  u n i t e d and e x e m p l i f i e d i n the l i f e o f  of  saw  t h a t , f a r from i g n o r i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s ,  were r i f e  man.  shared the y e a r n i n g s f o r the c l a s s i c a l  past that  a m o n g many p o e t s a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s o f h i s d a y , s u c h  Holderlin  the Greek  and S c h i l l e r , and h e l d t h e s u p p o s e d  p o 1 i s as a p o l i t i c a l  troubled times.  ideal  as man  which  through Germany's  own  Y e t he u l t i m a t e l y p r o c l a i m e d t h a t " o n l y t h e  is free."  W h a t a r e we  T h e e x i s t e n c e o f f r e e man  all  t o make o f t h i s  S p i r i t of humanity  was  the goal which  Hegel b e l i e v e d To  t h a t 18th or 19th c e n t u r y German s o c i e t y had  such a t h i n g undercuts the p l e t h o r a of arguments heaped  upon  us u r g i n g t h e d i a l e c t i c a l  f a c t , i t i s to deny  system?  as t h e c o n s c i o u s p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e  h i s t o r y s t r u g g l e d to a t t a i n f o r the i n d i v i d u a l .  however,  that  statement  a t once u p h o l d s and b e t r a y s H e g e l ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l  Universal  as  harmony  German n a t i o n s a t t a i n e d the c o n s c i o u s n e s s , i n C h r i s t i a n i t y , man  as  It is  h a d c a u g h t up S c h e l l i n g a n d o t h e r s , a n d w h o s e b o g g y  Hegel  with  i n Hegel's r e a s o n i n g , t h a t the ideas  mire "of the n i g h t i n which  afforded l i t t l e saw  a t odds  as s o n e c e s s a r y t u r n e d o u t t o be o p p o s i t e s .  r e a l i z a t i o n which  which  was  most of the  PG.  which  say, attained Hegel  nature of history.  In  has  -  The  6  -  problem with d i a l e c t i c a l  progress i s that i t is hard  s e e an a b s o l u t e e n d t o i t . H e g e l w a n t e d dialectic  both.  to  He c h e r i s h e d t h e  as t h e p r o f o u n d e s t m e a n s f.or t h e d e v e l o p m e n t  of ideas  a n d y e t he b e l i e v e d t h a t a l l o f h i s t o r y a n d h u m a n t h o u g h t h a d ultimate goal:  the comprehension  the S p i r i t of humanity, stressing  the need  of the U n i v e r s a l essence  the m o r a l l y p e r f e c t world.  f o r the view of the "whole"  German s o c i e t y had a c c o m p l i s h e d  w i t h o u t a h o l i s t i c view. is not Hegel's lief  i n the h i s t o r i c a l  fect,  I should like  w h a t may  What does man  dialectic.  of the  thought  t h i s end and  clearly purposes  p h i l o s o p h y and h i s  Having  pointed out this  i t m e a n t o s a y t h a t man, freedom  secondary  a s man,  is free?  he m u s t r e a l i z e h i s own  signifi-  Hegel, like  sub-  Rousseau,  t h a t man  i s born f r e e ,  t h a t he m u s t c o m e t o be f r e e as he l e a r n s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the e q u a l l y r a t i o n a l  "realize"  on  For  only possible within a s o c i e t y .  d i d n o t b e l i e v e , as d i d R o u s s e a u ,  i d e n t i t y as S p i r i t .  de-  r o l e i n s o c i e t y and h i s c o n s e q u e n t  b e l i e v e d t h a t f r e e d o m was  " r e a l i z e " his freedom  be-  r a t h e r than c o n f u s i n g in c e r -  s e r v i e n c e to the Spi'rit of humanity.  ally  con-  PG.  t o r e a l i z e h i s own  c a n c e , h i s own  kept  i n what f o l l o w s to c o n c e n t r a t e p r i m a r i l y  b e s e e n as i l l u m i n a t i n g  tain passages  Hegel  B u t w h a t i s i m p o r t a n t f o r my  n a t i o n a l i s m but h i s moral  of  picture in order  t o a c h i e v e t h i s g o a l and y e t he a l s o seems t o h a v e temporary  an  conventions of s o c i e t y .  as he m u s t " r e a l i z e " h i s s h a r e d  Man  He but rationmust  self-  As R o b e r t S o l o m o n p o i n t s o u t , t h e w o r d  is intentionally  ambiguous here.  r e c o g n i z e a n d b) t o m a k e i t s o .  Hegel  I t means b o t h a) t o  sees S p i r i t p r i m a r i l y  as  -  a " r e s u l t , " which a product.  Hence,  7  -  a c c o r d i n g l y means b o t h a) a c o n e ! u s i on a n d b) " t o r e c o g n i z e o u r s e l v e s as S p i r i t , as o n e , 3  i s t o make o u r s e l v e s S p i r i t . "  This i s freedom.  M a n , a s man-  kind, i s free. Hegel  endorsed the K a n t i a n concept o f Freedom,  emblematic  which  o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t , d e f i n i n g mere freedom  t r a i n t as " n e g a t i v e f r e e d o m "  and freedom  was  from  res-  t o t h i n k and p a r t i c i p a t e  in c o n f o r m i t y with moral  law as " p o s i t i v e f r e e d o m . "  s o c i e t y , however,  t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e laws and conven-  t i o n s , which  offers  grant i t s c i t i z e n s p o s i t i v e freedom.  which  freedom  i s achieved in a given society  which  i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s a r e human i n H e g e l ' s e y e s .  Not j u s t any  The e x t e n t t o  i s the extent to For  example,  t h o s e r u l e d by d e s p o t i s m i n t h e a n c i e n t O r i e n t were n o t human. T h e i r f r e e d o m was a r b i t r a r i l y by a s a v a g e  and a c c i d e n t a l l y  visited  r u l e r who h i m s e l f was n o t h u m a n b e c a u s e  was n e g a t i v e a n d he h a d no u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f H e g e l ' s cept of universal The Greek  them  h i s freedom 19th c. con-  freedom.  p o 1 i s on t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h i c h was t h e o b j e c t o f  s o much a t t e n t i o n of this  upon  i n Hegel's  time, demonstrated  that the citizen  5 t h c e n t u r y B . C . s o c i e t y was t h e p o s s e s s o r o f a s t r i k i n g l y  universal  consciousness.  T h e p o 1 i s was d e s i g n e d s o t h a t e v e r y  man s h o u l d h a v e h i s s a y a n d h i s c h a n c e t o b e r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e dynamic  political  developed. idual  Hence,  system which the Greeks  the Greeks  had p a i n s t a k i n g l y  understood the necessity f o r indiv-  autonomy w i t h i n a u n i f i e d c i v i c body.  Charles T a y l o r says  t h a t i n H e g e l ' s e y e s t h e p o1 i s , " t h e h i g h e s t a r t i c u l a t i o n o f s o c i e t y , " had a touch of the d i v i n e .  .However, t h e p o l i s had  -  only  a touch  of the d i v i n e .  freedom.  nature  of the  -  The  s t r a t e d t h a t the Greeks too versal  8  presence of slavery  lacked  Eventually,  according  laws, t h a t i s , the  making body, l e d to the t o t a l Hegel's treatment fold point.  understanding  to Hegel,  tant phase in h i s t o r i c a l  that the po1is  i t also illustrates  how  i n d i v i d u a l autonomy.  perish  i n the  i n t e r e s t s of a greater  versal.  The  how  the  an  impor-  limits  of  entity will  Hence, the  event-  c i t y - s t a t e must  understanding  human and  must  limitations  of the  A n t i g o n e i s an e x p l i c i t e x a m p l e o f how u n i t y of the  towards  society  the very  a unified, singular political  ually destroy  t i c u l a r and  P_G m a k e s a t w o -  It depicts  cohesiveness  an a r r a n g e m e n t , " t h e  decision-  development, that is development  i n d i v i d u a l autonomy w i t h i n  by  parochial  represented  e n d e a v o r to g r a n t  necessitated  uni-  c o l l a p s e o f t h e p o 1 i s.  of the U n i v e r s a l .  , but  the  of  l i m i t e d scope of the  of the A n t i g o n e i n the  Hegel b e l i e v e s  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  a true  demonr •  the  just  divine  Unisuch  ((par- "  u n i v e r s a l ) ) , bought at the expense of a c e r t a i n 4  parochialism,"  can  turn, with  s u r p r i s i n g ease, i n t o a moral  battleground. This  leads  to the other  side of Hegel's purpose in his  of the A n t i g o n e .  Human a c t i o n s  within  o r e v e n d i c t a t e d by  or i m p l i e d  conflict.  This  form of moral resent  The  dilemma.  actions  s t r u c t u r e we  conflict  can  be j u s t i f i a b l e  i s what Hegel  the  law  and  as  delineated  still  t r u e s t , most b a s i c  Greeks were apparently  discovering  in  a conflict  or b e l i e f s which are j u s t i f i a b l e w i t h i n  have the  cause  came t o r e c o g n i z e  When b o t h p a r t i e s w i t h i n  ingredients  t h i s in a very  use  of  a  the rep-  social tragedy.  immediate  -  and f u n d a m e n t a l  way.  9  -  Hence, perhaps, the i n c r e d i b l y  accurate  a n d s u c c i n c t n a t u r e of many of t h e i r t r a g e d i e s , n o t t h e l e a s t which  i s the A n t i gone.  A n t i gone,  i t s h e d s on t h e a n a t o m y o f m o r a l  be s e e k i n g t o d i s c o v e r i n t h i s  My  interests  dilemmas  the theory of tragedy.  I shall  u s e of t h i s p l a y i n t e r m s g e s t e d by i t , a n d I w i l l dilemma  dilemma,  i s what  paper.  i n t h e A n t i g o n e as a m a j o r c o n t r i b u t o r t o o u r  understanding of moral  of moral  the  b o t h a s t h e b a s i s f o r a t h e o r y of t r a g e d y a n d i n t e r m s  of t h e l i g h t I shall  T h e v a l u e o f H e g e l ' s a n a l y s i s of  of  a r e s e c o n d a r y t o my  t h e r e f o r e be e x a m i n i n g  of the g e n e r a l moral  of this very system of moral  Hegel's  the  phi1osophy- i s central  This ultimately  in  philosophy sug-  then seek to d i s c o v e r whether  inherent in this  theory of tragedy.  interests  sort  to a  leads to a c r i t i c a l  analysis  beliefs.  In h i s e a r l y m a n u s c r i p t s on C h r i s t i a n i t y , H e g e l h a d  be-  l i e v e d t h a t a s p i r i t of u n i t y c o u l d , i n f a c t , t r a n s c e n d the separation  c a u s e d i n s o c i e t y by t h e d e m a n d s o f r a d i c a l  autonomy.  He h a d h o p e d  t h a t a s i n g l e s o l u t i o n c o u l d be f o u n d i n  t h e v i c t o r y o f one s i d e o v e r t h e o t h e r . a desire for political love would  o v e r c o m e a n y d e m a n d s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l w h i c h  b e l i e v e t h a t i t was  really  satisfied.  and i n d i v i d u a l  that  might  H o w e v e r , he c a m e i n t i m e t o  the case t h a t both s i d e s must  brought unto a u n i t y w h i l e each  a central  T h a t i s , he h o p e d  u n i t y with the help of C h r i s t i a n b r o t h e r l y  threaten the cohesion of the whole.  was  individual  T h i s p r o b l e m , how  requirement remained  be  intact  to u n i t e e x p r e s s i v e wholeness  a u t o n o m y i s w h a t i s d e a l t w i t h i n t h e PG_ a n d  i s s u e f o r the Romantic  and  age.  A d m i r a t i o n f o r the  was Greeks,  - 10 basically which  Christian beliefs,  Hegel  and  Kantian leanings are a l l trends  shared with the Romantics.  the Romatic  view  pushed  w a r d s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  H e n c e , we  h i s t o r y a step forward  impact The  on H e g e l  new  was  a movement towards  were i n the thoughts through which  man  M e a n i n g was and  that this  i n man,  a c t i o n s o f man,  a r e s u l t of the s c i e n t i f i c  an " e m a n c i p a t i o n  from meaning."  l i b e r a t e d man  external  or natural world.  progress  in understanding  self-knowledge  purpose  meaning and o r d e r  '?"J^:.  n o t i o n of s e l f which  o f G a l i l e o and The  century, a Newton,  no  the  longer  order in nature,  The w o r l d  Weber's phrase.  is  I s e e t h i s w h o l e r e v o l u t i o n as r y e t a n o t h e r  nor  "entzaubert,"  P r o g r e s s was  I s e e T a y l o r ' s r e m a r k as m i s l e a d i n g  I t i s o n l y t h a t now  under-  and myths o f  S c i e n t i f i c p r o g r e s s was the meaningful  s t e p i n man's  the meaning i s s h i f t e d  escape because search away  from the cosmos, i t s cloak of anthropomorphic  myth i s s h e d ,  meaning i s centered w i t h i n manking.  the moderns  that the systems  was  d a w n i n g age o f s c i e n c e ,  from the laws  r e l a t e d to t h i s .  t o u s e Max  from past i l l u s i o n .  for meaning.  a l l pervading  i n t e n t and  r e v o l u t i o n of the 17th  m o v e m e n t s p a r k e d by t h e i n s p i r a t i o n  "disenchanted,"  understanding  objectified.  C h a r l e s T a y l o r s a y s t h a t t h i s new  was  major  f i n d s h i m s e l f w e r e no l o n g e r p r o j e c t e d o n t o  t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d , t h e w o r l d was  Taylor maintains  a  a self-defined subject.  o r d e r , i n f a c t , t h e p o i n t was  order did not e x i s t .  with i t .  a l s o had  n o t i o n o f s e l f h a d n o t h i n g t o do w i t h a n y  of cosmic  lies  which  that  in a trend to-  o f t h e U n i v e r s a l , and Hegel  A c e n t r a l i s s u e of the Enlightenment  can see  Although  o f o r d e r and t h e a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m  of  the  and thought  -  1.1  -  a n c i e n t s were s e l f - i n d u l g e n t and unconducive tific to  or philosophical  moral  o r d e r p o s e d by t h i s  disillusionment of this  i n past  beliefs,  revolutionary philo-  H e g e l , a n d many o f h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , s e t o u t t o d i s -  c o v e r how t h i s of  scien-  progress, the obverse dangers, the threat  w e i g h e d h e a v i l y upon t h e a r c h i t e c t s sophy.  to genuine  "new" m a n , l i b e r a t e d  cosmic order, a t o m i s t i c a l l y  find peaceful political individual  f r o m myth and t h e t e l e o l o g y  s e p a r a t e and s u b j e c t i v e , c o u l d  unity without sacrificing  this  new  found  autonomy.  Hegel  believed that the individual  within just  s h o u l d be g u i d e d  from  as a p o l i t i c a l  body s h o u l d be g o v e r n e d  from w i t h i n .  No e x t e r n a l r u l e r g o v e r n e d  t h e G r e e k po1 i s , p u b l i c  l i f e was an  expression  a n d a common e x p r e s s i o n , n o t m e r e l y  by an u n c h a l l e n g e a b l e , e n f o r c e d l a w . levels the  o f human d e a l i n g .  political  desire.  So s h o u l d i t be on a l l  J u s t as he d i d n o t w a n t d i v i s i o n i n  b o d y , he d i d n o t w a n t i n t e r n a l  a n d he s t a n u c h l y o p p o s e d K a n t ' s his  Hegel  felt  actions limited  division  division  i n man  o f man's r e a s o n  from  t h a t t h e b e s t argument a g a i n s t Kant  be f o u n d i n C h r i s t i a n i t y ,  although i t i s often  could  misunderstood.  T h e m e s s a g e o f J e s u s w a s a c a l l t o man t o r e s t o r e t h e l o s t u n i t y , t o r e p l a c e t h e law w h i c h c o m m a n d s f r o m o u t s i d e a n d d i v i d e s men from n a t u r e and each o t h e r with the v o i c e of t h e h e a r t , t h a t a f f i n i t y o f s p i r i t w i t h n a t u r e w h i c h comes f o r w a r d i n l o v e . 5 This  i s the love, the Christian  i n a l l y thought woul d conquer to  agape, which Hegel  s e p a r a t i o n b u t w h i c h he l a t e r  s e e as o n l y one h a l f o f t h e b a l a n c e .  standing of this  Christian  had o r i g -  The c l a s s i c  came  misunder-  l o v e i s p r e s e n t i n both t h e Jewish and  - 12 Catholic faiths. h i m man  I f man's God  i s d o m i n a t i n g and i n h i s l o v e f o r  submits h i m s e l f to His w i l l ,  i t i s to become His  H e n c e t h e r e i s a h i e r a r c h y o f s e r v i t u d e i n w h i c h man  slave.  is divided  a g a i n s t h i m s e l f through h i s a b i l i t y or d e s i r e to s e r v e h i s  God.  Y e t t h e r e a l r e a d y d i d e x i s t t h i s m o r a l l y a u t o n o m o u s man  who  at t h i s stage u n d e f i n a b l e i n Hegel's  thought  that h i s moral  s u b j e c t was  gious man.with what Hegel not.  philosophy.  m o r a l l y autonomous whereas, called  K a n t had man's R e a s o n  an u n h a p p y  this  reli-  c o n s c i o u s n e s s , was  r u l i n g h i s p a s s i o n s , and, w i t h a view  to b a l a n c e , d o m i n a t i n g the d e c i s i o n making o f t h e m o r a l man.  Kant  was  The c a t e g o r i c a l  apparatus i n the  mind  i m p e r a t i v e d i c t a t e d t h a t man's  a c t i o n s b e a r t h e t e s t o f " u n i v e r s a l i z a b i 1 i t y ," a n d i f o n l y t h o s e a c t i o n s t h a t c o u l d be a c c e p t e d as i f t h e y w e r e a u n i v e r s a l w e r e f o l 1 o w e d , t h e n t h e a u t o n o m o u s man possible. taken.  Hegel, however,  society  b e l i e v e d t h a t K a n t was  The d i f f e r e n c e between  a n d t h e K a n t i a n m o r a l man  i n a moral  these "misusers" of  their  in himself,  concept of "fate" i s another aspect of his h i s moral  and h i s p h i l o s o p h y o f h i s t o r y , both o f which  in h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the A n t i gone.  i t i s e v e n f o r K a n t , we  a g a i n s t w h i c h we  trespass.  philcentral  upon  u s , as H e g e l  be-  are never reconciled with that  This i s because  c r i m e and w e i g h i n g p u n i s h m e n t ,  are  religious  I f law i s p r o v i d e d f r o m a  s o u r c e e x t e r n a l t o us o r i s s o m e h o w i m p o s e d lieves  lord  slave."  b e l i e f and i t seems to p r o v i d e a l i n k between osophy  mis-  Christianity  outside themselves, while the l a t t e r c a r r i e s his lord  Hegel's  was  seriously  i s t h a t t h e f o r m e r "have  y e t a t t h e s a m e t i m e i s h i s own  law  any s y s t e m o f j u d g i n g  a c c o r d i n g to Hegel, i s brought  - 13  -  a b o u t t h r o u g h d i v i s i o n s o f man sions  a r e no  reason  and  trespasses  longer  p a r t i c u l a r and  are  against  the  itself.  History  life  reacts.  "The  united with  cease to cause d i v i s i o n , then and  more Greek than  the path  the  the  our  the  unity of l i f e  is  the  is clearly  to remember  c l a s s i c a l system  upon a s i n n e r ' s  E u m e n i d e s f l y down  is  upset,  the  The  symbolism, however, is c l e a r .  no c u r s e  In t h a t we  l a s t u n t i l the balance s u f f e r , we  is  is  If the  a c t o f s e t t i n g i t r i g h t i s p a i n f u l and  a d i v i s i o n which w i l l  that  11 i s  In H e g e l ,  heavens.  fate,  restored.  oneness i s C h r i s t i a n agape.  to remember t h a t t h i s i s not  If  7  together.  of d i v i n e r e t r i b u t i o n that i t seems.  the  wounds  from fate is  of h i s t o r y are healed  do t h e  Spirit,  this injurious  retributive doctrine  o f f - s p r i n g nor  our  to r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . "  i t is C h r i s t i a n , i t is important  love that restores  also important  road  heals  receive  as t o b r i n g on  Although this apparently  the  pas-,  are a d i v i s i o n i n  p u n i s h m e n t we  i n j u r e d , i t o f f e r s the  trespasser  they  h i s t o r y meets and  c e a s e t o a c t i n s u c h a way  Both the  But when our  e g o i s t i c but  itself,  passage of time,  that of l i f e  i f we  man.  the S p i r i t of a l l mankind through love, then,  and w i t h  we  against  cast  from balance  disruptive;  restored^  a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t we  have  erred. 8  Antigone True moral chapter will  consciousness,  on S p i r i t  i s a t one  with  i n t h e P_G,  which i s the is a state  the U n i v e r s a l .  in which the  This  i n a t i o n of Hegel's odyssey, i t is absolute the  ultimate  goal  the  subject's  i s e x p l i c i t l y the knowledge.  in  dest-  Through  r e f l e c t i o n upon t h i s o d y s s e y w h i c h t h i s t h e s i s p r o v i d e s  it  - 14 will  b e c o m e c l e a r how  autonomy versus of tragedy. its which  the problem  b e l i e f i n the s t r u g g l e  g o a l , an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of the U n i v e r s a l ,  the p r o t o t y p e  for a l l true tragedy.  had  its inception  i n the p o l i t i c a l  believed  of h i s t o r y  theory towards  i s a l s o the  As he f e l t t h i s  progress.  path he  felt  collision  s t r u c t u r e o f the G r e e k p o 1 i s,  that i t i s to t h i s s t r u c t u r e which  o r d e r to understand history's  individual  the context f o r the t r a g i c c o l l i s i o n which  was  Hegel  in society,  the w e l f a r e of a l l , gave r i s e to Hegel's  Hegel's  provides  o f man  the b i r t h of tragedy  we  on t h e w a r  must look i n torn stage  of  -  15  CHAPTER S P I R I T AND  -  TWO HISTORY  The T r a g i c S t r u g g l e f o r Freedom  B u t e v e n a s we c o n t e m p l a t e h i s t o r y as t h i s s l a u g h t e r b e n c h o n w h i c h t h e happiness o f p e o p l e s , the wisdom o f s t a t e s , and t h e v i r t u e o f i n d i v i d u a l s have been s a c r i f i c e d , o u r t h o u g h t s c a n n o t a v o i d t h e q u e s t i o n , f o r whom, f o r what f i n a l aim t h e s e monstrous s a c r i f i c e s h a v e b e e n made. Hegel , P h i l o s o p h y o f H i s t o r y  - 16 The PG,  section that  the  chapter  dialectic. alectical  Hegel b e l i e v e d  in t h i s u n f o l d i n g ical  I s h a l l p r i m a r i l y be d e a l i n g w i t h  concerned with  in nature  and  upon these corrects  contrary  case  events  itself  and  t h a t we redefine the  itself  of humanity seeking path  historical  i s an u n r e a l i z e d  purpose  in major phases of h i s t o r -  who  are  contrary  to  constantly  not  historical  one  of steady  run  annihilated. rebuilding  c o n t r a d i c t the  at each phase.  re-  rather,  the  purpose,  The  purpose  developments is  to u n d e r s t a n d t r u e u n i v e r s a l i t y , the  i s c l e a r l y not  the  i n t e r p r e t i n g and  the purpose, but  by  and  to m o t i v a t e  the  forms of l i f e w h i c h seem to  more or l e s s s u c c e s s  which Hegel b e l i e v e s  in  of h i s t o r y i s d i -  d e v e l o p m e n t s run  i n an a t t e m p t t o f u l f i l l  the  unfolding  a  to the p u r p o s e are a l t e r e d or c o m p l e t e l y  meeting with  but  represents  also that there  H i s t o r y endeavors to " h e a l " ruins  that the  When t h e s e  purpose, i t i s not the  history  Spirit,  which is manifested  development.  flecting  -  that  Absolute,  progress.  T h e c i t y s t a t e f a i l s as a r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e u n i v e r s a l , because i t s parochial nature c o n t r a d i c t s t r u e u n i v e r s a l i t y . The r e v o l u tionary state destroys freedom because i t t r i e s t o r e a l i z e i t i n a b s o l u t e f o r m , by d i s s o l v i n g a l l a r t i c u l a t i o n s of s o c i e t y , without which freedom cannot e x i s t . ^ I t may spect  and  be t h e  consciousness  the d e s t r u c t i o n  to i n t e r p r e t h i s t o r y . precise beginning ment the  that Hegel's "purpose" applies  is essentially interpretive.  of a u n i v e r s a l then  case  causing  For  instance,  in retrothe  seeking  f i r s t the development  of the Greek c i t y - s t a t e , can Consequently, although  t o t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t , and  one  be s a i d a t can  find  p r i o r to t h i s  p u r p o s e i s m e a n i n g l e s s , the p u r p o s e can  and  be  best no  develop-  subscribed  - 17 to as a r e f l e c t i v e  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n because,  p l a i n s the "tortuous paths Thus, i n a h i s t o r i c a l purpose  Hegel  feels,  o f h i s t o r y " b e t t e r than  anything  a n i m o u s a g r e e m e n t among p h i l o s o p h e r s  t a n t t o keep i n mind through  t o be un-  that Hegel's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  i n h i n d s i g h t i s accurate or sound. the ensuing  standing of the u n i v e r s a l i s Hegel's and moral  Even s o , i t i s impor-  d i s c u s s i o n t h a t an  major c r i t e r i o n  S p i r i t i s the constant which  moves t h r o u g h  r e v o l u t i o n destroys the order which  i s necessary  and g r o w t h .  the Greek p o1i s which  great enough. sequent and  and  downfall  Hegel  th.is c h a p t e r ' s  l i e i n man's i n a b i l i t y  social  institutions.  Sophocles'  i s great but not  down t h r o u g h  In t h e p l a y , A n t i g o n e beyond, the sphere  epitaph speaks  Hegel  with  i s the social  The r o o t s o f  united.  He c a n n o t  in his  a perfect instance  represents the claims of the world  is intuitively  The  i t s d i v i s i o n from the U n i v e r s a l .  o f a c t i o n and b e l i e f which  claims of the state.  is socially  to a r t i c u l a t e this concept  A n t i gone p r o v i d e s  of s o c i e t y ' s break  Antigone  mani-  gives rise to tragedy.  manifestation of the Universal.  tragedy  which  f o r development  i s o l a t e s the c o l l i s i o n which  d e v a s t a t i n g and which  aim" o f which  political  when  Through t h e development o f the p o1i s and i t s sub-  politically  "final  o f the u n i v e r s a l which  progress.  history, gaining  s t r e n g t h a t h i s t o r y ' s h i g h p o i n t s and s u f f e r i n g d i v i s i o n  Our i n t e r e s t l i e s with  under-  f o r a free  s o c i e t y and hence h i s y a r d s t i c k f o r h i s t o r i c a l  f e s t s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  else.  d i a l e c t i c , we h a v e no " s e l f - a u t h e n t i c a t i n g "  as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t , and t h e r e i s n o t l i k e l y  applied  i t ex-  Creon  of the  i s D i v i n e and with represents the .  s e e how t h e b u r i a l  of a traitor  - 18 t o t h e p o l i s c o u l d be an e t h i c a l l y s u p p o r t a b l e cannot  s e e how  the p o l i s s h o u l d  be a l l o w e d  matter  which l i e s s t r i c t l y between her  proceeds  to i g n o r e  t h e s t a t e ' s command.  due  to s h o r t s i g h t e d n e s s  on t h e p a r t o f b o t h  deceptive  the  i t s Gods  bring about.  Hegel,  p a r t i e s and  support  i t i e s of the matter laws, and  this internal strife.  and  a hopeless  u n a b i l i t y to grasp  and  tragic repercussions.  rent in s o c i a l order which Hegel  that  Through the the  This  calls  f e e l s has  elimination  an  meeting of these  i s what the U n i v e r s a l  of borders,  as a f o e b u t the p o l i t i c a l  body.  r e c o g n i t i o n and than  Antigone,  and  in the play brings  should  In t h e s e n s e t h a t s h e  he i s t h e o n e  denying  would  of the S p i r i t  divisions.  Creon should  as s o m e o n e w h o s e c l a i m s  the  requirements  An  of  under-  would l e a d not to compromise, but  i n c l u s i o n of the o p p o s i t i o n .  A  i s , i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y the  b o u n d a r i e s - and  of the U n i v e r s a l  a  a d i v i s i o n in Spirit.  as a n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e w e l f a r e  This  is  conflict creates  Divine  be s e e n b y man  state's  truly  c i v i c and  The  un-  the U n i v e r s a l  S p i r i t w o u l d be a b l e t o m e e t t h e d e m a n d s o f b o t h realms.  of  complex-  Universal  standing  par-  and  to expand the l i m i t e d scope of the  t h i s i s a r e v e l a t i o n which Hegel  devastating  humanity.  is  both  however, f e l t  w i l l i n g n e s s , which Creon d e m o n s t r a t e s , to p e r c e i v e  revealed  and  p o i n t w h i c h t h i s p l a y makes i s t h a t the s t r u c t u r e  p o l i s cannot  parochial  a  Such a c o n f l i c t  down by t h e a c t i o n s w h i c h t h e i r p a r t i a l  perceptions  the g r e a t e r  Antigone  to i n t e r f e r e with  f a m i l y and  she  t i e s are brought  action.  not see  Antigone  be r e p r e s e n t e d i s t h e one  to  asking  i t , Creon i s more  within for  culpable  i t seems t h a t the t r a g i c r e s o l u t i o n e f f e c t e d greater  blame upon C r e o n than  upon  Antigone.  - 19 S p i r i t , f o r Hegel, r e p r e s e n t s t h e f i n e s t , most q u a l i t i e s o f human c o n s c i o u s n e s s . iences of the individual m a t u r i t y were analogous through gives  historical  Hegel  rational  f e l t that the exper-  human c o n s c i o u s n e s s  developing  to trends i n the development  and p r e h i s t o r i c a l  times.  towards  of Spirit  Prehistorical  time  us man i n a n i n f a n t s t a t e w i t h a p r i m i t i v e c o n c e p t o f h i m -  s e l f and t h e w o r l d around  him.  f i l l e d with his individual understanding  T h i s p r i m i t i v e man i s a c r e a t u r e  d e s i r e s and needs with l i t t l e  o f the. u n i v e r s a l .  o r no  H e n c e man i s d i v i d e d f r o m  Spirit,  o r m o r e a c c u r a t e l y , t h e p s i r i t o f man i s d i v i d e d f r o m t h e A b s o l u t e Spirit.  Spirit  i s d i v i d e d from  itself.  I f man i s t o r i s e t o t h e p o i n t w h e r e h e c a n be t h e v e h i c l e o f t h i s r e t u r n , he h a s t o be transformed, to undergo a long c u l t i v a t i o n or f o r m a t i o n ( B i l d u n g ) . . . Thus i n o r d e r t o know i t s e l f i n t h e w o r l d , S p i r i t h a s t o b r i n g a b o u t an a d e q u a t e e m b o d i m e n t i n human l i f e i n which i t can r e c o g n i z e i t s e l f . 1 1 In R e a s o n i n Hi s t o r y , t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y p a r t o f H e g e l ' s t u r e s on t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f h i s t o r y , Hegel  lec-  says:  The g o a l o f w o r l d h i s t o r y i s t h a t S p i r i t come to a knowledge o f what i t t r u l y i s , t h a t i t give this knowledge o b j e c t i v e e x p r e s s i o n , r e a l i z e i t i n a world which l i e s before i t , i n s h o r t , p r o d u c e i t s e l f as an o b j e c t f o r itself.12 The o r g a n i z a t i o n o f c o m m u n i t i e s understanding  some s e n s e  see h i m s e l f i n t h i s whole,  a microcosm  i s the f i r s t step  of the universal.  development  Man i s e x p e c t e d t o  as an a c t i v e p a r t o f a d y n a m i c  i n a macrocosm, and t h a t which  b o a s t s o f now e x t e n d s  towards  f a r t h e r than h i m s e l f .  Hegel  he d e f e n d s does  and  not claim  -  that history unfolds  20  -  in a simply  progressive  from s i m p l i c i t y to s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , nor the  individual. h i s t o r y we  grant  i n d i v i d u a l autonomy w i t h i n  is  does the c o n s c i o u s n e s s  Consequently, at a r e l a t i v e l y  world  jurisdiction.  manner, that  early stage  in  have the Greek c i t y - s t a t e s which endeavored a totally  democratic  t o be  d i v i n e , c o m p l e x and  very  the  a stage  advanced in i t s seen  i n h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h m u s t be d e s t r o y e d  i n t e r e s t s of f u r t h e r progress.  Spirit-surerof-itself,  the f i n a l  in which S p i r i t perceives  This and  i t s own  outside  o f i t s e l f , no e x t e r n a l  totally  uni v e r s a ! .  of  con-  a c c o m m o d a t i o n o f t h e n e e d f o r i n d i v i d u a l a u t o n o m y , i t was as.only  to  system  W h i l e t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e G r e e k p o 1 i s was  s i d e r e d by H e g e l  of  is because,  in  ultimately,  thus f a r i n a c c e s s i b l e  phase  u n i v e r s a l i t y , must have  r e s t r i c t i o n s , in order  to  nothing be  I t i s t h e s t a t e o f h u m a n i t y w r i t l a r g e - as S p i r i t - t h a t i s f r e e , not the i n d i v i d u a l . ^ Hence the  necessity  be f r e e w i t h o u t To b e s t iest first  understand Hegel's concept  collective aggressiveness. to act c o l l e c t i v e l y  and  from there  of " G e i s t . "  as R o b e r t S o l o m o n p o i n t s  tities.  out,  that  I t i s easy to  cannot  is Hegel's version  be  eas-  "fellow necessary comprehend,  "team s p i r i t " means more  It involves  i s b e t t e r and  of  make t h e  the  understanding  more u s e f u l  I t means i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e i n a c t i o n and Spirit  Man  o f S p i r i t i t may  the more f a m i l i a r n o t i o n s  "team s p i r i t "  i n t o Hegel's realm  larly.  the U n i v e r s a l .  it.  to c o n s i d e r  f e e l i n g " and leap  for understanding  of the  than  to act  than  that singu-  intertwined  "humanity" of Kant  idenand  - 21 Rousseau.  It involves  h u m a n s who  merit  not  -  a respect  this respect  f o r i n d i v i d u a l s but  through t h e i r shared  for  identity in  Spirit. T h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h a t " a b s o l u t e " c o m m a n d m e n t Know t h y s e l f - w h e t h e r we l o o k a t i t i n i t s e l f o r in the h i s t o r i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s of i t s f i r s t utt e r a n c e r- i s n o t t o p r o m o t e m e r e k n o w l e d g e i n r e s p e c t to the p a r t i c u l a r c a p a c i t i e s , c h a r a c t e r , p r o p e n s i t i e s a n d f o i b l e s of t h e s i n g l e s e l f . The k n o w l e d g e t h a t i t c o m m a n d s i s t h a t of m a n ' s g e n u i n e r e a l i t y - of w h a t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a n d u l t i m a t e l y t r u e a n d r e a l - o f S p i r i t as t h e t r u e a n d e s s e n t i a l be ing . 1 4 The  c o l l e c t i o n becomes, f o r Hegel,  stituents  and  abstract social classes  i n d i v i d u a l s w h i c h make them Tragic  c o n f l i c t , then,  causes in S p i r i t .  action, his  than  its  are more r e a l than  con  the  up. is a c o n f l i c t which is p r i m a r i l y s  n i f i c a n t f o r H e g e l i n t e r m s of  f l i c t within  more i m p o r t a n t  the d i v i s i o n i t represents  Hegel b e l i e v e d  t r a g i c c o n f l i c t t o be a c o n -  the powers which r u l e the world "ethical substance."  or  As.Bradley  o f man's w i l l  and  puts i t :  T h e f a m i l y a n d t h e s t a t e , t h e b o n d of p a r e n t a n d c h i l d , o f b r o t h e r a n d s i s t e r , of h u s b a n d a n d w i f e , o f c i t i z e n and r u l e r , or c i t i z e n and c i t i z e n , w i t h t h e o b l i g a t i o n s and f e e l i n g s a p p r o p r i a t e to t h e s e b o n d s ; and a g a i n f e e l i n g s o f p e r s o n a l love a n d h o n o r , o r o f d e v o t i o n t o a g r e a t c a u s e o r an i d e a l i n t e r e s t l i k e r e l i g i o n o r s c i e n c e o r some k i n d o f s o c i a l w e l f a r e - s u c h a r e t h e f o r c e s exh i b i t e d i n t r a g i c a c t i o n . . . A n d as t h e y f o r m t h e s u b s t a n c e o f man, a r e common t o a l l c i v i l i s e d men, a n d a r e a c k n o w l e d g e d as p o w e r s r i g h t f u l l y c l a i m i n g human a l l e g i a n c e , t h e i r e x h i b i t i o n i n t r a g e d y has t h a t i n t e r e s t , a t o n c e deep and u n i v e r s a l , w h i c h i s e s s e n t i a l t o a g r e a t w o r k of a r t . 1 5  - 22 Ethical also ethical  substance action.  jective social  i s not only ethical  consciousness but  I t k n o w s no " o t h e r " o r e x t e r n a l ; t h e o b -  e n t i t y b e f o r e i t i s no o t h e r t h a n a p a r t o f i t -  self,as  reality  is a l l a part of i t . Spirit actualized in  ethical  substance  i s t h e s o u r c e , t h e goal and the work o f a  society.  I t i s the f o u n d a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n o f custom  It i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t the opposing be c l e a r l y  defined.  a society. ethical  Ethical  When H e g e l  substance,  is signified  Hegel  identity but that every  i s c a p t u r e d i n t h e Greek  individual (not This i s the  poli s, a s i t u a t i o n  w a n t s t o b e l i e v e , s o much m a n i f e s t s  vidual  by  n o t mean t h a t e v e r y i n d i v i d u a l i s  u n i q u e l y ) i s sure o f h i s i d e n t i t y with the whole. moment w h i c h  situation  represents the unity of  says s e l f - i d e n t i t y , which  he does  s u r e o f h i s own u n i q u e  substance  forces in this  and law.  the wills  which,  of i t s indi-  c o n s t i t u e n t s t h a t t h e y c a n f i n d no i d e n t i t y f o r t h e m s e l v e s  without  i t , n o r c a n the- p o l i s w i t h o u t  same t i m e as t h i s i d e n t i t y i n d i v i d u a l , which  i t s members.  But at the  i s being achieved, the action of the  i s a p a r t o f t h e same moment, r e n d s  t h e u n i t y o f s o c i e t y by t h e i n d i v i d u a l w o r k a n d t a k i n g h i s own s h a r e . i s what makes s u b s t a n c e  asunder  a c c o m p l i s h i n g h i s own  F a r from being d e v a s t a t i n g , t h i s  a c t u a l and a l i v e ; Hegel  says  ment o f f o r c e s i s t h e "movement and s o u l o f s u b s t a n c e  this  comple-  and the  r e s u l t a n t u n i v e r s a l b e i n g . " (P_G 4 3 9 ) "The  living ethical world  B u t t h e P_G d o e s There  n o t e n d here..  a r e two s p h e r e s w h i c h  is Spirit Spirit  in i t s truth".  is divided within  (PG 442) itself.  s t r u g g l e t o c o - e x i s t and they a r e t h e  realm o f c u l t u r e and t h e w o r l d o f b e l i e f o r f a i t h ; the realm o f  - 23 essential  being  which marks the who  according  to Hegel.  t i m e when the  have a grasp  of S p i r i t  a t i o n c a u s e d by t h e s e  -  two  It i s the  Enlightenment  i n s i g h t s of c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s ,  returned  to i t s e l f t h r o u g h the  spheres,  separ-  become d i f f u s e d - t h a t  is, I  s u p p o s e , a r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e u n i t y o f S p i r i t dawns a c r o s s land.  S p i r i t d i v i d e d , and  the  r e a l i z e d in r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , expands  f r o m m e r e l y e n c o m p a s s i n g a l l r e a l i t y as we  know i t , t o  encompas-  s i n g t h e b e y o n d as w e l l , w h i c h marks' t h e  i n t e g r a t i o n of r e l i g i o n  with  t h i s new a l l -  e t h i c s , and m o r a l i t y  now  represents  encompassing S p i r i t , S p i r i t - s u r e - o f - i t s e l f . s e c t i o n on S p i r i t through  i s to f o l l o w  its destruction  the world  whence a r i s e s the  l u t e S p i r i t . " (P_G The first  final  Morali t a t or moral view self-consciousness  with  c a r r i e d out  real circumstances  of the  three  t h i r d , which Hegel  self-consciousness ario, represents misleading Taylor, stance  the g r e a t  Abso-  in a given  society.  of the the  i n t h e s a m e way  interact  t o c a l l , as  the p o1i s a d i v i n e a r t i c u l a t i o n of s o c i e t y . at t h i s stage  with.  However t h i s can  i t is misleading  truly universal  or the  merely a r t i c u l a t e the best  that  the scenbe  does  Were  po1 i s t r u l y  understanding  is  changing  Substance, in this  essence.  cus-  second  i n f i n i t e middle term, is  individual.  universal  The  i n d i v i d u a l , t h a t i s the  c a l l s the  The  s t o r e o f laws and  t h e i r d e s t r u c t i o n , o r d i v i s i o n w o u l d n o t be n e c e s s a r y . is they  of  of  active ingredients.  s i t u a t i o n which each i n d i v i d u a l must c o n s t a n t l y The  the  443)  is substance representing and  purpose of  e t h i c a l world ( S i t t l i c h k e i t )  "actual  scene is set, then,  toms e n f o r c e d the  to the  the  The  sub-  divine, As  it  society  - 24 and  the i n d i v i d u a l i n i t have a t t h i s time o f the u n i v e r s a l  the  d i v i n e , but they  real  are, in fact, small-scale  and  models of the  thing. 1 ft Ethical  action  action  i s the prohodos, the step  taken.  The  i s h e r e an a n t i t h e s i s , i n t h a t i t n e g a t e s p u r e  by r e p l a c i n g  i t with  action.  When S i t t l i c h k e i t i s o p e r a t i n g  s m o o t h l y i n an o n g o i n g s o c i e t y , s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s implicitly and  united with  i n action which unites  a l i t y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o S u b s t a n c e as w e l l . barely,  i s a l l a very  t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l i s c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y customs which maintain and  his society.  This,  complicated  following  "preserves  mores.  The s y n t h e s i s  H o w e v e r , on o c c a s i o n  contrary  of the thought pose with the  the action,  which  as h e e d i n g some e n d w h i c h  to the established  that i t i s i n the nature  tinctions within  itself  ness i s i m p l i c i t l y  laws.  of consciousness  spheres."  united with  so t h r o u g h a c t i o n , t h e o n l y  to create  as a w o r l d  articuconscious-  S u b s t a n c e , and becomes  explicitly  coherent  (P_G 4 4 5 )  dis-  Since  d i s t i n c t spheres of consciousness spheres of ethical substance,  directs  By t h i s f a c t we c a n  - "exhibiting itself  lated into i t s ((separate))  of course,  way o f s a y i n g  i n deed t h e thought o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l , be-  trays the self-consciousness  perceive  I hope i t  t h e a n t i t h e s i s t o s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s " (P_G 4 4 5 ) , i n  that i t immortalizes  actions  the re-  t h e l a w s a n d i.  the action i s the v i s i o n o f unity which these  established  i s always  Substance, that i s , customs and laws,  t h i s u n i t y becomes e x p l i c i t  is c l e a r , i f only  thought  result of there  i s that there  being  two  a r e two d i s t i n c t  t h e human a n d t h e d i v i n e .  Hegel's c r y p t i c foreshadowing of the great  This i s ,  role the  - 25 A n t i gone i s g o i n g t o p l a y i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n and e x p l a n a t i o n o f the d e c l i n e and f a l l vidual  o f the Greek  p o1i s .  Consequently,  c o n f r o n t e d by t h i s d i v i d e d s u b s t a n c e  an  indi-  and f o r c e d i n t o  a c t i o n by some p r e s s i n g d i l e m m a i n h i s p e r s o n a l r e a l i t y  will  e n t r u s t h i m s e l f t o o n e o f t h e s e two s p h e r e s  "according toi t s  nature."  "it"  (P^G 4 4 5 ) ( H e g e l  stances because  almost  always  he i s r e f e r r i n g  Whichever knowingly  i s b y no m e a n s  w a y an i n d i v i d u a l  of substance  therefore, deceptive. in the r i g h t because law s o u n d l y  t o t a k e he i s a c t i n g  guide.  The  at this stage of development i s , firmly  he has e i t h e r t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s t a t e i n the  own c a s e , D i v i n e Law i s t h e u n -  description of this deceptive  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the Greek  I t was n o t m e r e l y  t h r e a t e n e d and o f f e n d e d t h e gods, session of sight, a mistaken power which  the other  The a g e n t b e l i e v e s h i m s e l f t o be  Hegel's  a thorough  he i s  i n t h a t he i s u n a w a r e t h a t  g u i d i n g h i m , a s was t h e c a s e w i t h C r e o n  (ufo/Qij) .  begat overwhelming  knowledge  concept of  a p r i d e so s t r o n g t h a t i t i t was a b l i n d n e s s i n t h e p o s -  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f one's se1f-confidence.^  of hubris i n a c h a r a c t e r i n c l a s s i c a l hamartia  enough,  neuter.)  in his singular vision  A n t i g o n e , o r , as i n A n t i g o n e ' s  hubris  see soon  and u p s e t t i n g t h e b a l a n c e o f Reason.  knowledge of the i n d i v i d u a l  indicates  chooses  h i m s e l f , but unknowingly  by h i s a c t i o n h e i s e c l i p s i n g  yielding  We s h a l l  self-  i n t h a t he i s c o g n i s a n t o f t h e r e a l m t o w h i c h  committing  sphere  i n these i n -  to the individual  consciousness, not the individual. however, that consciousness  says  7  p o s i t i o n and The  appearance  tragedy i s often h i s  (^W\PT«*.) , h i s t r a g i c f l a w w h i c h ,  i n spite of the  - 26 c o u n t l e s s good q u a l i t i e s u a l l y cause h i s r u i n .  a n d i n t e n t i o n s he may  Aristotle  tells  have, w i l l  event-  us:  ( 1 ) A g o o d man m u s t n o t be s e e n p a s s i n g f r o m h a p p i n e s s t o m i s e r y , o r ( 2 ) a b a d man f r o m m i s e r y t o h a p p i n e s s . . . N o r on t h e o t h e r h a n d s h o u l d ( 3 ) an e x t r e m e l y b a d man be s e e n f a l l i n g f r o m h a p p i n e s s i n t o m i s e r y . . . T h e r e r e m a i n s , t h e n , an i n t e r m e d i a t e k i n d of p e r s o n a g e , a man n o t p r e e m i n e n t l y v i r t u o u s and j u s t , whose m i s f o r t u n e i s b r o u g h t u p o n h i m n o t by v i c e a n d d e p r a v i t y b u t by s o m e e r r o r of j u d g e m e n t . ( P o e t i c a B. 1 3 ) 1 8 I t has o f t e n been one  s a i d of A t t i c t r a g e d y t h a t , s i n c e e v e r y -  knew t h e m a i n s t o r y - l i n e s , w h i c h w e r e b a s e d o n e i t h e r  fied tribal  lore or well-known  p l a c e of s u s p e n s e .  This i s t r u e , however t r i t e  a n d t h e A n t i g o n e was employed  s a c r e d myths, irony took  i n good  the above-mentioned  company i n terms  glori-  the  i t may  sound,  of t r a g e d i e s w h i c h  devices to fill audiences with  g r i e f f o r a b r a v e and n o b l e c h a r a c t e r . Hegel  d e a l s p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y w i t h a s i m i l a r i r o n y b u t t o do  s o he m u s t t a m p e r playwright. b a l a n c e of  w i t h t h e f a c t s of  t h e p a s t as much as d o e s  The p o l i s, f o r a l l i t s b e i n g s u c h a individual will  any  harmonious  and the w e l f a r e o f t h e w h o l e ,  doubt-  l e s s l y w i t n e s s e d t h e r i s e t o p o w e r of a g r e a t many p e o p l e , P e r i c l e s of Athens  p e r h a p s b e i n g an e x a m p l e ,  who  were f o r c e d  c o n s t a n t l y t o make d e c i s i o n s w h i c h  i n v o l v e d s o m e q u e s t i o n of  religious  Hegel  over a g a i n s t the l e g a l .  t h i s as a m a j o r p r o b l e m  to d e a l w i t h are always  i s r i g h t t o c e n t r e on  i n h i s t o r y , as e x a m p l e s  c u l t u r e and i n e v e r y era..  But the examples  the extreme  the  abound  which  Hegel  in every chooses  ones where n e i t h e r the p r o -  t a g o n i s t nor the a n t a g o n i s t can u n d e r s t a n d the o t h e r ' s s i d e  the  - 27 least little the  bit.  knowledge  This  i s because  i s t r y i n g to portray  o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l a t t h i s s t a g e as  Antigone, Creon, Oedipus sighted,  Hegel  knowing  though  and countless not knowing.  others  deceptive;  are blind  When t h e s c a l e s  though  o f human  and d i v i n e j u s t i c e t e e t e r , t h e answer i s n o t t o a b o l i s h one s i d e and r a i s e t h e o t h e r  to i n f i n i t y  as A n t i g o n e d o e s .  we a r e t o t h i n k o f t r a g i c c h a r a c t e r s actions which  as r e s p o n s i b l e  b r i n g on t h e i r doom b e c a u s e  they themselves  receive  t h e i r d o o m a s an e x t e r n a l  argue l a t e r , Creon  sightedness  stroke  i s an a c c u r a t e  Hegel q u o t e s A n t i g o n e as s a y i n g  By t h i s  l a b e l i n g o f f a t e as un-  we s u f f e r we  (P_G 4 7 0 , A n t i g o n e 1. 9 2 6 )  i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t Hegel  stances  i n which  successful  surveys the s i t u a t i o n , weighs  decisions  never gives  but with  full  best o f h i s a b i l i t y . acknowledge  I do n o t t h i n k  t o be  (human) and not b l i n d l y  the slighted side to the that Hegel would want t o  that such a r a t i o n a l and c l e a r - s i g h t e d d e c i s i o n  p o s s i b l e o f a member o f a p o l i s. according  ofi n -  a r e made, w h e r e t h e a g e n t  but nevertheless  and appeases  con-  examples  s a c r i f i c e s t h a t might have  to h i s nature"  knowledge,  acknowledge  In t h i s  made i n t h e s p h e r e o f t h e d i v i n e a n d o f t h e l e g a l "according  interpre-  summation o f t h e s i t u a t i o n .  "Because  nection  chooses  of fate  i s more t h e v i c t i m o f t h i s s o r t o f s h o r t -  t a t i o n o f a f f a i r s we c a n s e e t h a t H e g e l ' s  t h a t we h a v e e r r e d . "  blindness,  (In the Antigone, I  and s u f f e r i n g than i s Antigone.)  comprehended necessity  though  f o r the  of their  o r Moi r a , a l s o b e c a u s e o f t h e i r b l i n d n e s s . will  Even  The whole  problem  t o Hegel, r i d d l e s t h e s o c i e t y o f the Greek  was  which, city-state  i s t h a t man h a s n o t y e t g r a s p e d t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e u n i v e r s a l .  -  The  28  -  c i t y - s t a t e has a c h i e v e d t h e purpose  causing him to i d e n t i f y with  of broadening  man's  a l a r g e r w h o l e , b u t t h e laws  c i t y - s t a t e a r e p a r o c h i a l i n n a t u r e and members o f t h e s e cannot  be e x p e c t e d  whole which spheres,  would  to look beyond these to take involve the divine.  N e c e s s i t y would  force but something believes  Through  understood  soon  the in dividual will  in the d i a l e c t i c  consciousness.  that leads to  o n b y h i s own  achieve a consciousness  as an i n d i v i d u a l  l o n g e r one w i t h  The bottom  a l i g n s himself with  the "simple substance"  which, be a  o f t h e u n i v e r s a l he a single city. of a parochial  b u t t h i n k s h i m s e l f as p a r t o f some u n i v e r s a l e m p i r e under.  limit-  l i n e , h o w e v e r , i s t h a t as  has an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  q u e n t l y t h e c i t y - s t a t e goes  Hegel  of his  of i t s perception of the entire c o n f l i c t , will  no 1 o n g e r u n c r i t i c a l l y no  a union o f  balance.  t h e laws  the t r a g i c p r o t a g o n i s t ' s d e s t r u c t i o n brought  universal  societies  in the larger such  t o be c o n t r o l l e d by s k i l l f u l  p o 1 i s t o be p a r o c h i a l a n d t o o k  because  of the  no l o n g e r be an e x t e r n a l u n c o n t r o l l a b l e  t h a t o n c e an i n d i v i d u a l  ed v i s i o n ,  view,  and  He i s ethic, conse-  -  29  -  CHAPTER THREE ANTIGONE: Spirit  and. T r a g e d y  A c t i o n i n t h e w o r l d on t h e p a r t o f t h e community i s s t i l l o u t o f phase with the t r u l y u n i v e r s a l . In m a k i n g e f f e c t i v e t h e p a r t i c u l a r , a c t i o n thus opens a struggle within the ethical i t s e l f . This struggle i s tragic...The tragic c h a r a c t e r who b e l o n g s t o t h i s s t a g e o f u n r e f l e c t i n g S i t t l i c h k e i t i s o n e who acts only h a l f - c o n s c i o u s o f what i s a t stake. He s e e s o n e l a w ; he d o e s n ' t see t h e o t h e r which i s t i e d t o i t , whose v i o l a t i o n l i e s i n the r e a l i z a t i o n of the f i r s t . He i s b l i n d i n t h e v e r y possession of s i g h t . ^  -  A.  -  The F a m i l y and t h e S t a t e Hegel  c o u l d n o t have found  ocle's Antigone  s o c i e t i e s which  democratic  have sought  pletely exclude the diversity of laws  a b e t t e r instrument than  t o d e p i c t c l e a r l y w h a t was a c o n s t a n t  not only to the t r u l y all  30  these communities  the d i v i n e sentiments  foreseeable twists of events  problem  societies of the past but to a f t e r a u n i t y which  does  among i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s .  m u s t s e t up c a n n o t  brought  Soph-  about  n o t com-  The kinds  p o s s i b l y accommodate  i n t h e h e a r t s o f many b y u n -  and p a s s i o n s .  Consider here  C h r i s t and S o c r a t e s , t h e two f e l l o w t e a c h e r s most a d m i r e d Hegel.  T h e m a r t y r d o m o f t h e s e men a n d o f A n t i g o n e  t r i b u t e d to Hegel's will yield  a higher level  Revolution.  vide humanity  by  perhaps  of understanding,  i f we a r e l u c k y .  H i s t o r y , though  i t has a g o a l , does  with steady forward progress.  i s from the whole p i c t u r e , which  true enlightenment  Hegel  If  aftermath of the  Moreover,  not proinsight  i s h a r d l y e v e r f a s t on t h e h e e l s o f d e s t r u c t i o n a n d r u i n . it  con-  b e l i e f t h a t , p a i n f u l as i t i s , d e s t r u c t i o n  we a r e n o t , we h a v e f o r e x a m p l e t h e t e r r i f y i n g French  Jesus  thought  Rather  he saw, t h a t  comes, b u t c o n s t a n t g l a n c e s over t h e s h o u l d e r  are the next best t h i n g . I have s a i d b e f o r e t h a t the a c t i o n o f the i n d i v i d u a l sciousness f o r itself state merely  con-  runs counter to the u n i v e r s a l i t y o f the  by v i r t u e o f i t s i n d i v i d u a l i t y .  I have a l s o s a i d  t h a t t h i s was an e s s e n t i a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n a n d t h a t i n a c t i o n t h e self-consciousness i s (optimally) explicitly ethical  substance.  united with the  The n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n to t h i s  r u l e i s when  - 31 D i v i n e Law c o m e s i n . t o p l a y . substance says:  D i v i n e Law i s a p a r t o f t h e e t h i c a l  b u t i t i s n o t made m a n i f e s t  ' i t i s opposed  to the fully  i n human l a w a n d F i n d l a y  conscious  dimension  of action, 20  and  extends  Of c o u r s e because  down t o w a r d s i t i s opposed  the inner essence to most c o n s c i o u s  dimensions  t o , some i n n e r e s s e n c e .  I would say, instead of extending  So w h i l e a c t i o n - f o r - s e l f i s c o u n t e r  t o t r u e u n i v e r s a l human l a w , i t i s n o r m a l i t i s action i n accordance  and i n f a c t  that i s other than  the ethical  In H e g e l ' s convoluted society  then  i n D i v i n e Law m u s t i n i t i a l l y  predictable.  knowingly substance  be s u b s t a n c e  ranks  Since the  acting - for - self, which  i s represented  that simply  uncon-  S e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s f o r D i v i n e Law m u s t d e v e l o p  ever, i n order f o r the realm of the divine to f a l l ordained  rather  but the r e s u l t i n g p o s i t i o n of the family i n  involves consciousness  is.  necessary f o r  i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e f a m i l y he e m p l o y s  reasoning  sub-  u l t i m a t e l y be d e v a s t a t i n g t o t h e s t a t e .  as an a n t i t h e s i s , t h e e t h i c a l  sciously  though  i s a c c e p t a b l e e n o u g h b y now e v e n  community  by e t h i c a l  power o f the' s t a t e , then  we h a v e t h e k i n d o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n w h i c h growth of S p i r i t , w i l l  necessary  with the authority of the state.  I f , ^however, a c t i o n - f o r - s e l f i s m o t i v a t e d stance  of action  t h e s e t e n d t o be d i c t a t e d by l a w , b u t i t i s p r e s e n t i n  the i n d i v i d u a l , s p r i n g i n g from,  if  ofindividuals.'  of ethical  substance.  how-  into the  H e n c e D i v i n e Law  develops  i t s s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s as s e l f - i n - o t h e r , i n t h e most n a t u r a l ethical  community which  i s the Family.  (Why t h i s  self-  consciousness  m u s t b e s e l f - i n - o t h e r I am n o t s u r e u n l e s s i t  is t h a t Hegel  believes that this  of s e l f  awareness.)  i s the only possible inception  -  At i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n  32  -  the Family is- s t i l l  cal  o r d e r and as s u c h i s o p p o s e d  cal  order of the state.  to the existing conscious  As a n i m m e d i a t e  counter to the o r d e r of the state which universal. versal  Hegel s a y s :  Spirit."  an u n c o n s c i o u s  ethical  ethi-  o r d e r , i t runs  i s . w o r k i n g toward the  "The Penates s t a n d opposed  (PG_ 4 5 0 )  ethi-  to the uni-  "Penates" normally referred to the  p a r t i c u l a r m i n o r d e i t i e s w h i c h w e r e t h o u g h t t o l o o k a f t e r a Roman household.  T h e r e i s an a t t a c h e d m e a n i n g , h o w e v e r , w h i c h  never primary i n L a t i n usage b u t to which mitted:  the Penates  are the spirits  Hegel  was  is totally  com-  o f t h e d e c e a s e d f a m i l y mem-  b e r s who, i f h o n o r e d a n d d e f e r r e d t o i n r i t u a l , s m i l e p r o t e c tively  down u p o n t h e h o u s e h o l d .  household Penates  is clearly  Such  significance attached to  l i n k e d w i t h H e g e l 's p h i l o s o p h y c o n -  c e r n i n g t h e d e a d a s we s h a l l s e e . The because  f a m i l y i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be an u n c o n s c i o u s e t h i c a l i t r e p r e s e n t s the realm o f the "Beyond."  order  I t attempts to  m a k e c o n s c i o u s , t h a t i s , t o m a k e c o m p r e h e n s i b l e t o man t h e w a y s of t h e Gods. which  T h e r e i s a p a r a d o x h e r e i n t h a t i t xs> " t h r o u g h V f o ' t u a l  man h i m s e l f d o e s  not clearly  u n d e r s t a n d t h a t he a t t e m p t s  t o make u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t h e s h a d o w y r e a l m o f r e l i g i o n . the r i t e s  o f d e a t h i n t o h i s d o m a i n man f e e l s he w i l l  By t a k i n g g a i n power  o v e r d e a t h i t s e l f a n d no l o n g e r b e a pawn o f t h e w h i m s o f t h e Gods o r t h e i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e ways o f N a t u r e .  Furthermore, the  r e l a t i o n s h i p o f f a m i l y members w i t h o n e a n o t h e r i s an one.  I t i s n a t u r a l and unmediated  s t r u c t u r e s which society.  by t h e p o l i t i c a l  a r t i c u l a t e the citizen's  Hence, f o r Hegel, e t h i c a l  immediate  and s o c i a l  relationship to his  obligations within the family  -  are  -  a l s o unmeditated i n t h a t they  structures  and are thus,  Ethical  This  earthly  the m y s t e r i e s We t e n d natural ship  external  unconscious.  ethical behaviour  reasoning.  deals with  a r e n o t d i c t a t e d by  a c t i o n which i s d i r e c t e d toward the p o l i s , however,  is conscious its  33  because there  i s no m y s t e r y i n  i s t h e sphere o f a c t i o n and b e l i e f which  comprehensible issues, not ritual  cloaked  o f the Beyond. to regard  t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n f a m i l y members as  r e l a t i o n s , b u t Hegel  i n s i s t s that  "this natural  i s j u s t as much a . s p i r i t u a l o n e , a n d i t i s o n l y  itual  entity that  important  in  ( ( t h e Family))  key t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g  is ethical." the ensuing  relation-  as a s p i r -  (P_G 451 )  discussion  An  i s that  t h r o u g h o u t H e g e l s e e m s t o mean b y " c i t i z e n " t h e i n d i v i d u a l  being-  f o r - s e l f i n s o c i e t y , a n d by " i n d i v i d u a l " t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n h i s r o l e as a f a m i l y member.  A t any r a t e , t h e s p i r i t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p  o f f a m i l y members i s what i s u n i v e r s a l love and p r o t e c t i o n ; unit.  Hegel says  i t i s what gives  strong  and above f e e l i n g s o f  ethical order  to the family  t h a t s i n c e w h a t i s u n i v e r s a l J_s_ t h i s s p i r i t u a l  bond, what i s s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h i n ticularly  over  the family  i s not love or par-  f e e l i n g s b e t w e e n p a r t i c u l a r members b u t t h e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t h e whole f a m i l y . whole Family  i s the ethical substance,  in t h i s case  placed  the whole. has  munity.  and e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e i s  in this relationship of the individual to  Any a c t i o n w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l p e r f o r m s as a c i t i z e n  a negative  conscious  The  r e l a t i o n to the family  i n that i t i s mediated,  a n d d i r e c t e d t o w a r d t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y t h a t i s t h e comI t pulls the c i t i z e n out of his family  unit.  - 34 Within  the Family  however, i t i s both  the i n d i v i d u a l i n the Family action  i s motivated.  t h a t a r e the end towards which a l l  Teaching,  other services. rendered  t h e whole Family and  n u r s i n g , p r o t e c t i n g and any  i n accidental or contingent  circumstances  do n o t , w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e f a m i l y c o n s t i t u t e a n e t h i c a l action.  Ethical  individual not f a l l  a c t i o n - ' c a n o n l y be r e l a t e d t o t h e who!e  o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l q u a u n i v e r s a l . ' (P_G 4 5 1 )  i n t o t h i n k i n g t h a t any e f f o r t s  We  must  to promote the happiness  or w e l f a r e o f a b l o o d r e l a t i o n have any k i n d o f t o t a l p o s i t i v e e f f e c t t h a t may e v e r b e c o n s i d e r e d a u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e e t h i c a l action within the family. action w i t h i n the sphere  The only deed t h a t i s t r u e of the Family  the l i v i n g b u t t h e dead.  takes  ethical  as i t s o b j e c t , n o t  T h e i n d i v i d u a l F a m i l y member i s i n d e e d  t h i s o b j e c t , b u t n o t as a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l w i t h i n a r e a l i t y of  'a l o n g s u c c e s s i o n o f s e p a r a t e d i s c o n n e c t e d e x p e r i e n c e s ' b u t  as a n i n d i v i d u a l who accidents of life 21 451) is  'has r a i s e d h i m s e l f o u t o f t h e u n r e s t o f t h e  i n t o the calm o f simple  u n i v e r s a l i t y . ' (PG  Promoting the c u l t o f the dead, to use F i n d l a y ' s words, not merely assuring the well being of the i n d i v i d u a l i n the  beyond, and through rational pressed  ethical  ritual  c l a i m i n g death  as a ' t h i n g d o n e  by  a c t i o n , but a l s o , because o f Hegel's b e l i e f ex-  i n s e c t i o n 450 i n t h e power o f t h e P e n a t e s ,  dead assures  1  the well being o f the whole Family.  care f o r the  And y e t as a l -  ways an i n d i v i d u a l F a m i l y member must a l s o be a c i t i z e n , as i t is  i n this  without in  c a p a c i t y a l o n e t h a t he i s ' a c t u a l a n d s u b s t a n t i a l ; '  this negative aspect of Family  the Family  ' i s o n l y an u n r e a l  life,  impotent  the individual with-  s h a d o w . ' (PG^ 4 5 1 )  The  -  venturing  35  -  out which i s c i v i c l i f e , which i s represented  by H e g e l  as f r a g m e n t e d , b l i n d , a n d i n f a c t d o w n r i g h t s i n f u l i n i t s c o n stant destruction  of the universal, i s a l labsolutely  for S p i r i t to reach  the Absolute  necessary  i n the u n i v e r s a l i t y that i s  death. It i s , perhaps, d i f f i c u l t within  t o u n d e r s t a n d how e t h i c a l  t h e s p h e r e o f .the f a m i l y  gations  can exclude  which spring from a love  duties  to f i f t h  century  reveals able  to posit a greater sphere,  My d i s c u s s i o n  when Hegel  mainly  to create  standing The  as u l t i m a t e l y  the desire to protect and d e f e n s i b l e  and  other-  cause.  an a t m o s p h e r e w h i c h w o u l d f a c i l i t a t e  material  and Hegel f e l t  glorious  ancestry  How-  generally  our under-  in the  accepted  Antigone.  as t r a g i c  t h a t i f we a r e t o a p p r e c i a t e  tragedy's  we h a v e t o b e i n a p o s i t i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e  i t had i n i t s time.  have made.his case  supportable  reason-  r a i s e d t h i s i s s u e i n t h e PJ5 h i s m o t i v e was  r i g h t t o b u r i a l i s no l o n g e r  could  of Fine A r t  variety of ethical action within the  o f the g r a v i t y o f the dilemma presented  significance  four of  had t o concede t h a t i t i s  w i s e a i d f a m i l y members i s a n o b l e ever,  however,  i n chapter  of this topic i n the Philosophy  that Hegel e v e n t u a l l y  familial  Hegel,  which  t h i s s t a t e o f a f f a i r s as one w h i c h i s u n i q u e  B.C. A t h e n s .  his l a t e r treatment  and o b l i -  and a d e s i r e t o p r o t e c t  seems so i n t r i n s i c t o f a m i l i a l e t h i c a l r o l e s . ultimately portrayed  action  I t seems, however, that  Hegel  j u s t as s t r o n g l y w i t h o u t  s u c h an u n -  d e f i n i t i o n of e t h i c a l roles but there  are reasons  w h i c h , r i g h t l y o r n o t , l e d h i m t o make s u c h a d i s t i n c t i o n .  -  36  -  Hegel wanted to r e p r e s e n t within  the  family  the sphere of e t h i c a l  as s o m e t h i n g t r u l y u n i v e r s a l .  in his h i s t o r i c a l  d i a l e c t i c he s e e m e d t o t h i n k  m a t t e r s o f t h e body and  universal one  to the i n two  sense the  In t h e  Universal.  family  individual  j o i n the  Penates benefits i n i t and  cumstances of the  universal  had  only  was  the p o l i t i c a l  caused a great  promotion  the e n t i r e f a m i l y  and  the  strife  i n t h e new  t h i s newer c i v i l with  had  political f a m i l y was  of  e x i s t i n g clan system.  system.  Thus i t i s  uni-  ethical.  units  (dernes)  now  and  Once the their  of a l l e g i a n c e s  and  which rear-  family  unit  difference internal  Many c l a n s w e r e u n w i l l i n g c o n v e r t s  i n s t i t u t i o n and to/the  resented  family.  v o i c e because her  unit that mattered. insignificant.  cir-  aware t h a t the p o l i s i n  political  s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n s u f f e r e d by  a political  the  entire  and w h i c h o v e r r u l e d  of confusion  what seemed s a c r e d  ever,  t h a t H e g e l was g o v e r n e d by  be.  consequently  u n i t were the same b u t  deal  par-  the  r e c e n t l y been o r g a n i z e d  ranged the p r e v i o u s l y and  t h e B e y o n d i_s_ i n  essence which is  i n d i v i d u a l o r f a m i l y may  B.C.  Hegel,  d o e s s o no m a t t e r w h a t t h e a c c i d e n t a l  It is also l i k e l y century  to  In t h e s e c o n d p l a c e  v e r s a l l y b e n e f i c i a l f o r m a n k i n d and  fifth  opinion.  It i s where the dead l o s e t h e i r  s u b s t a n c e o f human k i n d . the  f i r s t place  contigent  shallow  of the Beyond, however, are,  senses.  point  particular  heart were too a c c i d e n t a l , too  realm  t i c u l a r e m b o d i m e n t and  At t h i s that  on t h e s h i f t i n g s a n d s o f u n m e d i a t e d d e s i r e a n d Obligations  action  Now  political The  interference  greatest  the women.  l e s s , how-  Once a woman  f a m i l y , o r g e n e , was she  Hence the  had  to  no v o i c e  tragic heroine  and  the  only  her  struggling  -  37  -  to m a i n t a i n t h e r i t e s o f t h e f a m i l y i n t h e f a c e o f a body  politic  that cared not ata l l . Agamemnon, t h e Greek campaign  g e n e r a l who l e d t h e l o n g b u t v i c t o r i o u s  against Troy, s a c r i f i c e d  of f a i r wind  f o r his mission.  h i s own d a u g h t e r  His outraged wife k i l l e d  upon h i s r e t u r n , v a i n l y u p h o l d i n g a house w h i c h , ically  although  polit-  t o o , speaks  o f h e r a c t i o n s as i f t h e y were  polit-  and not p e r s o n a l l y m o t i v a t e d . n o t be " a c c u s e d  She w i l l  bury her b r o t h e r  because  she w i l l  tragedy  i s t h a t a l l e g i a n c e t o h e r f a m i l y i_s p o l i t i c a l  Her f a m i l y noQ more m a t t e r s . odd  distribution of ethical  and  female  this  o f t r e a c h e r y " (1. 4 6 ) . Her  Hegel  of Greek  d u t i e s and i n h i s d e p i c t i o n o f male  r o l e s i n s o c i e t y (which  tragedy so poignant  however.  We do n o t n e e d  of beliefs  l i s i o n which  this  not p e c u l i a r .  I discuss in section C of  f o r the Greeks.  made t h e s u b s t a n c e Hegel  goes  too f a r ,  t h i s s t r a i n e d p o s i t i n g o f such a c u r i o u s  i n order to understand  the Antigone.  t r a g e d y and most Greek  tragedy represents i s  The c o l -  I t has u n i v e r s a l s i g n i f i c a n c e and i t c a n be  s t o o d and a p p r e c i a t e d w i t h o u t assertions  treachery.  i s trying to portray, i nhis  chapter) the p e c u l i a r circumstances which  system  Agamemnon  s u c c e s s f u l , had d i s i n t e g r a t e d from w i t h i n .  Antigone, ically  f o r the sake  the majority of Hegel's  c o n c e r n i n g t h e Greek  world  view.  under-  strident  - 38 B.  The  -  Antigone  Hegel  i s a n x i o u s to d e m o n s t r a t e the  d e c l i n e of the  i n e v i t a b i l i t y of  c i t y s t a t e because of i t s i n a b i l i t y  date f o r the d i v i n e r i g h t s of the f a m i l y , while  to  the  accommo-  maintaining  its  22 c i v i c laws.  I t seems i n d e e d  this reasonably b r i n g up  w e l l , but  t h a t i n most cases  the e x c e p t i o n  is that which Sophocles gives  s i t u a t i o n , which Hegel  which is being t h o u g h t was  He  which Hegel  is going  has  Eteocles  The  is  made a t r a i t o r and  comes i n f o r c e a g a i n s t  h e l d by h i s b r o t h e r  to  us i n t h e A n t i g o n e .  d o e s n o t e x p l i c i t l y r e l a t e t o us  in which a c i t i z e n , Polyneices, enemy o f h i m s e l f .  the po1i s does  one  public  the s t a t e of  Thebes  to c l a i m what  he  his r i g h t f u l throne, with the r e s u l t that: . . . s o n s o f o n e man, o n e m o t h e r ' s s o n s , s e n t t h e i r s p e a r s each a g a i n s t each and f o u n d t h e s h a r e o f a common d e a t h t o g e t h e r . ( A n t i g o n e 11. 1 4 5 - 8 )  Hegel  treats this episode  these  two  men  rather absurdly  saying  that try  as  m i g h t to t e a r t h e m s e l v e s f r e e from N a t u r e w h i c h  g a v e t h e m b i r t h , by a c t i v e l y a n d  consciously  ' i n d i v i d u a l i t y of the community,' they  becoming  must f a i l .  the  This  is  because: t h e g o v e r n m e n t , as t h e u n i t a r y s o u l o r t h e s e l f of the n a t i o n a l S p i r i t , does not t o l e r a t e a d u a l i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l i t y ; and t h e e t h i c a l n e c e s s i t y of t h i s unity i s conf r o n t e d by t h e n a t u r a l a c c i d e n t o f t h e r e b e i n g more than one. (P_G 4 7 3 ) For Hegel, stage  the system of the Greek c i t y - s t a t e i s f a i l i n g  f o r the simple  s e l f above the  reason  accidents  t h a t i t has  at t h i s  been unable to r a i s e i t -  i n Nature, i n t h i s case  the f a c t  that  - 39  the proposed  ruler,  b r o t h e r s , each community.  1  him  'emerges i n t h e c o n t i n g e n t f o r m o f two  o f whom w i t h  (P_G 473)  more and more from  -  equal  r i g h t takes possession o f the  By s t r e s s i n g t h e s e a c c i d e n t s o f N a t u r e ,  t h i s p o i n t on, Hegel  as s a y i n g s o m e t h i n g  like  l e a d s us t o  understand  ' W h e r e v e r t h e r e i s no k n o w n  order  t o t h e r e g e n e r a t i o n o f m a n k i n d , t h e r e c a n b e "no s u c c e s s f u l iety.'  We a r e f u r t h e r l e d t o b e l i e v e t h i s b e c a u s e  i n s i s t e n c e t h a t men c a n n o t into the conscious conscious  h e l p b u t be drawn by t h e i r  Nature  r e a l m o f p o l i t i c s , a n d women i n t o t h e u n -  escape  creating balanced  the grips o f Nature  biggest problem.  c l a i m i n g t o be t h e cause  t h e r e a r e two  being employed here,  His problem  really  of the downfall  not o n l y q u e s t i o n a b l e as a c a u s e  i sthe  enough t o succeed i n  s o c i e t i e s . Though a d m i t t e d l y  d i f f e r e n t meanings o f Nature Hegel's  o f Hegel's  r e a l m o f f a m i l y r i t u a l , a n d as l o n g as t h i s  c a s e , we c a n n o t  soc-  that i snot  i s t h a t w h a t he i s  of balanced  society is  b u t a l s o q u e s t i o n a b l e as even  being a recognizable state of a f f a i r s . A t a n y r a t e , as an o u t l a w i n s o f a r as he i s A n t i g o n e ' s ethical  Polyneices i s denied b u r i a l , but  brother this  runs  End o f t h e F a m i l y , and h i s d i s h o n o u r  counter  to the  i n t h i s way i s an  o f f e n s e a g a i n s t D i v i n e Law a s w e l l a s a d i s a s t e r f o r t h e F a m i l y in l i g h t o f what has been s a i d about f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n t o be seen Hegel  a r e being so vehemently  t e n u a t i o n t h e modern r e a d e r might is.  I t i s i n order  as t h e dilemma t h a t t h e Greeks  saw i t t o be t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e F a m i l y  of t h e dead  problem  the Penates.  stressed.  and  and t h e c u l t  Without  this ex-  well wonder just.what t h e  So w h i l e we m u s t b e c a r e f u l n o t t o a t t r i b u t e t o o  - 40 much i n the way  of c l a s s i c a l  theological beliefs  to Hegel, we  must also remember that without Hegel's p h i l o s o p h i c a l concept of the  u n i v e r s a l which we  the  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the Greek c i t y - s t a t e nor the example  failure  a l l must i n the end return  to, neither of i t s  i n the Antigone would be so necessary i n the development  of the PG. The Family, through r i t u a l , I have s a i d , mere v i c t i m s 'in  p r o t e c t the dead from being, as  of the a r b i t r a r y actions  t r u t h the calm a n d u n i v e r s a l i t y  not belong to Nature.' (P_G 452)  of nature;  of a s e l f - c o n s c i o u s  being do  What Nature does do f o r the i n -  d i v i d u a l , i t seems, i s give him embodiment, i n d i v i d u a l i t y , a lifetime  through which to.wander i n quest of Absolute Know-  ledge, which i s S p i r i t Absolute, which i s f u l l the  universal  contrary the  indeed  and consequent return  to i t .  consciousness of  Death by  itself,  to what Findlay says in his notes to these s e c t i o n s of  P_G, provides no gateway  to the u n i v e r s a l .  It is plausible  to assume that the development of the i n d i v i d u a 1 a s a c i t i z e n in his  l i f e t i m e would have something to do with the success of the  individual's  final  c i t i z e n within lighten  merging with  an e t h i c a l  S p i r i t , but t h i s  the u n i v e r s a l , f o r i t i s as a  community  that  'works' improve and en-  does not. seem to be the case.  comes free in his l i f e t i m e , as Charles Taylor himself his s e l f  be-  says, by g i v i n g  over to r a t i o n a l thought, which commitment  necessitates  imposed e x i l e from others of a d i f f e r e n t bent.  the o l d f a m i l i a r s t o r y ; the p a r o c h i a l  Man  Hence  c i t y - s t a t e i s rent asunder  because the a l l encompassing Reason of some few men  cannot l i m i t  -  41  t h e m s e l v e s i n an  i n s t i t u t i o n which cannot accommodate, nor  deed even grasp,  universal  But what of the repercussions  of the  enlightened.  Nothing  the  Family.  reason.  lesser thinkers?  the  unity of consciousness  i t s e l f over  case) death is s t i l l  words, the  performance of funerary  v i c e to the  c o m m u n i t y t h a t a man  Family  its ancestral  t h o u g h i n my  opinion  substance confused,  the  Family,  the  un-  can  by h i s  (as  of  actions  the s p h e r e  regardless  ultimate ritual  of  whether  is clearly  goal.  of  In  not  Findlay's  i s '.the s u p r e m e  ser-  p e r f o r m , i n f u r n i s h i n g the 23  pantheon, i t s household Lares.'  as d e a t h i s o n l y  i t s e e m s t o be t h e c a s e the  remain  with  F i n d l a y i s g e t t i n g the  cal  that granting  and  to Reason  always the  with  they  i n d i v i d u a l has,  s u b s t a n c e t h a t i s human law, given  but  tragic  i s s a i d of them i n H e g e l ' s d i s c u s s i o n  Whether or not  h i s S p i r i t has  They s u f f e r the  i n s i g h t s of others  as a c i t i z e n a c h i e v e d ethical  in-  r i t e s of the  spheres of e t h i -  a supreme s e r v i c e  that Hegel  dead to b l o o d  them to c o m p l e t e u n i v e r s a l i t y and  two  Al-  is simply  to saying  r e l a t i o n s , promotes  th i s i s e t h i c a l f a m i l y  action.  U n h o n o r e d d e a t h l e a v e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n ah a b s t r a c t n e g a t i v i t y w h i c h , b e i n g i n i t s own s e l f w i t h o u t c o n s o l a t i o n and r e c o n c i l i a t i o n must r e c e i v e them e s s e n t i a l l y t h r o u g h a r e a l and e x t e r n a l a c t . Blood - r e l a t i o n s h i p supp l e m e n t s , then, the a b s t r a c t n a t u r a l process by a d d i n g t o i t t h e m o v e m e n t o f consciousness, i n t e r r u p t i n g t h e work o f n a t u r e and r e s c u i n g the blood r e l a t i o n from d e s t r u c t i o n ; or b e t t e r , because d e s t r u c t i o n i s necessary, the passage of the b l o o d - r e l a t i o n i n t o mere b e i n g , i t t a k e s on i t s e l f t h e a c t o f d e s t r u c t i o n . (PjG 4 5 2 )  - 42 Hegel  does  alluding  n o t seem t o w a n t t o come r i g h t o u t a n d s a y t h a t he i s  to the Antigone  throughout  s t a n c e w h e r e he d e s c r i b e s t h e d e a d every lower material  irrational  elements.'  this discussion, f o r i n as b e i n g  i n d i v i d u a l i t y a n d t h e f o r c e s of a b s t r a c t  (P_G 4 5 2 )  Perhaps  he f e e l s  h i s s o u r c e s may d i m i n i s h t h e c r e d i b i l i t y philosophical  ' a t t h e mercy o f  that to reveal  of t h i s s e c t i o n a s  d o c t r i n e , a n d he i s p r o b a b l y  right.  Findlay pro-  v i d e s , p r o b a b l y u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y ,what i s n o n e t h e l e s s p e c u l i a r b r a n d of. c o m i c  r e l i e f , by i n c h i n g a l i t t l e  h i s own closer • .  throughout  h i s n o t e s on t h i s s e c t i o n t o t h e m o t i v a t i n g  of Hegel's  mysterious  burial  sound  source  intimations concerning the necessity of  r i g h t s , and c o n t r i b u t e s i m a g i n a t i v e l y here t h a t i t i s  f r o m t h e ' c o r r u p t i o n of w o r m s a n d of c h e m i c a l stituting  t h e i r own c o n s c i o u s w o r k i n i t s p l a c e , ' t h a t t h e l i v i n g  rescue t h e dead.  (Though  as H e g e l ' s  irrational  There  a g e n c i e s by sub-  'lower  I h a r d l y t h i n k he i s p o s i t i n g t h e worms individualities.')  i s , of c o u r s e , a p a r t i c u l a r d e a d  s u b j e c t of t h i s c r y p t i c  (no pun i n t e n d e d )  individual  who i s t h e  d i s c u s s i o n , a n d he i s  n o n e o t h e r t h a n P o l y n e i c e s t h e d i s h o n o r e d b r o t h e r of A n t i g o n e whom t h e new a n d h e a d s t r o n g  King Creon  says:  Leave him u n b u r i e d , l e a v e h i s corpse d i s graced, a dinner f o r the b i r d s and f o r the dogs. S u c h i s my m i n d . N e v e r s h a l l I , m y s e l f , honor t h e wicked and r e j e c t the just. (11. 205-208)  of  - 43 C.  The Roots o f H e g e l ' s Theory o f Tragedy T h e r e i s a l o t t o be s a i d c o n c e r n i n g H e g e l ' s a l m o s t f a n a t -  ical  use o f t h e A n t i gone.  t h a t Hegel  employed  I t i s odd, i n the final  t h e p l a y as he d i d i n t h a t i t s p h i l o s o p h i c a l  exegesis allows Hegel's whole steps backwards.  demise  o f the c i t y s t a t e , and t h e n e c e s s i t y  On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,  p l a i n i n g why t h e c i t y - s t a t e ignores the level this level  anxious to por-  i s a c c o u n t e d f o r by t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h  g i v e s o f t h e A n t i gone.  as e x i s t i n g  s y s t e m o n e s t e p f o r w a r d a n d two  On t h e o n e h a n d h e i s t e r r i b l y  tray the d i a l e c t i c a l of t h i s demise  analysis,  i n the process o f ex-  i n e v i t a b l y must f a l l ,  of m o r a l i t y which  he  he c o m p l e t e l y  he h a s p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d  i n the phase o f the c i t y - s t a t e ' s o f m o r a l i t y were p r o p e r l y heeded  prosperity.  If  as t h e u n i f y i n g  sub-  s t a n c e i n " t h e h i g h e s t r e a l i z a t i o n o f human c o m m u n i t y on 24 earth,"  the rending asunder o f the poli s which  m i s e d us t h r o u g h o u t t h e PG w o u l d which  Hegel  gives.  has been  pro-  be n o n s e n s i c a l on t h e g r o u n d s  What i s e q u a l l y odd i s t h a t i n h i s f e r v o r  to prove h i s p o i n t Hegel  h i m s e l f e i t h e r m i s s e s o r i g n o r e s an  e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t d i s p a r i t y between  w h a t i s m e a n t by ' D i v i n e '  f o r S o p h o c l e s a n d w h a t h e h i m s e l f m e a n s by t h e t e r m .  F o r Soph-  o c l e s t h e realm o f t h e D i v i n e extended from the h i g h e s t peaks o f Olympus to t h e most o b s c u r e c h u r n i n g s o f n a t u r e .  The n a t u r a l  w o r l d was a n e x t e n s i o n o f a n d a v e h i c l e f o r t h e p o w e r o f t h e Gods.  For Hegel  the interference of nature with the behaviour  o f men a n d women a n d i t s i n t r u s i o n a f f a i r s marked  into the order of quotidian  an o b s t a c l e f o r t h e c o m m u n i t y o f man t o  overcome  - 44 which  was  i n no way  r e l a t e d to the realm of the D i v i n e .  the c o n t r a r y , the world of the "beyond," which sented  t h e D i v i n e a n d A b s o l u t e , was  s h o u l d seek The  to  something  f o r Hegel which  embrace.  o t h e r more o b v i o u s  entanglement  which  Hegel  digression concerning  male e t h i c a l  The  r o l e s (P_G 4 5 7 ) .  i n t o the e t h i c a l  sal.  t h i s a c t i v i t y she has  The  female  o b l i g a t i o n s which  of the c u l t of the dead  through  repre-  mankind  s e l f into is his embarrassing  motion  Quite  him-  m a l e and  i s d r a w n by h e r  nature The  pro-  i s her s p e c i f i c e t h i c a l  duty  and  an u n m e d i a t e d  is promoting  s t r e n g t h e n i n g the community with  grasp  of the  Univer-  a more " s e l f - c o n s c i o u s u n i v e r s a l i t y by  his support.  The r e l a t i o n s h i p  b e t w e e n h u s b a n d and w i f e , h o w e v e r , i s o f t e n not e t h i c a l l y because spouse.  i t is tainted with Actions born  fe-  i n v o l v e the f a m i l y .  m a l e , as an a c t i v e c i t i z e n , h a s  p o w e r o f u n i v e r s a l i t y . " He  gets  pure  natural desire for a particular  out of love are not e t h i c a l  a c t i o n s i f de-  s i r e i s a m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r , hence the r e l a t i o n s h i p between b r o t h e r and  sister is ethically  pure.  The l o s s o f t h e b r o t h e r i s t h e r e f o r e i r r e p a r a b l e t o the s i s t e r and h e r d u t y towards him i s t h e h i g h e s t . (P_G 4 5 7 , C f . A n t i g o n e , 1. 9 1 0 ) Nonetheless, remained  i t i s q u e s t i o n a b l e whether or not Antigone  i n t e r e s t e d i n h e r b e t r o t h e d , Haemon, g i v e n t h a t she  to l i v e w i t h o u t  h e r b r o t h e r P o l y n e i c e s , as s h e  says:  ... My l i f e d i e d l o n g a g o . And t h a t has made me f i t t o h e l p t h e d e a d . (An t i g o n e , 1 1. 5 5 9 - 6 0 )  even had  -  Consider  a l s o her  pleas  45  -  concerning  the  irrevocable nature  of  the  loss of s i b l ings : One h u s b a n d g o n e , I m i g h t h a v e f o u n d another, b u t w i t h my p a r e n t s h i d a w a y i n d e a t h , no b r o t h e r , e v e r , c o u l d s p r i n g up f o r me. ( A n t i g o n e , 11. 9 1 0 - 9 1 3 ) This hardly  depicts  particularly  the brother  pure but  A r i s t o t l e has  leaves  - s i s t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p as  the s i t u a t i o n r a t h e r  t o l d us i n h i s P o e t i c a  that  being  ambiguous.  -  ... p o e t r y i s s o m e t h i n g m o r e p h i l o s o p h i c and o f g r a v e r i m p o r t than h i s t o r y , s i n c e i t s statements are of the nature r a t h e r of u n i v e r s a l s , whereas those of h i s t o r y are s ingulars. 5  Hegel seems to have taken  him  rather strictly  at his word.  not only  f i n d s t h e s t r i k i n g c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n C r e o n and  symbolic  of the s t r u g g l e  b e t w e e n c i v i c and  Divine  He  Antigone  j u s t i c e , but  a l s o c h o o s e s t o u n i v e r s a l i z e an a r b i t r a r y a s s o r t m e n t o f f a m i l i a l relations  from the play  as w e l l .  S o p h o c l e s can  have meant f o r a n y o n e to draw s u c h c o n c l u s i o n s and  concerning  female e t h i c a l r o l e s from the s t r u c t u r e of his play.  pect  s u c h a t h i n g w o u l d be t o i m p l y  p i c t e d in the Antigone r e p r e s e n t r e f l e c t a l l mankind. an,4  certainly  (Applied  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s theory  sibilities.) as u n i v e r s a l place  To  truths  i t i s the  aware of the  take  naive  that a l l relationships  t r u t h s , which once to the e x t a n t has  not male To  exde-  universalized  body of l i t e r a t u r e ,  a l l s o r t s of b i z a r r e  pos-  the f a m i l i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the A n t i gone  is a double f a u l t f o r Hegel. m i s t a k e o f a c h i l d who  i n t r i c a c i e s o f P l o t , a n d who  has  In t h e  first  j u s t become  does not  r e a l i z e that  -  c h a r a c t e r s and  -  46  r e l a t i o n s h i p s h a v e t o be c o n t r i v e d o r  in o r d e r f o r . a s t o r y to d e v e l o p .  invented,  Even i f the c h a r a c t e r s  and  r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e n o n f i c t i o n a V , i t i s not commonly b e l i e v e d , cept perhaps  by t h e l i k e s o f E m i l e  naturalists,  t h a t any  u n i v e r s a l laws  e s t a b l i s h e d j u s t because The  second  Z o l a and o t h e r  scientific  o f human n a t u r e a r e  i t h a p p e n e d t o be s o on o n e  f a u l t i s t h a t even  i f Hegel  was  ex-  being  occasion.  just using  this  d i s a s t e r i n a n c i e n t T h e b e s as a m e t a p h o r o r an i 1 1 u s t r a t i o n o f the i n e v i t a b l e downfall  o f a l a r g e v a r i e t y o f s o c i e t i e s due  t h e s a m e f l a w , he d o e s n o t know w h e r e t o e n d was  a proud,  single-minded  was  an o v e r - z e a l o u s ,  concerning which  Hegel  s e l f impressed  of j u s t i c e deserved  insignificant. essential tragedy  and  point.  parallel tration.  On  I by no m e a n s i n or  the c o n t r a r y , I t h i n k they are a l l b r i l l i a n t l y  p r o v i d e the completeness  clarification  and b a l a n c e  that  or analogous  of i l l u m -  i t i s not necessary  to  d e v i c e so t h a t i t i s i n e v e r y  to the concept  It is l i k e w i s e , unnecessary  which  i s i n need  to tamper with  of a  i t more a c c e s s i b l e t h r o u g h  e x p l i c a t i v e powers of analogy  say t h a t the Canadian  Attic  analogy.  f o r the purposes  of a concept  the i l l u s t r a t i v e  or idea i n order to render The  which  t h a t I t h i n k the other c h a r a c t e r s s u p e r f l u o u s  In t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f an a n a l o g y  manipulate  beliefs  her a l l e g i a n c e .  i s famous f o r , but they are not p a r t of the  i n a t i o n and  Antigone  t y p e s whose i n t e r a c t i o n makes t h e p o i n t  n e e d s i n o r d e r t o m a k e h i s own  tend to imply  Creon  r u l e r and  i m p e t u o u s y o u n g woman w i t h s t r o n g  level  T h e s e a r e t h e two  and  the analogy.  to  are c l e a r l y  limited.  way illus-  concept analogy. I  F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t i s l i k e an o c t o p u s  might in  -  t h a t i t has  bad  -  many f a r r e a c h i n g  m a i n body and other  47  s o m e t i m e s by  entities.  a n a l o g y but  I t may  arms w h i c h s u p p o r t  t h e i r prodding  very well  i t w o u l d be  submerged in water.  be t h e  the  nourish  its  endanger themselves case  f o o l i s h to say  analogy because, for instance,  and  that  or  I am m a k i n g a  that this is a  bad  Canadian Government i s  not  S i m i l a r l y i t w o u l d be f o o l i s h t o s a y  that  t h e A n t i g o n e d o e s n o t make i t s p o i n t b e c a u s e a l l t h e r e l a t i o n ships  between a l l the c h a r a c t e r s  are not  f a c e t o f an e t h i c a l e n t i t y , a n d i f they  are.  o f h i s own  I t i s more e x c u s a b l e , and  t h i s t i r a d e than  i f he  v a l i d a t e h i s use credits  him  critic. cussion  i t is s i l l y  private sentiments  w e n t o f f on  I think has  t o do w i t h  A n t i g o n e i s the e a r t h l y has  a c t i o n w h i c h she  But  t h a t the j u s t i c e she  human law.  The  unburied  to  this  usage  as a l i t e r a r y  plays  dis-  no s i g n i f -  of Divine  to c a r r y out,  subscribes  body of her  gods and  the  house of Oedipus were i t allowed  she  H e g e l ' s c h a m p i o n and  she  her brother's  it.  She that  i s an o f f e n s e l i n e of curses  t o go u n h e e d e d . hers  b u r i a l , she  and an  <$'*<• o Q ^ f i v .  to t r a n s c e n d s  w o u l d be y e t a n o t h e r i n a l o n g  a certain extent  gets  brother  Law  at a l l costs,  in accordance with  the  accomplishes  he  Spirit.  representative  k n o w s t o be  that  that t h i s part of Hegel's  knows w h a t she w a n t s f r o m t h e s t a r t and stands  nor  as  because  t o do s o  in e i t h e r case  t h e A n t i gone and  a Socratic determination  to a c t  theories  t h o u g h t he h a d  as a g o o d p h i l o s o p h e r  i c a n t r o l e i n the development of  she  psychological  i t i s f a i r to say  nothing  f o r Hegel  universal  I s u p p o s e , i f i t was  of the Anti gone.  neither  analogous to a  She  is a success achieves  she  underof to upon is  story  h e r own  to end  - 48 (which she c l e a r l y  d e s i r e s ) a n d s h e d e s t r o y s t h e a g e n t who, as  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e l a w , m a d e i t i m p o s s i b l e f o r D i v i n e Law t o operate. Antigone  r e p r e s e n t s t h e c i t i z e n m o t i v a t e d by e t h i c a l  s t a n c e t h a t i s n o t human l a w . individual Family.  fulfilling  In o t h e r words s h e r e p r e s e n t s t h e  h e r d i v i n e and u n i v e r s a l o b l i g a t i o n  Ismene, A n t i g o n e ' s  w h o , a l t h o u g h s h e may h a v e  to her  timid sister, represents the citizen an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e e t h i c a l  s t a n c e i n t h e f a m i l y as o p p o s e d r u l e d by R e a s o n  sub-  sub-  to that in the state, i s not  and whose a c t i o n s , because  m o t i v a t e d by human l a w a n d t h e e t h i c a l  of her nature, are  sphere of the state.  A n t i g o n e says o f h e r commitment to t h e b u r i a l  of Polyneices:  F o r me, t h e d o e r , d e a t h i s b e s t Friend shall I l i e with him, yes f r i e n d with f r i e n d , When I h a v e d a r e d t h e c r i m e o f p i e t y . Longer the time i n which t o p l e a s e t h e dead t h a n t h a t f o r t h o s e up h e r e . T h e r e s h a l l I l i e f o r e v e r . Y o u may s e e f i t to keep honor from what t h e gods have h o n o r e d . Ismene says i n r e t u r n : I s h a l l do no d i s h o n o r . the c i t i z e n s , I cannot.  But to a c t against (11.  The o p p o s i n g s i d e s a r e c l e a r . no m a t t e r w h a t t h e l e g a l to t h e gods  70-80)  Antigone's  position  r u l i n g may b e , i t i s s t i l l  n o t t o bury one's  dead.  Ismene does  i s that  an o f f e n s e  not quite see  t h i s , as s h e does  not see t h a t she i s committing  l e v e l , she merely  feels that i t is sad that their brother  be h o n o r e d ,  b u t s h e does  not feel  a c r i m e on any cannot  that i t is morally catastrophic.  - 49 The  t r a g e d y o f the A n t i gone i s n e i t h e r A n t i g o n e ' s  death nor her wasted  virginity.  It i s Hegel's  f a i l u r e of s o c i e t y to understand  the  untimely  tragedy,  the  universal.  A n d y e t t h e w i s e w i l l know my c h o i c e was right... I stand convicted of impiety, t h e e v i d e n c e my p i o u s d u t y d o n e . (11. 910, 925-6) The  chorus  in the Antigone  e l d e r s of Thebes and, development, and D i v i n e n o r a n t o f who  as i s s u i t a b l e t o H e g e l ' s  they can a t f i r s t Law.  r e p r e s e n t the a t t i t u d e s of  c h o r a l ode  sworn r i g h t , ' but  'he h o n o r s  rites  on.  the laws of  ' s t a t e l e s s t h e man  to dwell with d i s h o n o r . ' (11. 369-370) following  burial  ig-  u n k n o w n a.gent s a y i n g t h a t ,  i s , he i s n o t h i n g u n l e s s  l a n d and the gods'  human  the chorus, s t i l l  the crime of bestowing  P o l y n e i c e s , addresses i t s e l f to this g r e a t a s man  dialectical  s e e no c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n  In t h e s e c o n d  committed  the  The  who  the dares  chorus cannot see  the laws o f the s t a t e w h i l e f o l l o w i n g t h o s e o f  how  God  s h o u l d be s u c h a d i f f i c u l t t h i n g , a n d t h e y c o u n t t h e d o e r o f t h e f o r b i d d e n d e e d as p e r m a n e n t l y of course, i t w i l l  be C r e o n who  d i s h o n o r e d by t h e a c t .  Ironically,  w i n d s up d w e l l i n g ' s t a t e l e s s '  dishonor. A n t i g o n e , who  i s the o n l y one whose Reason d i r e c t s  her  towards The gods' u n w r i t t e n and u n f a i l i n g l a w s . N o t now, n o r y e s t e r d a y ' s t h e y a l w a y s l i v e , a n d no o n e k n o w s t h e i r o r i g i n i n " t i m e . (11. 455-457) i s t h o u g h t by t h e c h o r u s  t o be u n r e a s o n a b l e  and  arbitrary:  in  - 50 The same t e m p e s t o f m i n d as e v e r , c o n t r o l s t h e g i r l (11. 929-930) Clearly the play lightening spheres  illustrates  the-inadequacy  t h e c i t i z e n mass a n d m a i n t a i n i n g  of j u s t i c e .  But Hegel m i s l a b e l s  o f human l a w f o r e n a balance  o f t h e two  the players.  He  says:  S i n c e t h e community o n l y g e t s an e x i s t e n c e through i t s i n t e r f e r e n c e with the happiness o f t h e F a m i l y , a n d by d i s s o l v i n g i n d i v i d u a l , self-consciousness into the universal, i t c r e a t e s f o r i t s e l f i n what i t suppresses and w h a t i s a t t h e same t i m e e s s e n t i a l t o i t an e t e r n a l enemy - w o m a n k i n d i n g e n e r a l . (PG 4 7 5 ) S o m e h o w i t i s b e c a u s e woman c a n n o t represent cal  f a m i l i a l e t h i c a l substance  substance)  that she 'perverts  state into a possession The  (which  drive to  i s also Divine  the universal property  and ornament f o r t h e Family.  1  ethi-  of t h e  (_PG 4 7 5 ) .  r e s t of t h i s p a s s a g e w h i c h d e p i c t s woman a s d i s r e g a r d i n g t h e  w i s d o m of a g e i s c o m p l e t e l y see  the downfall  the  pull  only  help her strong  incomprehensible.  o f t h e c i t y - s t a t e a s t h e i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t of  of N a t u r e o n m a l e a n d f e m a l e  contrary  We a r e l e a d t o  behaviour.  This  i snot  t o w h a t H e g e l s a i d e a r l i e r i n t h e PG_ b u t i t i s a l s o  s o m e t h i n g t h a t he w o u l d have a l o t o f t r o u b l e f i n d i n g someone t o agree  with  h i m o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y among t h e a n c i e n t  l i e r we w e r e t o l d i t w a s t h e i n e v i t a b l y p a r o c h i a l  Greeks. nature  Earof t h e  c i t y - s t a t e w h i c h w o u l d c a u s e i t s r u i n ; now we a r e t o l d t h a t t h e city-state  cannot  l a s t because i t cannot  lift  itself  high  enough  a b o v e t h e f o r c e s of N a t u r e w h i c h k e e p men a n d women i n a p e r petual  t u g of w a r , t h e men p u l l i n g f o r t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y of t h e  - 51 city-state, Penates.  a n d t h e women f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l  T h i s i s as c o n t r a r y t o G r e e k  thing which  ethical  p o r t r a y s as a u n i v e r s a l in Antigone.  custom  i s d e p i c t e d i n the A n t i gone.  that the f a m i l i a l  She  u n i v e r s a l i t y of the  We  sentiment which  as i t i s t o cannot help  Hegel  so  anynoticing  vehemently  duty to bury f a m i l y dead, i s not present  says:  Had I c h i l d r e n o r t h e i r f a t h e r d e a d I'd l e t them m o u l d e r . I s h o u l d not have chosen i n such a case to cross the s t a t e ' s decree. What i s t h e law t h a t l i e s b e h i n d t h e s e w o r d s ? One h u s b a n d g o n e , I m i g h t h a v e f o u n d a n o t h e r , O r a c h i l d f r o m a new man i n t h e f i r s t c h i l d ' s place. (11. 905-910) T h i s i s no d o u b t p a r t o f w h a t made H e g e l  go on a b o u t t h e  icance of particular inter-relationships  o f f a m i l y members  the  f a c t remains  t h a t i f we  employ  Hegel's  rigor in  t h i s passage, i t weakens Hegel's p o i n t which the  interpreting  spirit,  as as  P o l y n e i c e s , as t h e s o n o f L a i u s a n d J o c a s t a , was  o n l y h e r h a l f b r o t h e r , i f we w a n t ^ t o  superimpose  m i g h t j u s t as w e l l l o o k f o r s o m e t h i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between much  but  posits Antigone  embodiment and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of f a m i l y e t h i c a l 26  he s e e s i t .  signif-  t h e s e two,  though  meanings  more t h a n a pure  we unmixed  i t i s n o t an i d e a w o r t h  attention. N o n e t h e l e s s , i f we  D i v i n e Law,  u n d e r s t a n d A n t i g o n e t o be g u i d e d by  we m u s t r e m e m b e r t h a t D i v i n e Law  law i n harmony w i t h N a t u r e .  f o r the Greeks  The e x p o s u r e o f t h e dead body  P o l y n e i c e s , as w e l l as o f t h e o t h e r w a r r i o r s who T h e b e s , was  was of  fought against  an o f f e n s e a g a i n s t N a t u r e a n d as s u c h an o f f e n s e  a g a i n s t the gods.  And s u r e l y H e g e l  knew  this.  - 52 Teiresias  t h e aged  seer rails  a g a i n s t Creon's  crime  saying:  Why h a s t h i s s i c k n e s s s t r u c k a g a i n s t the s t a t e ? Through your d e c i s i o n . A l l o f t h e a l t a r s o f t h e town are choked w i t h l e a v i n g s o f dogs and b i r d s ; their feast was o n t h a t f a t e d , f a l l e n P o l y n e i c e s . So t h e g o d s w i l l h a v e no o f f e r i n g from us, not prayer, nor flame o f s a c r i f i c e . The b i r d s w i l l not c r y o u t a sound I can di s t i ngui sh, gorged with the greasy blood of t h a t d e a d man. (11. 1014-1022) Throughout  t h e p l a y t h e r e i s f a r l e s s e m p h a s i s on P o l y -  neices' safe arrival ror of decaying  to the underworld  flesh being  than  t h e r e i s on t h e h o r -  l e f t to the merciless elements  of  Nature. So t h e D i v i n e Law b e i n g on a n y a c c o u n t ,  t h e same as t h a t w h i c h  h i s c h a p t e r on S p i r i t . unfortunate ognized  t h a t Hegel  another  sphere  t i c e , but she died with consciousness substance. but  represented  Hegel  the Antigone is talking  about i n  d i d not say i t , i s that Antigone o f j u s t i c e a p a r t from  t h a t o f human j u s -  an i m m a t u r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g pure  familial  has r e c -  of i t .  or Divine  r e c o g n i z e s h e r a c t i o n s as b e i n g  sentative of Divine ethical  upsets  i s an i m m e d i a t e ,  his previous  substance  substance,  (ethical  Her  ethical  unconscious,  I do n o t b e l i e v e he i s s a y i n g t h a t s h e i s n o t a t r u e  this substance  i s not,  T h e b e s t t h a t c a n be s a i d , t h o u g h i t ' s  w a s n o t One w i t h Hegel  in  repre-  only that the function of  unconscious  one, which  completely  position that at this stage, a l lof ethical action) i s guided  by R e a s o n .  - 53  -  C H A P T E R FOUR  H E G E L ' S T H E O R Y OF T R A G E D Y  -  A.  Hegel's Theory of  the  he h a s  abstracted,  ingredients  p a n d e d and sion  h i s t o r y which Hegel in his chapter  for his theory  modified  aim  i s to d e l i n e a t e h i s theory  may  be  of  tragedy.  of tragedy.  of value  and  tragedy nected  with  that  Hegel  d e r i v e d from  term " g o d l i k e " i s used  because Hegel b e l i e v e s  action. ization."  (Aes.  F r o m t h i s we  t r u e theme  of  way  i s here  con-  merely  t h e P_G.  According The  that i t is this as e t h i c a l  d i v i n e in s e c u l a r or world  real-  296) may  understand  the enactment of funerary  ethical  action.  For Hegel,  I t m u s t be e t h i c a l a c t i o n s  why  tragedy  Hegel s t r u g g l e d so hard  rites within  too strong  the f a m i l y  involves ethical  right.  to weaken h i s stance  i n the A e s t h e t i c s  to  include:  as  ostens-  Yet Hegel  by l i m i t i n g t h e e t h i c a l a c t i o n  the f a m i l y u n i t to the p r o v i s i o n of b u r i a l r i t e s .  He  to  spheres.  or b e l i e f s which c o l l i d e , or  i t m u s t be a c o l l i s i o n o f r i g h t w i t h  made h i s c a s e  My  indicating that  i t s e l f i n the world  portray  ibly,  discus-  must i n v o l v e the e t h i c a l .  What i s e t h i c a l i s "the  ex-  these works.  "the  Far from  tragedy  which manifests  in  a n a l y s i s and d e f i n i t i o n  to Hegel's view, then,  d i v i n e essence  is  i n the ensuing  i n t e r v e n t i o n o r be i n a n y  have a l r e a d y  us  Order,"  This theory  to the general  the r e l i g i o u s c o n s c i o u s n e s s ,  r e i t e r a t i n g w h a t we  given  to a s c e r t a i n what w i t h i n i t  i s the g o d l i k e . "  must i n v o l v e D i v i n e  has  "Ethical  to r e f e r to both  In t h e Aes t h e t i cs H e g e l m a i n t a i n e d 27 p r i m i t i v e tragedy  on  i n h i s A e s t h e t i cs and  I s h a l l f i n d i t necessary  considered  -  Tragedy  From the complex moral t h e r^G,  54  has  within  is obliged  - 55 ...those forces which carry i n themselves t h e i r own j u s t i f i c a t i o n , a n d a r e r e a l i z e d s u b s t a n t i v e l y i n t h e v o l i t i o n a l a c t i v i t y of m a n k i n d . S u c h a r e the love o f husband and w i f e , parents, c h i l d r e n a n d k i n s f o l k . S u c h a r e f u r t h e r t h e l i f e of comm u n i t i e s , t h e p a r t i o t i s m o f c i t i z e n s , t h e w i l l of those i n supreme power. ( A e s . 295) Now, h o w e v e r , H e g e l h a s e x p a n d e d h i s t h e o r y t h e e x p e n s e of h i s e n t i r e s y s t e m o f e t h i c s . in  t h e P_G, s e c t i o n 4 5 3 , t h a t t h e o n l y  family other law  i s the previously  fall  (as opposed to the divine) except  severely  maintains  forces  godlike"  from the undivided  t h a t he b e l i e v e d purpose with  d i d not dwell  altogether.  - "that  orig-  o u t b r e a k , t h a t i s , of o p -  consciousness  of life  and t h e  o n i t m u c h i n t h e PG_, i t s e e m s  import  a d i v i n e and u n i v e r s a l  comparable to that which i s c l e a r l y Creon i s a r u l e r upon whose  s a f e t y o f t h e s t a t e r e s t s as w e l l  perpetuation  are  the ethical  must c a p t u r e  that Creon represented  to A n t i g o n e ' s p o s i t i o n .  important  of h u m a n  (Ae_s. 3 1 7 ) .  A l t h o u g h Hegel  the  that tragedy  Greek sense o f the term, ((an))  posing  into the realm  d i v i n e a n d human s p h e r e s o f a c t i o n a n d b e l i e f .  Hegel s t i l l  inal  duty and that a l l  l i m i t s t h e v a r i e t y of c o l l i s i o n s w h i c h we c a n c o n -  struct within Yet  He s a y s e x p l i c i t l y  actions which p e r t a i n to  r e l a t i o n s h i p s of love which are outside This  at  ethical action of the  mentioned funerary  f a m i l i a l and c i v i c o b l i g a t i o n s  of t r a g e d y  of t h e u n i v e r s a l  through organized  society.  It is  positions  i n t r i n s i c a l l y j u s t i f i a b l e b e c a u s e of t h e i r e t h i c a l the hallmark  decisions  as mankind's hopes f o r the  that both Creon and A n t i g o n e r e p r e s e n t  as t h i s i s t o H e g e l  attached  of tragic conflict.  which  content The e t h i c a l  -  did  involve  t h a t he was  the  godlike  stage has  i n the  P_G a n d  s t r e t c h t o a c c o m m o d a t e any  p u b l i c deemed t r a g i c .  p r i m i t i v e tragedy  and  the  Y e t we  w h i c h H e g e l was  d i a l e c t i c a l nature  accommodates  love, noble  ambition  issues and  dealing with  of his t h e o r e t i c a l as o n e  i n v o l v i n g romantic  a great  work  that  at t h i s  development which  sing tragedy  in the  T h e r e now regarding  v a r i e t y of personal  human i n -  Hegel's theory  gives up  d i f f e r e n t stands and  tragedy  t r a g i c hero brings  necessity")  its salvageable does i n v o l v e  on h i s own  w h i c h may  be  taken  insights.  Hegel's  t h e e t h i c a l and  f a t e (as  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of his theory.  that  "uncomprehended  t h r o u g h the o n e s i d e d n e s s of h i s a c t i o n s  us o n e  discus-  P_G.  e m e r g e s two  belief that ancient  com-  love, familial  t e r e s t s w h i c h w e r e c l e a r l y o f . n o i n t e r e s t to Hegel when  the  seem  must remember t h a t i t  l e d many t o i n t e r p r e t h i s e x p a n d e d t h e o r y  fortably  i t d i d not  w i l l i n g f o r t h i s t e r m t o be an e l a s t i c c a t c h - a l l  general  is only  -  f o r Hegel  which would conveniently the  56  A.M.  and  beliefs  Q u i n t o n sums i t  as f o l 1 o w s : ...In r e q u i r i n g the moral res p o n s i b i 1 i t y of the t r a g i c hero f o r the d i s a s t e r s t h a t b e f a l l him, i n s e e i n g h i s d e s t r u c t i o n as t h e r e a f f i r m a t i o n of absolute m o r a l i t y , i t is fundamentally a dem a n d f o r p o e t i c j u s t i c e a n d as s u c h i n a p p l i c a b l e t o by f a r t h e g r e a t e r n u m b e r o f t h e w o r k s a b o u t w h o s e s t a t u s as t r a g e d i e s t h e r e w o u l d be l i t t l e disagreement.28 Quinton  tice" ally out  and  laments Hegel's apparent appeal  to a " p o e t i c  f i n d s t h i s i n a p p l i c a b l e to most works which are  considered  t o be t r a g e d i e s .  This  b e l i e f most l i k e l y  of Quinton's a s s e r t i o n that a compensating heaven i s  jusgenerarises incom-  -  did involve  the  godlike  56  -  f o r Hegel  in the  PG a n d  i t d i d not  seem  t h a t he was, w i l l i n g f o r t h i s t e r m t o be an e l a s t i c c a t c h - a l l which would conveniently the  general  is only stage has  s t r e t c h to a c c o m m o d a t e any  p u b l i c deemed t r a g i c .  p r i m i t i v e t ragedy the  d i a l e c t i c a l nature  dealing with  of his t h e o r e t i c a l  l e d many t o i n t e r p r e t h i s e x p a n d e d t h e o r y  f o r t a b l y accommodates issues love, noble  ambition  and  as o n e  involving romantic  a great  that  must remember t h a t i t  w h i c h H e g e l was  (  and  Y e t we  work  a/t t h i s  development which  love, familial  variety of personal  human i n -  t e r e s t s w h i c h w e r e c l e a r l y o f no i n t e r e s t t o H e g e l w h e n sing tragedy  i n the  T h e r e now regarding the  Hegel ' s theory tragedy  t r a g i c hero brings  necessity")  on  d i f f e r e n t stands and  w h i c h may  i t s salvageable does i n v o l v e  h i s own  the  f a t e (as  us o n e  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of his theory.  up as  follows:  be.  taken  insights.  Hegel's  e t h i c a l and  that  "uncomprehended  t h r o u g h the o n e s i d e d n e s s of h i s a c t i o n s  gives  discus-  PG.  e m e r g e s two  belief,that ancient  com-  A.M.  and  beliefs  Q u i n t o n sums i t  »  ...In r e q u i r i n g the moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the t r a g i c hero f o r the d i s a s t e r s t h a t b e f a l l him, i n s e e i n g h i s d e s t r u c t i o n as t h e r e a f f i r m a t i o n of absolute morality, i t is fundamentally a dem a n d f o r p o e t i c j u s t i c e a n d as s u c h i n a p p l i c a b l e t o by f a r t h e g r e a t e r n u m b e r o f t h e w o r k s a b o u t w h o s e s t a t u s as t r a g e d i e s t h e r e w o u l d b e l i t t l e di sagreement.28 Quinton laments Hegel's apparent appeal t i c e " and ally out  finds  considered of Quin ton's  to a " p o e t i c  jus-  t h i s i n a p p l i c a b l e to most works w h i c h are  gener-  t o be  arises  tragedies.  assertion  This b e l i e f most l i k e l y  that a compensating  heaven is  incom-  -  p.atible with  tragedy.  57  -  Q u i n t o n does not  w h i c h i s w h a t he s e e s r e p r e s e n t e d it generally r i g h t path  prescribes  the  t o an a c c e p t a b l e  Bradley,  on  Tragedy, also feels that discussion believe  of tragedy,  in Hegel's theory  r u i n of the theory  the other  feel that  of  optimism, even  though  t r a g i c h e r o , can  be  tragedy.  hand, in his essay,  Hegel's Theory  " p o e t i c j u s t i c e " i s out of place  but.contrary  that t h i s i s what Hegel  the  to Q u i n t o n , n e i t h e r  is talking  of  in a  does  he  about.  But, i n the f i r s t p l a c e , i t i s most i m p o r t a n t to o b s e r v e t h a t Hegel i s not d i s c u s s i n g at a l l what we s h o u l d g e n e r a l l y c a l l t h e m o r a l q u a l i t y o f t h e a c t s and p e r s o n s c o n c e r n e d , o r , i n the o r d i n a r y s e n s e , w h a t i t was t h e i r d u t y t o d o . And, i n the s e c o n d p l a c e , w h e n he s p e a k s o f " e q u a l l y j u s t i f i e d p o w e r s , " w h a t he m e a n s , and,, i n d e e d , s o m e t i m e s says, i s t h a t these powers are i n themselves e q u a l l y j u s t i f i e d . . . O n the other hand, i t i s , I t h i n k , a matter f o r r e g r e t that Hegel employed s u c h w o r d s as " r i g h t , " " j u s t i f i e d , " a n d " j u s t i c e . " T h e y do n o t m i s l e a d r e a d e r s f a m i l i a r w i t h h i s w r i t i n g s , but to o t h e r s they suggest associations with c r i m i n a l law, or our e v e r y d a y moral j u d g e ments, or perhaps the theory of " p o e t i c j u s t i c e ; " and t h e s e are a l l o u t o f p l a c e i n a d i s c u s s i o n on t r a g e d y . 3 0 Bradley's  understanding  powers which c a r r y w i t h i n necessarily ethical. sometimes involve t o do w i t h Bradley this  of Hegel's p o s i t i o n is that  t h e m t h e i r own  the v i o l a t i o n of the other  what i s m o r a l l y  r i g h t or wrong.  i s a p o i n t on w h i c h H e g e l i n s i s t on  fact ethical.  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s are  I t i s t r a g i c t h a t a l l e g i a n c e t o one  t h a t f a m i l i a l love or p o l i t i c a l  generally  these  the  too  but  should  t h i s has  I t i s not  i n t e r e s t s of the hero being  Hegel  to  and does  noble  It i s Hegel's d e f i n i t i o n of the e t h i c a l  nothing  clear  duty are e t h i c a l  v a c i l l a t e s , but  not  and  that  in  -  58  -  changes not his i n s i s t e n c e that i t i s important. l e y has mentions  h i t upon the c r u x of the H e g e l i a n  views  inclined  ( p . 74)  t o be i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h Q u i n t o n  t h e p o i n t s a b a n d o n e d by B r a d l e y  Brad-  d i l e m m a when  " p o w e r s i n t h ems e l v e s e q u a l l y j u s t i f i e d , "  find myself tently  tragic  Although  who  he  I  consis-  as t h e m o s t  impor-  t a n t ones . A.C. B r a d l e y amended t h e t h e o r y t o i n c l u d e amongst c o n f l i c t i n g elements not merely e t h i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s but a l s o " u n i v e r s a l i n t e r e s t s , " m o r a l v a l u e s t h a t h a d no d e t e r m i n a t e s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n as t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n , a n d e v e n " p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t s , " s u c h as M a c b e t h ' s a m b i t i o n . So a d j u s t e d t h e t h e o r y c a n a c c o m m o d a t e t h e tragedies of Racine, with t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b a t t l e b e t w e e n l o v e and d u t y , and t o some e x t e n t the t r a g e d i e s of Shakespeare, i n which personal g o a l s c o l l i d e w i t h the demands of t h a t o v e r r i d i n g o r d e r and h a r m o n y w i t h o u t w h i c h a l l human a r r a n g e m e n t s come t o r u i n . But t h i s amendment r e a l l y evacuates the H e g e l i a n p o s i t i o n : i t allows f o r the r e a l i t y of unrecompensed, u n r e c o n c i l e d e v i l , i t abandons the demand f o r the moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e h e r o a n d f o r an e s s e n t i a l l y r e t r i b u t i v e v i e w of his s u f f e r i n g s . 3 1 Yet to weigh the v a l u e s o f t h e s e o p p o s i n g turn again to Hegel his  own  tragedy  lists  l i e in  account  modern  three categories of  i s o n b e t w e e n a n c i e n t and modern t r a g e d y . development of tragedy  i n terms  of the c o l l i s i o n s which  the  o f a ) t h e e n d s d e s i r e d by  the  he i s c o m p e l l e d  i s s u e and  tragic  We  may  compar-  consider  t r a g i c h e r o , b) t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t r a g i c  of the f i n a l  into  must  ancient.  In h i s A e s t h e t i c s , H e g e l  nature  f a i r l y we  h i m s e l f f o r s u r e l y the answer w i l l  e x t e n s i o n of h i s t h e o r y to take as w e l l as  views  characterand t o f a c e , and  reconciliation.  c)  also that the  -  In c l a s s i c a l again, there  tragedy,  is a s t r i c t  -  59  Hegel  has  emphasized over  and  u n i t y between c h a r a c t e r and  over  action.  They act i n accordance with a s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r , a s p e c i f i c pathos, f o r the simple reason t h a t they are t h i s c h a r a c t e r , t h i s pathos. In s u c h a c a s e t h e r e i s no l a c k o f . d e c i s i o n a n d no c h o i c e . The strength of great characters consists p r e c i s e l y i n t h i s t h a t t h e y do n o t c h o o s e b u t a r e e n t i r e l y and a b s o l u t e l y j u s t t h a t w h i c h t h e y w i l l and achieve. (Aes. 320) Furthermore,  t h i s f o r c e f u l c h a r a c t e r i s , in Hegel's  justified  i n h i s a c t i o n s and  ment w i t h  a given e t h i c a l sphere  never  b e l i e f s because of his t o t a l  In m o d e r n t r a g e d y ,  g a i n w h i c h has  the substance  vide the backdrop hero  of the drama.  s o c i e t y , but which were not,  "the p r i n c i p l e of the personal  a b l e a p p e a r a n c e i n each claims  and  may  which well  life  pro-  complex t r a g i c are  r e l a x i n g s t r u c t u r e of  as s u c h , w i t h i n t h e r e a c h  " r i g h t o f s u b j e c t i v i t y " was  asserted i t s claim, novel  such  o f more p a r t i c u l a r aims w h i c h  a c c e s s i b l e to modern drama b e c a u s e of the  The  no  as s u c h ,  These spheres  f o r t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e new  but h i s ends are born  drama.  are  however, i t i s not the b a s i c e t h i c a l  d i c t a of the f a m i l y , the S t a t e , or the Church, provide  align-  of r e f e r e n c e , h i s ends  d e f i n e d by h i s l u s t f o r p e r s o n a l  ties.  theory,  making i t s e l f  of  ancient  known,  in i t s independence  C^-  has  p h a s e s o f e x i s t e n c e make t h e i r i n e v i t ((ethical  t o s e t up as t h e e n d  and  s p h e r e ) ) , which modern  man  d i r e c t o r y of his a c t i o n . "  (Aes.  332 ) The u n i t y and Greeks.  modern t r a g i c hero, s t r e n g t h w h i c h we Furthermore,  then,  n e e d n o t be t h e v i s i o n o f  encountered  in the works of  many o f t h e g e n e r a l  the  i n t e r e s t s of our  modern  - 60 life  are p o r t r a y e d i n modern t r a g i c drama to such a degree  would  be u n h e a r d  characters external  of i n a n t i q u i t y .  These  a n d c h a r g e e v e n t s i n a way  background  f o r the main  i n t e r e s t s may  as  motivate  s u c h as t o s u p p l y a m e r e  c o u r s e o f a c t i o n o r may  in fact  p r o v i d e t h e c o n f l i c t w h e n c o n f r o n t e d by t h e p r o t a g o n i s t i n h i s "individual  state of emotion."  i m p o r t a n t , n o t as t h e e t h i c a l complications to  judgements  in the hero's l i f e .  still  t h e y o n c e w e r e , b u t as  He may  not d e l i b e r a t e l y  p l a c e h i m s e l f i n a c u l p a b l e s i t u a t i o n , but the t r a g i c  l i s i o n may hi s des i r e d  involve his inability  sad  ending?  col-  to a v o i d i t i n the p u r s u i t  of  tragedy from a simple story with a  The a n s w e r t o t h i s q u e s t i o n l i e s  gory of comparison tell  seek  end.  What, t h e n , d i s t i n g u i s h e s  the  "Wrong and C r i m e " a r e  in the t h i r d c a t e -  - the matter of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n .  a s t o r y w i t h no c o m p u l s i o n , o r i n e v i t a b i l i t y , q u e s t i o n , why  not have  i t end h a p p i l y ?  I f we Hegel  are to asks  If the t r a g i c i s s u e  r e s u l t s m e r e l y from e x t e r n a l a c c i d e n t s and unhappy c i r c u m s t a n c e s , it could quite easily  r e s u l t i n a happy c o n c l u s i o n i n s t e a d .  If t h e r e f o r e the i n t e r e s t s are of such a n a t u r e , that i t i s r e a l l y not worth the t r o u b l e to s a c r i f i c e t h e men o r women c o n c e r n e d on t h e i r a l t a r , i t b e i n g p o s s i b l e f o r them e i t h e r to s u r r e n d e r t h e i r o b j e c t s , w i t h o u t m a k i n g s u c h s u r r e n d e r as is e q u i v a l e n t to a s u r r e n d e r of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i t y , or t o m u t u a l l y come t o an a g r e e m e n t i n r e s p e c t t h e r e o f , t h e r e ' i s n o . r e a s o n why t h e c o n c l u s i o n s h o u l d be t r a g i c . The t r a g i c a s p e c t o f the conf l i c t s and t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n ought i n p r i n c i p l e m e r e l y t o be e n f o r c e d i n t h e c a s e s w h e r e i t i s a c t u a l l y necessary in order to s a t i s f y the c l a i m of a s u p e r i o r p o i n t o f view. If this necessity i s a b s e n t t h e r e i s no s u f f i c i e n t g r o u n d f o r m e r e s u f f e r i n g and u n h a p p i n e s s . (Aes. 343)  - 61 We with  can  the  fate"  d i s t i n g u i s h modern tragedy  " s o - c a l l e d noble  (Aes.  318),  by  downfall.  from i t s cheap  c r i m i n a l , with  and  the  nature  Ham!et i s the  imitators  h i s empty t a l k  a certain conspiracy  the t r a g i c c h a r a c t e r his  -  between the  of the events  about  nature  which  of  bring  prime example of t h i s which  is  c i t e d by H e g e l . The r e a l c o l l i s i o n , t h e r e f o r e , ( ( i n H a m ! e t ) ) does not t u r n on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s o n , i n g i v i n g e f f e c t t o a r i g h t f u l sense of vengeance, i s h i m s e l f f o r c e d to v i o l a t e m o r a l i t y , b u t r a t h e r on t h e p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n a l i t y , the i n n e r l i f e of Hamlet, whose noble soul i s not s t e e l e d to t h i s k i n d of e n e r g e t i c a c t i v i t y , but, w h i l e f u l l o f c o n t e m p t f o r t h e w o r l d and l i f e , w h a t b e t w e e n m a k i n g up h i s m i n d a n d a t t e m p t i n g t o c a r r y i n t o e f f e c t or p r e p a r i n g to c a r r y i n t o e f f e c t i t s r e s o l v e s , i s b a n d i e d . f r o m p i l l a r t o p o s t , and f i n a l l y t h r o u g h h i s own p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n a n d t h e e x t e r n a l course o f e v e n t s m e e t s h i s own d o o m . ( A e s . 335) Whereas the emphasis i n c l a s s i c a l lision  per se,  i n modern t r a g e d y ,  i s - o n the  complex make-up of the  character  was  which alone (Aes.  335).  Now  to  itself.  not n e c e s s a r i l y the  The  a r e t h e k i n d o f men  is  Now  formed  is granted  the  stress  Once  the  pathos  personality."  r e l a t i o n s and the r i g i d  constructure  germ l i e s w i t h i n is driven  into  the action,  i n t e r e s t s of the e t h i c a l v i n d i c a t i o n but  are."  r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w h i c h we  t h a t he  already  col-  to Hegel , the  dynamic to provide  claims, they  on t h e  e t h i c a l state of  tragic character  " i n the  truly substantive  The  "one  his  for tragic collision.  character  was  tragic character.  the backdrop of c o n t i n g e n t  d i t i o n s i s t o o c o m p l e x and required  according  his a l l i a n c e with corresponds  tragedy  f o r the simple  (Aes.  reason  they  335)  are o f f e r e d i n the  sweet death.  that  of  It is only  case  from a  of  Hamlet  purely  - 62 external  p o i n t of view  t h a t Hamlet's  a c c i d e n t a l ' e n d i n g of his duel with  death  c a n be s e e n as  an  Laertes.  . . . i n the background of Hamlet's s o u l , death i s a l ready p r e s e n t from the f i r s t . The s a n d bank o f f i n i t e c o n d i t i o n w i l l not content h i s s p i r i t . (Aes. Hamlet i s a more c o m p l i c a t e d t r a g i c hero t a g o n i s t of our previous d i s c u s s i o n s .  He  i s not  a l i g n e d w i t h a d o o m e d p o s i t i o n , he i s w o r s e . Antigone every  d i d not have,  a dual v i s i o n .  than the Greek  342) pro-  singularly  H a m l e t has  what  He c a n s e e b o t h s i d e s o f  i s s u e he c o n f r o n t s a n d he i s p a r a l y s e d .  U n l i k e the  tragic  h e r o o f a n t i q u i t y he i s n o t s t r e n g t h e n e d  i n h i s p o s i t i o n by  unwavering,  is in a tragic position  and  i f tragic, resolve.  understands  i t , he c a n s e e a l l t h e c a s e s a g a i n s t h i m a n d  possible actions. and  He b o t h  These  his  p r o t o t y p e s , the one-sided p r o t a g o n i s t  the d u a l - v i s i o n e d hero, p r o v i d e the m a t e r i a l from  a c c o r d i n g to Hegel,  an  a l l tragedy  comes.  which,  -  B.  63  -  Conclusion Hegel  inherent  believed  t h a t t r a g e d y was  i n the p o l i t i c a l  b e l i e f in the h i s t o r i c a l struggles  to gain  s t r u c t u r e o f the Greek dialectic,  an e v e r b e t t e r  n o t an i m p o s s i b i l i t y .  in which  What w o u l d  e a r t h l y needs  of a universal  Hegel  thought, would  complex  from the "beyond."  have is  discussion two  the p o l i t i c a l  other i s the promotion calling  the  spiritual I do  machinery  promotes  the  the s p i r i t u a l  and g r a n t s pure u n i v e r s a l i t y to the dead  life  through  One qual-  awareness.  of the c u l t of the dead which improves  p o1i s I  universality.  i n t h i s m i n i a t u r e model of u n i v e r s a l  and w h i c h  the  structure,  the Greek  i n v o l v e m e n t of the male which  The  as  per-  arrangement.  d i s t i n c t ways o f p r o m o t i n g  of c i v i c l i f e  world  co-exist harmoniously.  of e t h i c a l spheres within  ity  family  a  t h a t he f e l t t h a t t h e p o 1 i s p r o v i d e d t h e  mentioned  female's  as w e l l  Such  man  Universal,  accommodate  be t r u l y u n i v e r s a l ; s e c u l a r and  e n o u g h t o h o s t s u c h an  In my  could  b r o t h e r h o o d o f man  s p h e r e s o f a c t i o n and b e l i e f w o u l d not believe  the s o c i e t y of  be n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c h  be a s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e w h i c h  u p o n man  Hegel's  that a morally perfect  f e c t i o n would  demands p l a c e d  struggle  po1 i s .  understanding of the  s e e m s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t he b e l i e v e d is  born of the e t h i c a l  i s the  of the ritual. .  1) T h e a c q u i s i t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f p o w e r a n d w e a l t h is i n p a r t c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h needs and b e l o n g s t o the s p h e r e o f a p p e t i t e ; i n p a r t , they become i n t h e i r higher determination something that is mediated. This d e t e r m i n a t i o n does not f a l l w i t h i n the F a m i l y i t s e l f , . b u t b e a r s on w h a t i s t r u l y u n i v e r s a l , t h e c o m m u n i t y ; i t has, r a t h e r , a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n to the F a m i l y , and c o n s i s t s i n e x p e l l i n g the i n d i v i d u a l from the Family,  - 64 s u b d u i n g the n a t u r a l a s p e c t and s e p a r a t e n e s s o f h i s . e x i s t e n c e , a n d t r a i n i n g h i m t o be v i r t u o u s , to a l i f e i n and f o r t h e u n i v e r s a l . . . 2) T h e d e e d , t h e n , w h i c h e m b r a c e s t h e e n t i r e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e b 1 o o d - r e l a t i o n , does not c o n c e r n t h e c i t i z e n , f o r he d o e s n o t b e l o n g t o t h e F a m i l y . . . i t has as i t s o b j e c t and c o n t e n t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l who b e l o n g s t o t h e F a m i l y , b u t i s t a k e n as a u n i v e r s a l b e i n g f r e e d f r o m h i s s e n s u o u s , i . e . individual, reality. T h e d e e d no l o n g e r c o n c e r n s t h e l i v i n g b u t t h e d e a d , t h e i n d i v i d u a l who, after a long succession of separate disconnected experiences, concentrated himself into a s i n g l e completed s h a p e , and has r a i s e d h i m s e l f o u t o f t h e u n r e s t o f the a c c i d e n t s of l i f e i n t o the calm of simple u n i versality. (PG 451) It  i s not a flaw in Hegel's  promoting  u n i v e r s a l i t y are at odds with each  odds with each ochial  other because  involvement  substance" which  The  of both spheres  of  a c c o r d i n g to a  par-  Hegel,  relation-  o b l i g a t i o n s . T h e i r ' s was  but immediate  unity with  not  the  their position in society dictated.  Hence, the u n i t y of the c l a s s i c a l action.  T h e y are a t are too  s o c i e t y had too immediate  their respective ethical  reflective ethical  other.  of the p o l i s  This is largely because,  a n d women o f G r e e k  ship with  "ethical  the laws  i n nature to p r o v i d e f o r the scope  a c t i o n and b e l i e f . t h e men  s c h e m e t h a t t h e s e two w a y s o f  tragic antagonist with  his  c h a r a c t e r i s one w i t h h i s b e l i e f and a c t i o n .  ((The t r a g i c c h a r a c t e r ' s ) ) being c o n s i s t s in his b e l o n g i n g to his e t h i c a l law...The e t h i c a l i n d i v i d u a l i t y i s d i r e c t l y and i n t r i n s i c a l l y one w i t h t h i s his u n i v e r s a l a s p e c t , e x i s t s i n i t a l o n e , and i s incapable of s u r v i v i n g the d e s t r u c t i o n of t h i s e t h i c a l p o w e r by i t s o p p o s i t e . (PG_ 4 7 1 ) I t s h o u l d n o t be c o n f u s i n g , t h e n , t h a t H e g e l o c c a s i o n s t h a t t h e two  distinct  realms  of e t h i c a l  s a y s on life  some  are  m o n i o u s i n n a t u r e , and a t o t h e r t i m e s , t h a t t h e y a r e n o t .  harThey  - 65 are  not c o n s i s t e n t l y  Mankind  c o n c o r d a n t a t t h e t i m e of t h e G r e e k  i s too dominated,  i n h i s d e c i s i o n s t o a c t , by h i s n a t u r e .  R e a s o n , a l t h o u g h t h i s h i n t s of d i c h o t o m y to  po1 i s .  which  Hegel p r o f e s s e s  i g n o r e , has n o t y e t d e s i g n a t e d t h e means f o r a b a l a n c e . T h i s r u i n of t h e e t h i c a l S u b s t a n c e a n d i t s p a s s a g e i n t o a n o t h e r f o r m i s t h u s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e t h i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s d i r e c t e d on t o t h e l a w i n a way t h a t i s e s s e n t i a l l y i mmedi a t e . T h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of i m m e d i a c y m e a n s t h a t N a t u r e as s u c h e n t e r s i n t o t h e e t h i c a l a c t , t h e r e a l i t y of which s i m p l y r e v e a l s the c o n t r a d i c t i o n and the g e r m o f d e s t r u c t i on" i n h e r e n t i n t h e b e a u t i f u l h a r m o n y a n d t r a n q u i l e q u i l i b r i u m of t h e e t h i c a l Spirit itself. (P_G 4 7 6 ) H o w e v e r , when H e g e l  does  existing without internal  r e f e r to his e t h i c a l  s i b l e to attain or maintain.  Such  which  i s not y e t  dilemma which  Greek s o c i e t y and c l a s s i c a l A.M.  pos-  harmonious.  i s a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n t t o s e t t l e as i t d e t e r m i n e s t h e  i c a n c e of t h e m o r a l  can  a balance is only in a state  p o s s i b i l i t y , the e t h i c a l world i s p o t e n t i a l l y  This  as  c o n t r a d i c t i o n , i t s e e m s t h a t he  o n l y be s p e a k i n g o f a s t a t e o f d e v e l o p m e n t  of  Spirit  Hegel  f e l t was  signif-  s o b o u n d up w i t h  tragedy.  Quinton understands Hegel  t o be s a y i n g t h a t a  conflict  3 2  of  r i g h t v e r s u s r i g h t c a n o n l y be a p p a r e n t .  t i m e s seems t h a t Hegel s t a n c e i n the Greek  I n d e e d i t some-  i s s a y i n g t h a t t h e s p h e r e s of e t h i c a l  p o l i s w e r e a l r e a d y i n h a r m o n y a n d t h a t i t was  o n l y a m a t t e r of m i s t a k e n h u m a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h i c h the  problems  which  a r e b r o u g h t t o us i n G r e e k  caused a l l  tragedy.  s a y s o v e r and o v e r a g a i n t h a t i t i s n o t t h e p r i n c i p l e s the  sub-  t r a g i c h e r o s t a n d s t h a t a r e a t f a u l t b u t t h e way  t r a g i c h e r o r e p r e s e n t s t h e m i n human  society.  Hegel f o r which  i n which  the  -  -  66  For d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r s propose that which i s i t s e l f e s s e n t i a l l y v a l i d , y e t they are only able to c a r r y i t out under the t r a g i c demand i n a manner t h a t i m p l i e s c o n t r a d i c t i o n and with a onesidedness which i s i n j u r i o u s . ( A e s . 298) I t s e e m s t o me, is i d e n t i f y i n g deeper.  however, t h a t i t i s l i k e l y  as t h e o r i g i n o f t r a g e d y h a s  I f , i n d e e d , t h e c o n f l i c t w h i c h we  t h a t what  i t s roots a  Hegel little  encounter i n the  A n t i gone, Oedipus , and a s c o r e o f o t h e r t r a g e d i e s i s o n l y e n t , why  does  and C r e o n ' s  i t require a tragic resolution?  Both  Antigone's  behaviour i s the r e s u l t of a d e c e p t i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,  b u t t h i s amounts t o more t h a n a s i m p l e human m i s t a k e . acters are great. Spirit ethical  appar-  itself.  Their mistakes  are symtomatic  These  char-  of a flaw in  They are the r e s u l t o f the d i s c o r d a n t realms  a c t i o n and b e l i e f .  of  The e t h i c a l w o r l d , human S p i r i t ,  is  not y e t p e r f e c t . Only i n the downfall of both s i d e s a l i k e i s a b s o l u t e r i g h t a c c o m p l i s h e d , a n d t h e e t h i c a l s u b s t a n c e as t h e n e g a t i v e power which e n g u l f s both s i d e s , t h a t i s , o m n i p o t e n t a n d r i g h t e o u s D e s t i n y , s t e p s on t h e s c e n e . (PG 472) As  I have s a i d , i t i s n e c e s s a r y to understand  of e t h i c a l  d i s c o r d in the c i t y - s t a t e  above Hegel  harmonious  results  from i t .  seems to r e f e r to e t h i c a l  as i f i t w e r e p r e s e n t i n t h e f o r m s  of  In t h e  substance  of concordant i d e a l s which  i n p r i n c i p l e but independent  p o r t a b l e w i t h i n , human a c t i o n .  presence  i n o r d e r t o make s e n s e  t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e human c o n f l i c t w h i c h sections quoted  the  f r o m , and i n f a c t  Human a c t i o n , by t h e  insup-  logical  n e c e s s i t y o f i t s a l l e g i a n c e t o e i t h e r human o r d i v i n e law some o c c a s i o n s demand, d i s r u p t s t h e b a l a n c e i n e t h i c a l  are  which  substance  - 67  -  and c a u s e s v i o l e n c e and d e s t r u c t i o n . that this port. code  i s a p o s i t i o n which  Hegel wishes  I t i s s e n s e l e s s t o suppose f o r behaviour which  Hegel  I do n o t b e l i e v e , h o w e v e r ,  t h a t t h e r e c a n be a  order or "substance" which  f r o m human a c t i o n a n d b e l i e f . the p o s s i b i l i t y which  suggest that there i s i s outside or separate  When A n t i g o n e a n d C r e o n  clash,  i s i n h e r e n t i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e two  s p h e r e s , human a n d d i v i n e , b e c o m e s a c t u a l i t y . Spirit  harmonious  i s impossible f o r behaviour to uphold.  i s a l s o t h e l a s t p e r s o n who w o u l d  any e t h i c a l  to c o n s i s t e n t l y sup-  i s d i v i d e d and t h e e t h i c a l  realms  Discord exists.  a r e not i n harmony.  It i s s t r a n g e , n o n e t h e l e s s , t h a t to r e p r e s e n t a sound cal b e l i e f i s f r e q u e n t l y to court disaster. of d e s t r u c t i o n o f which  Hegel  spoke.  ethi-  T h i s i s t h e germ  Quinton says that  Antigone  p r e s s e s t o o hard " t h e c l a i m s o f the f a m i l y , " and d o u b t l e s s is too t y r a n n i c a l Yet what meaning  to represent the just claims of the state. can the f a m i l i a l  duties, the ethical  the f a m i l y , have w i t h o u t a champion are threatened?  a c t i o n are a t t r i b u t e s which  t r a g i c hero; h i s q u e s t i o n , which all,  i s 'whether  t o a r t i c u l a t e them when  they  of traitors?  Moderation  and  are i n a p p l i c a b l e to the  Hegel  s a y s i s no q u e s t i o n a t  t o a c t o r n o t t o a c t . A n d y e t i f he a c t s i n  a c c o r d a n c e w i t h an e t h i c a l  s p h e r e , how d o e s  the fault l i e i n his  " p a r t i c u l a r e m b o d i m e n t " o f i t ? How i s t h e i n d i v i d u a l for the contradictions inherent i n ethical and Creon  sphere of  What f u n c t i o n c a n t h e p a r o c h i a l laws o f t h e  po1 i s p e r f o r m i f n o t t h e p u n i s h m e n t measured  Creon  substance?  h a d b o t h s o f t e n e d t h e i r s t a n c e s we w o u l d  c o n f l i c t but not a tragedy.  Bradley says:  culpable  still  I f Antigone have a  -  -  68  That which i s denied i s not the r i g h t f u l powers with which the combatants have i d e n t i f i e d themselves. On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h o s e p o w e r s , and w i t h them the o n l y t h i n g f o r which the combatants cared are a f f i r m e d . What i s d e n i e d i s the e x c l u s i v e and t h e r e f o r e wrongful a s s e r t i o n of t h e i r r i g h t . 3  Here  i s w h e r e we  must take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the l a r g e r view  presented in Hegel's  p h i l o s o p h y i n o r d e r to g i v e t h i s  stand-off a context. cause  U l t i m a t e l y human s o c i e t y w i l l  a d i v i s i o n of e t h i c a l  f i n d i n the A n t i gone. substance,  The  e.g. A n t i g o n e  they must work, e.g.  substance  such  as t h e o n e w h i c h  the Greek  we  ethical  and the model w i t h i n  which  p o1i s , are too i n s u f f i c i e n t  models of the U n i v e r s a l concepts which For this  too o f t e n  p a r t i c u l a r embodiments of  and C r e o n ,  awkward  they attempt  r e a s o n t h e y a r e t o be d e s t r o y e d .  The  l i e , f o r Hegel, i n the nature of the modeling  as  to p o r t r a y .  f a u l t i s seen materials.  Life,  at t h i s s t a g e , p r o v i d e s too poor a copy  of c e r t a i n i d e a l s to  h o l d t o g e t h e r when f o r c e d i n t o a c t i o n .  The  judicial  justice stick,  grinds to a t r a g i c  the machine shudders,  cogs  o f d i v i n e and  and the s t a t e  halt.  T h i s germ o f d e s t r u c t i o n , h o w e v e r , i s what makes t h e unfoldings haps. and  in tragedy  the t r a g i c hero from a flamboyant  take a t r a g i c stance are great because  feel  realm.  Because  fool.  The  melodrama  characters  t h e y a r e g r e a t we  care about  them and itself  t h e t r a p t h a t F a t e ( o r " u n c o m p r e h e n d e d n e c e s s i t y " ) , has act out t h e i r b e l i e f s .  who  of t h e i r a l l i a n c e with  the h o r r o r o f s u c h s t r e n g t h and v i r t u e w a s t i n g  t h o s e who  unhappy  i n e v i t a b l e , and n o t j u s t a c c i d e n t a l , m i s -  T h i s n e c e s s i t y i s what s e p a r a t e s tragedy from  ethical  to  In the A n t i g o n e ,  we  in  laid  Ismene  an  for  - 69 understands She,  t h e f a m i l y ' s p l i g h t as c l e a r l y  however, does  not a c t .  as A n t i g o n e  does.  In Ismene t h e r e i s c o n f l i c t b u t  no  tragedy. G u i l t i s n o t an i n d i f f e r e n t , a m b i g u o u s a f f a i r , as i f t h e d e e d as a c t u a l l y s e e n i n t h e l i g h t o f d a y c o u l d , o r p e r h a p s c o u l d n o t , be t h e a c t i o n o f t h e s e l f , as i f w i t h t h e d o i n g o f i t t h e r e c o u l d be l i n k e d s o m e t h i n g e x t e r n a l and a c c i d e n t a l t h a t d i d not belong to i t , from which a s p e c t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e a c t i o n w o u l d be i n n o c e n t . On t h e c o n t r a r y , the a c t i o n i t s e l f i s i t s e l f t h i s s p l i t t i n g i n t o two, t h i s e x p l i c i t s e l f - a f f i r m a t i o n and t h e e s t a b l i s h i n g o v e r a g a i n s t i t s e l f o f an a l i e n external r e a l i t y , that there i s such a r e a l i t y , t h i s stems f r o m the a c t i o n i t s e l f and r e s u l t s from i t . Innocence, t h e r e f o r e , i s merely nona c t i o n , l i k e the mere b e i n g of a s t o n e , not even that of a c h i l d . (PG 468) We imist. will  must wonder, then, t h a t Hegel  s h o u l d be l a b e l e d an  He c l e a r l y s a y s t h a t a c t i o n i s a l w a y s  always  living,  However, s t r o n g a c t i o n s , a c t i o n s which  the s i m p l e demands o f e v e r y d a y  life  l e a d e r s h i p a n d w h a t s e e m s t o be i n d e p e n d e n t  Antigone  t h a t s h e was  i s more g u i l t y  exceed  and r i s e t o t h e o c c a s i o n o f  a r e a l l t h e m o r e c e r t a i n t o be w r o n g , c u l p a b l e a n d tragic.  provides a  i s necessary f o r the p e r p e t u a t i o n of a  dynamic s o c i e t y .  a crisis,  wrong, i n that i t  t e m p o r a r i l y upset the b a l a n c e , but t h i s  tension which  opt-  than Oedipus  thinking,  downright  because  she  knew  a c t i n g i n o p p o s i t i o n t o an e s t a b l i s h e d l a w .  I t c a n be t h a t t h e r i g h t w h i c h l a y i n w a i t i s n o t p r e s e n t i n i t s own p r o p e r s h a p e t o t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s of the doer, but i s p r e s e n t only i m p l i c i t l y i n the i n n e r g u i l t o f t h e r e s o l v e and the a c t i o n . But t h e e t h i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s more c o m p l e t e , i t s g u i l t more i n e x c u s a b l e , i f i t knows b e f o r e h a n d t h e law and t h e p o w e r w h i c h i t o p p o s e s , i f i t t a k e s them t o be v i o l e n c e a n d w r o n g , t o be e t h i c a l m e r e l y by a c c i d e n t , and, l i k e A n t i g o n e , knowingly commits the c r i m e . {P&_  470)  -  W h a t c a n we t r a g i c heroes  -  s a y of a t h e o r y of  guilty?  that the e t h i c a l defense  70  tragedy which  pronounces  I t i s small comfort to a vanquished  realm which  he d e f e n d e d  was  indeed worthy  And  c l e a r l y , as an a r c h e t y p e f o r t r a g e d y  too l i m i t i n g a p r e s c r i p t i o n . Thus i t i s t h a t Hegel to extend  h i s l i s t of  those which stance.  justifiable beliefs  he d i d n o t i n i t i a l l y  With  t h e i n c l u s i o n of  r e l a t i v e to the t r a g i c hero and  of human  this  is far  was  obliged  and a c t i o n s to i n c l u d e  include within ethical  sub-  personal i n t e r e s t s which his circumstances  are  a certain  a m o u n t of t h e d e s i r a b l e n e c e s s i t y i s r e m o v e d f r o m t r a g i c ment.  hero  b u t a t t h e s a m e t i m e i n d e f e n s i b l e i n t h e r e a l m of  affairs.  T h a t g e r m of  collision  d e s t r u c t i o n i n h e r e n t i n the good  i s n o t p r e s e n t i n a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e one  suing l o v e , fame, wealth  good  i s merely  per-  o r some o t h e r c o m m o d i t y w h i c h  i t i s to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t j u s t i f i a b l e .  c l i n g i n g t o t h a t c o n s p i r a c y of t h e n a t u r e of with h i s u n f o r t u n a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e , Hegel of t h e i n e v i t a b i l i t y of works i n this  develop-  versus  is  a l l y r e c o g n i z e d as b e i n g of u n i v e r s a l i n t e r e s t a n d h e n c e p u r s u i t of  all  generthe  But h e r e ,  the t r a g i c  character  manages to c o n v i n c e  the t r a g i c developments  by  us  i n the g r e a t e r  genre.  A n d w h a t of t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d  p o s i t i o n which  i t i o n a l l y h o l d s i n A e s t h e t i c s as an o p t i m i s t ?  Hegel  trad-  He b e l i e v e d i n  r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , e t e r n a l j u s t i c e , and o t h e r o p t i m i s t i c s o u n d i n g i d e a l s , b u t w h a t do t h e s e t e r m s  mean f o r  Hegel?  . . . w h a t e v e r may be t h e c l a i m of t h e t r a g i c f i n a l p u r p o s e a n d p e r s o n a l i t y , w h a t e v e r may b e t h e n e c e s s i t y of t h e t r a g i c c o l l i s i o n , i t i s , as a c o n s e q u e n c e of o u r p r e s e n t v i e w , no l e s s a c l a i m  - 71 t h a t i s a s s e r t e d . . . by t h e t r a g i c r e s o l u t i o n o f this d i v i s i o n . I t i s through this l a t t e r r e s u l t that Eternal J u s t i c e i s operative i n such a i m s a n d i n d i v i d u a l s u n d e r a mode w h e r e b y i t r e s t o r e s the e t h i c a l substance and unity i n and along with the downfall o f the i n d i v i d u a l i t y which disturbs i t s repose. ( A e s . 298) Hegel i s o p t i m i s t i c to the extent element of balance  and s t r u c t u r e  in the unfolding  in our d a i l y dilemma, b u t the very bastions and  of strength  and reason  women who s y m b o l i c a l l y  very  j u s t i c e which they  o f h i s t o r y and  a r c h i t e c t s of change, the  what appears u n j u s t  a r e t h e most notable  uphold.  f o r some  t h a t m a k e up t h e h a n d f u l  confront  sue what a p p e a r s j u s t , these  t h a t he a l l o w s  o f men or pur-  victims  Hegel's i s not the b l i n d  of Schopenhauer, h i s i s a s i g h t e d and hence a l l t h e more less  fate ruth-  fate. Hegel draws upon A r i s t o t l e ' s famous d i c t u m  e f f e c t of tragedy 298)  of the  by a w o r k o f t r a g e d y  unfortunate  t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f f e a r and p i t y i s a testimony  not simply  coincidence,  excited  t o the q u a l i t y o f t h e work.  i n s p i r e i n us a f e a r o f a c c i d e n t nor p i t y f o r those  len v i c t i m to such bad luck. tingencies  "the true  i s to e x c i t e and p u r i f y f e a r and p i t y . " (Aes.  Hegel b e l i e v e d  Tragedy should  that  or  who h a v e m e r e l y  We a r e w a r n e d t h a t e x t e r n a l  fal-  con-  a r e n o t what i s t r u l y t e r r i b l e i n l i f e . That which mankind has t h e r e f o r e i n t r u t h t o f e a r is n o t t h e e x t e r n a l power and i t s o p p r e s s i o n , b u t the e t h i c a l might which i s s e l f - d e f i n e d i n i t s own f r e e r a t i o n a l i t y , a n d p a r t a k e s f u r t h e r o f t h e e t e r n a l a n d i n v i o l a b l e , t h e p o w e r a man s u m m o n s a g a i n s t h i s own b e i n g w h e n h e t u r n s h i s b a c k u p o n it. ( A e s . 299)  - 72 S i m i l a r l y the sympathy  w h i c h we m u s t f e e l  character is d i f f e r e n t from the r e a l i z a t i o n  t h a t a c c i d e n t s hap-  pen and i t i s a shame t h a t t h e y o f t e n h a p p e n t h e c o n t r a r y , we  have  to feel  for a tragic  to good  i n t e r e s t and a l s o a sympathy  from the r e a l i z a t i o n truction.  On  a r e c o g n i t i o n of the greatness of  a c h a r a c t e r b e c a u s e o f h i s a l l i a n c e w i t h an e t h i c a l justifiable  people.  sphere  or  w i t h him which s p r i n g s  t h a t w i t h i n h i s g r e a t n e s s i s h i s own  des-  T h e two a r e h o p e l e s s l y e n t a n g l e d . T r u e s y m p a t h y . . . i s an a c c o r d a n t f e e l i n g w i t h t h e e t h i c a l c l a i m a t t h e same t i m e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the s u f f e r e r - t h a t i s , with what i s n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i e d i n h i s c o n d i t i o n as a f f i r m a t i v e and s u b stantive. ( A e s . 299)  Q u i n t o n ' s summation view o f l i f e , "  o f w h a t c a n be m e a n t by t h e  "tragic  asserts that i t entails a contingency of value -  " v a l u e i s c o n t i n g e n t f o r i t s r e a l i z a t i o n on t h e a g e n c y and t h a t i t i s p r e s u p p o s e d , 34 any p o i n t . "  "by t h e i d e a t h a t h u m a n a c t i o n  -  has  This i s not the case in Hegel's theory, Quinton  argues, because Hegel  i s an o p t i m i s t .  Consequently, Hegel i s  i n t e r p r e t e d as s a y i n g t h a t " g o o d m u s t t r i u m p h . . . w h a t bad w i l l  o f men"  c e a s e t o seem so when v i e w e d  s e e m s t o be  i n i t s p l a c e in the  whole  35  scheme o f t h i n g s . " activity  Such  pointless because  e v e n t u a l l y be s e e n as g o o d , particular i t actually  a t h e s i s , Q u i n t o n c l a i m s , makes human i f e v e r y t h i n g which i t makes l i t t l e  i s o r w h a t we  appears evil  will  d i f f e r e n c e which  in  do t o c h a n g e i t .  T h i s i s an i r o n i c s t a t e m e n t o f H e g e l ' s p o s i t i o n b e c a u s e , I have shown, Hegel the o p p o s i t e terms.  as  f r e q u e n t l y frames h i s p h i l o s o p h y i n q u i t e That i s to say, even though  i t appears  that  -  73  -  A n t i g o n e i s u p h o l d i n g a noble cause, the l a r g e r view w i l l h e r p o s i t i o n as b e i n g i n t h e w r o n g . and she e r r s . ition,  However, t h i s  Her knowledge i s d e c e p t i v e  reversed statement of Hegel's  i f substituted for Quinton's will y i e l d  with regards to the contingency of v a l u e . a p p e a r bad and bad w i l l t h e s e t e r m s a n d how  reveal  pos-  t h e same c o m p l a i n t  That i s , i f good  a p p e a r g o o d , w h a t m e a n i n g c a n we  will  t i e to  c a n we e x p e c t o u r a c t i o n s t o h a v e a n y  signi-  ficance? W h a t r e s c u e s H e g e l , i n my o p i n i o n , f r o m t h i s s t a t i c p r e t a t i o n , i s h i s own f e r i n g we  l a r g e r view.  inter-  He b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e s u f -  d e p i c t and come t o u n d e r s t a n d i n t r a g e d y i s w h a t  s o m e d a y l e a d t o t h a t b r o t h e r h o o d o f man  i n which  the  may  universal  i s t h o r o u g h l y u n d e r s t o o d and r e p r e s e n t e d i n human j u s t i c e .  Such  i s t h e g o a l o f h i s t o r y b u t t h e r e i s no g u a r a n t e e t h a t i t i s an obtainable goal.  H e g e l ' s God  i s , i n f a c t , the unorthodox  w h i c h Q u i n t o n a v o w e d as t h e o n l y C h r i s t i a n God the t r a g i c view of l i f e . man  H e g e l ' s God  Hegel's optimism lies  mony w h i c h lies which  endeavours  for our s p i r i t u a l  his actions bring  i n the p r i n c i p l e s o f l o v e and  he b e l i e v e d h i s God h a s g r a n t e d u s .  i n the burden  compatible with  i s o m n i p o t e n t b u t he a l l o w s  t o s t r u g g l e and to s u f f e r the e v i l s w h i c h  about.  one  His  pessimism  t h e s e i d e a l s p l a c e on t h e w e a k h u m a n  to s u p p o r t them.  har-  frame  The same b e l i e f i s p r o m i s i n g  l i v e s and d e v a s t a t i n g to our p r a c t i c a l  exis-  tence. The moral  f a c t t h a t t h e t r e n d i n m o d e r n t r a g e d y i s away f r o m  dilemma would  the  be, i n f a c t , a d e p r e s s i n g p a t t e r n to Hegel.  F a r f r o m s e e k i n g t h e l a r g e r v i e w , t h i s t r e n d d e p i c t s man's  -  74  i n t e r e s t s as l y i n g more and  -  more w i t h  the needs of the i n d i v i d u a l  t o an e x t e n t w h i c h g r e a t l y e x c e e d s t h a t w h i c h was the philosophy was  born  of the Enlightenment.  c l e a r enough to Hegel  to c a u s e him  s i g n i f i c a n c e of Greek tragedy. true form was  of tragedy  Even so, t h i s  I t r e m a i n e d f o r him  in civilized  what Hegel  society.  This  r i f i c e of the whole, the l o s s of the U n i v e r s a l deceptive  understanding  o f t h e n e e d s o f man.  the g r e a t e s t f e a r to our h e a r t s Hegel f e l t , a s t e r and  t h a t we  and  that Hegel,  and  the  the  only  believed i s the  through  sac-  some  This should  i t is only through  This  A r i s t o t l e before  as t h e q u a l i t y w h i c h g r a n t e d p u r i f y , and  drift  strike  tragedy,  c o u l d be made a w a r e o f t h i s i m m i n e n t d i s -  perhaps become e n l i g h t e n e d .  implication  in  to draw a t t e n t i o n to  because i t captured  the g r e a t e s t horror  acceptable  p e r h a p s r a i s e up,  i s the him,  the genre of tragedy  universal i n s i s t e d upon the power  the g r e e d y , mundane, soul of  to man.  - 75 Footnotes 1.  G.W.F. H e g e l , P h e n o m e n o l o g y o f S p i r i t , t r a n s . A . V . M i l l e r , n o t e s J . N . F i n d l a y ( C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , O x f o r d , 1 9 7 9 ) , p . 6. T h i s e d i t i o n s h a l l h e n c e f o r t h b e a b b r e v i a t e d a s P_G a n d a l l q u o t a t i o n s from i t w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e t e x t o f t h i s p a p e r by s e c t i o n number.  2.  R . C . S o l o m o n , H i s t o r y a n d Human N a t u r e , J o v a n o v i c h , N.Y. , 1 9 7 4 ) , p . 2 1 9 .  3.  i b i d . , p. 224.  4.  C h a r l e s T a y l o r , Hegel , (Cambridge 1 977 ) , p. 66.  5.  i b i d . , p. 59.  6.  I s r a e l Knox, The A e s t h e t i c T h e o r i e s o f Kant, S c h o p e n h a u e r , (New Y o r k , 1 9 3 6 ) , p . 2 1 1 .  7.  T a y l o r , o_p_. c i t . , p . 6 1 .  8.  Sophocles, "Antigone," Sophocles 1, trans. Elizabeth ( U n i v . o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , C h i c a g o , 1 9 7 3 ) , 1. 9 2 6 .  Wyckoff,  9.  G.W.F. H e g e l , R e a s o n i n H i s t o r y , t r a n s . R . S . H a r t m a n , Merri 1 1 , 1953), p. 1 .  (Bobbs-  (Harcourt  Brace  University Press,  Cambridge,  Hegel and  10.  T a y l o r , p_p_. c i t . ,, p . 2 1 7 .  11.  T a y l o r , 0£. c i t . , p . 3 6 6 .  12.  Hegel, "Reason i n H i s t o r y , " P h i l o s o p h y H o f f m e i s t e r , (Hamburg, 1955), p. 74.  13.  S o l o m o n , o_p_. c i t . , p . 2 2 4 .  14.  G.W.F. H e g e l , E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f t h e P h i l o s o p h i c a l S c i e n c e s , P a r t I I I P h i l o s o p h y o f S p i r i t , t r a n s . W. W a l l a c e , ( C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , O x f o r d , 1971) , p. 377.  15.  A.C. B r a d l e y , "Hegel's Theory o f Tragedy," Oxford Lectures on P o e t r y , ( O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , O x f o r d ) , p . 7 T !  16.  The term prohodos i s an a l l u s i o n t o t h e Greek N e o p l a t o n i s t version of the dialectic. Instead o f thesis, antithesis and s y n t h e s i s , t h e y used t h e p h r a s e s , mone; u n i t y o r w h o l e , prohodos; t h e road forward o r advance, and epi s trophe; turning around, regarding o r reaching.  o f History, ed.J .  - 76  -  17.  In e a r l i e r G r e e k d r a m a s u c h as t h e t r a g e d i e s o f A e s c h y l u s , h u b r i s was g e n e r a l l y d e p i c t e d as an o f f e n c e a g a i n s t t h e gods. I n t h e w o r k s o f S o p h o c l e s , h o w e v e r . , h u b r i s was m o r e o f t e n an o f f e n c e a g a i n s t t h e b a l a n c e o f n a t u r e b r o u g h t a b o u t n o t by any d e p r a v i t y i n t h e m a i n c h a r a c t e r b u t by t h e t r a g i c e r r o r of m i s t a k e n judgment. This i s the one-sided pronouncement of Hegel's deceptive knowledge. Oedipus is c o n s t a n t l y c i t e d as t h e a r c h e t y p e o f t h i s f l a w e d character ( A r i s t o t l e , De P o e t i c a , B. 11) b u t we m u s t b e a r i n m i n d t h a t t h e A n t i g o n e was w r i t t e n by S o p h o c l e s approximately 15 y e a r s b e f o r e O e d i p u s t h e K i n g a n d i t h a s b e e n suggested t h a t C r e o n was t h e p r o t o t y p e f o r t h e c h a r a c t e r o f O e d i p u s . I f t h i s i s t h e c a s e i t s u p p o r t s my b e l i e f t h a t t h e A n t i g o n e i s more a drama c o n c e r n i n g h u b r i s t h a n one d e a l i n g w i t h a c o n f l i c t o f " g o o d s ; " d i v i n e and human law. (See David G r e n e ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o S o p h o c l e s 1.  18.  A r i s t o t l e , "De trans. Richard s e c t . 13.  19.  Taylor,  20.  Findlay,  21.  I can o n l y make s e n s e o f H e g e l ' s p e c u l i a r a s s i g n m e n t o f t h e p r o m o t i o n o f t h e c u l t o f t h e d e a d t o t h e f a m i l y as i t s s o l e e t h i c a l a c t i o n i n t h a t t h i s f u n c t i o n h a s no s i g n i f i c a n c e or import to the whole community. T h i s would not e x p l a i n , h o w e v e r , w h y i t i s t h e f a m i l y ' s o n l y e t h i c a l a c t i o n and i n f a c t i n the A n t i g o n e the u n b u r i e d dead were a t h r e a t to t h e w e l f a r e o f a l l o f T h e b e s a n d t h i s n a t u r a l a s p e c t was s t r e s s e d much m o r e i n t h e p l a y t h a n was P o l y n e i c e s s a f e p a s s a g e t o t h e u n d e r w o r l d o r any o t h e r d i v i n e n o t i o n .  22.  See  23.  Findlay's  24.  Taylor,  25.  Aristotle,  26.  I t i s an i s s u e a m o n g c l a s s i c i s t s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e p a s s a g e i s s p u r i o u s , b u t m o s t e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s i t as b e i n g a u t h e n tic. T h e r e i s an u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t e n d e n c y among l i t e r a r y s c h o l a r s t o c a l l any p a s s a g e w h i c h t h e y c a n n o t e x p l a i n spurious.  27.  H e g e l , The P h i l o s o p h y o f F i n e A r t , t r a n s , F.P.B. O s m a s t o n , (G. B e l l and Sons L t d . , A l l f u r t h e r quotations from this e d i t i o n t h e t e x t o f t h e p a p e r and The P h i l o s o p h y be a b b r e v i a t e d Aes.  op_. P_G,  PG,  P o e t i c a , " The B a s i c Works o f A r i s t o t l e , M c K e o n , ( R a n d o m H o u s e P r e s s , N.Y., 1941),  c i t . , p. sect.  175. 449.  443-5. notes,  P_G,  452.  o_p_. c i t . , p.  465.  op_.  c i t ., sect.  8.  w i t h n o t e s by L o n d o n ) , p. 2 9 6 . w i l l be g i v e n i n of Fine Art s h a l l  - 77 28.  A.M. Q u i n t o n , " T r a g e d y , " P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n S o c i e t y , S u p p . V o l . 34 ( 1 9 6 0 ) .  29 .  Qu i n t o n , 0£.  c-i t . , 1 64 •  30.  B r a d l e y , OR-  c i t . , pp. 74-75.  31 .  B r a d l e y , 0£.  c i t . , pp. 158-9.  32.  B r a d l e y , op_. c i t . , p p . 1 5 8 - 9 .  33 .  B r a d l e y , op_. c i t . , P • 7 3 .  34.  B r a d l e y , op_. c i t . ,  P- 162 a n d  35.  B r a d l e y , op_. c i t . ,  pp. 162-163.  164  - 78 Bi b 1 i ography 1.  Aristotle.  "De P o e t i c a , " T h e B a s i c W o r k s o f A r i s t o t l e . T r a n s , by I n g r a m B y w a t e r . E d . R. M c K e o n . Random H o u s e , New Y o r k , 1 9 4 1 .  2.  B o w r a , C.M.  A n c i e n t Greek L i t e r a t u r e . O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New  York,  1967.  3.  F i n d l a y , J.N. Hegel: A Re-examination. George A l l e n & Unwin L t d . , London,  1958.  4.  F u l l e r , B.A.G. A - H i s t o r y o f P h i l o s o p h y . H e n r y H o l t a n d C o . , New Y o r k ,  5.  Jones, John. On A r i s t o t l e a n d G r e e k Chatto & Windus, London,  6.  K a u f m a n n , W. Hegel: A Reinterpretation. D o u b l e d a y & C o . , I n c . , New Y o r k ,  Tragedy. 1962.  7.  . Hegel: Doubleday  8.  . Hegel's P o l i t i c a l Philosophy. A t h e r t o n P r e s s , New Y o r k , 1 9 7 0 .  9. 10. 11.  Texts & Co.,  1948.  1966.  and Commentary. I n c . , New Y o r k ,  1966.  K i t t o , H.D.F. Form and M e a n i n g i n Drama. M e t h u e n & Co. L t d . , L o n d o n , 1960. . Sophocles: D r a m a t i s t and P h i l o s o p h e r . O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , L o n d o n , 1968. H e g e l , G.W.F. H i s t o r y o f P h i l o s o p h y . T r a n s , by E . S . H a l d a n e . Kegan, P a u l , T r u b n e r & Co., L t d . , L o n d o n , 1892.  Trench,  12.  . P h i l o s o p h y o f F i n e A r t IV. T r a n s , by F . P . B . O s m a s t o n . G. B e l l L o n d o n , 1920.  13.  . Philosophy of History. T r a n s , by J . S i b r e e . T h e C o l o n i a l P r e s s , 1 920.  14.  . Philosophy of Right. T r a n s , by T.M. K n o x . C l a r e n d o n 1 962.  15.  . Phenomenology of Mind. T r a n s , by J . B . B a i l l i e . G e o r g e A l l e n and L t d . , L o n d o n , 1 960.  & Sons L t d . , London,  Press,. Oxford,  Unwin,  - 79 16.  . Phenomenology of S p i r i t . T r a n s , by A.V. M i l l e r . Clarendon 1 979 .  Press,  Oxford,  17.  K n o x , B e r n a r d , M.W. The H e r o i c T e m p e r . U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, Berkeley,  18.  S o l o m o n , R.C. H i s t o r y a n d Human N a t u r e . H a r c o u r t B r a c e J o v a n o v i c h , New Y o r k ,  19.  1964.  1974.  . From R a t i o n a l i s m to E x i s t e n t i a l i s m . H u m a n i t i e s P r e s s , New Y o r k , 1 9 7 0 .  20.  Sophocles.  " A n t i g o n e , " S o p h o c l e s 1. T r a n s , by E l i z a b e t h W y c k o f f . Ed. D a v i d Grene. The U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , C h i c a g o , 1973.  21.  S t e i n e r , George. The Death o f T r a g e d y . O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New Y o r k ,  22.  T a y l o r , C.  1980.  Hegel. Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, Cambridge,  1977.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095030/manifest

Comment

Related Items