Sophocles’ Creon and Euripides’: a Comparison

 by Matthew Chedgey

In both Medea and Antigone, the authors present two male antagonists who have ascended to roles in higher society. But at what cost? Creon after his dispute with Antigone faces the repercussions of having those close to him perish. Jason, like Creon, after the abandonment of Medea has both his children and fiance murdered in cold blood by Medea. Thus, the questions that leap out to me is: Do these characters serve the same purpose in their respective plays?, ‘Are they the actual antagonist or is it their female counterparts?, ‘Does Euripides present Jason as less harsh compared to Sophocles’ Creon?

It is fair to say that both these men are portrayed to be rather ambitious and crave positions in high society. For the Greek hero, Jason, after the adventures of the Golden Fleece, took his wife Medea into exile at Corinth. However, he then left her, seeking to advance his political ambitions by marrying Glauce, the daughter of King Creon of Corinth. On the point of Jason's portrayal in the epic by Appolonius of his adventures of the Golden Fleece, the difference is truly fascinating of the character in both plays. In the adventures of the Golden Fleece, we as an audience are presented with an image of a heroic her in Jason, a brave and noble man who somewhat replicates an ancient-day James Bond. However, in Euripiedes' play we see a much darker side to Jason where he deceives and cheats on his wife Medea in order to further his political gain. But does this make Medea's actions of killing her own children justified? One could always argue that as humans we are very fallible. Hence why programmes such as Eastenders or plays like Macbeth are so popular today. The same reason applies to tragedy, which was so popular among the masses of the Ancient Hellenics - it is because one can either relate to the play or find a sense of 'at least my life is not that bad' type of reaction towards it. While unlike Jason, with Creon we not really have backstory and thus there is not really a sense of a downfall and change of character like Jason. However, both their desire and thought processes to gain further positions either through marriage like Jason or kill any threat to one's position of authority like Creon still very much make the two comparable.

Another similarity that one could put forward is their relationships with women. It has always interested me how in many Greek tragedies women play such prevalent roles revealing their views and own side of life. In both these plays, the women play key parts and are presented to be the antithesis of the stereotypes of women of that era as women were considered to be weak, feeble and under the control of men. While Medea is a cunning and vengeful character who kills her own children to get back at Jason. Antigone also has the confidence and bravery to stand up for what she believes against a powerful totalitarian man. However, I would consider that Medea is presented to be playing a villain-like role as for a mother to commit filicide is going against the very purpose of motherhood. As a result there would be a huge element of shock factor towards the audience, particularly to a Greek one where the main goal/purpose of a woman's existence is to give birth to and raise children. Even to today's audience one would still be shocked at the idea of a mother killing her own children. But for Antigone in my opinion there would be a different perception of her between the ancient day and modern audience. Among a modern day audience there would be a shared opinion amongst most of the audience that Antigone is a morally correct character who despite many obstacles stands up for what she believes in. Many like myself would admire her boldness as a younger and less powerful character defying the law imposed by such a much more dominant character of Creon.

Thus, this begs the question: are the men in these plays the antagonists or protagonists? From one perspective, one could see both the characters as antagonists because they both mistreat the main female characters in their respective plays. For Creon, he sentences his own niece Antigone to death for violating his decree that no-one may bury the body of Polynices. While Jason abandons his wife Medea in order to marry Glauce, the beautiful daughter of Creon King of Corinth. However, with Creon one could argue that his idea of putting the state first after a brutal civil war (expressed in his first monologue) is understandable and does not make him the antagonist. Also, the refusal of Polyneices burial could genuinely be seen as fair as he did betray his homeland of Thebes. However, his execution of dealing with the ethical issue Creon confronts in the play, is judged very poorly and does not fully realise the full impact of what he says and does. Therefore, I do believe that Creon is the antagonist, but he is not a villain. He is a bit like an overbearing parent who makes their children clean their room, his reasoning isn't all bad. Jason, on the other hand, unlike Creon has unjustified reasoning for his actions as he leaves Medea in order to improve his own political prestige by marrying Glauce. Therefore, Jason could be considered more so as the antagonist. However, I ultimately do believe that Euripides presents Medea to be the genuine villain of the play because of her over-vengeful attitude that leads to killing her own innocent children and Glauce who similarly to the children, did nothing wrong. Thus, like Creon, Jason’s intention is not to have his children or mistress killed, but his lack of discernment and forward thinking of the effect of his actions upon Medea, from my perspective, led to the bloody ending of the play. 

Thus, in my opinion, both Creon and Jason are both very similar characters but in different situations who at the start of the play believe they are in control of the main women characters in the play. However, as both plays progress we see a change of the gender roles where the male-female relationships are presented in terms of power and politics, with assumptions subverted and inverted.