The Self-Destructive Dual Nature of Mankind as Interpreted by Sophocles, Voltaire, and Shelley

The world in which we live can often be a frightening and confusing place, both because of natural events as well as the societies we find ourselves involved in. As early as fifth century B.C. Sophocles wrote plays highlighting the tragedies that humans endure. In Antigonethere is hardly a happy moment as the characters make decisions tfinhat eventually lead to suicide for most and despair for the heroine’s ill-fated uncle. Centuries later, during the Age of Reason, Voltaire’s philosophique Candide displays an even bleaker example of the horrors endured and created by mankind. Although sometimes viewed as a dark piece of comedy for its punctuated satire, the plot remains a tragedy. Even amidst the new ideals of Romanticism, Mary Shelley shares a similar view on the nature of man to make himself eternally miserable. In her book Frankenstein both monster and creator remained in constant anguish for most of the tale. Why is it that these stories condemn mankind to a miserable, misguided fate? All three authors present the answer to this question by the suggestion that mankind’s drive towards power and possessions is clouded by a constant imbalance of reason and emotion. Because of this inner struggle and the inability of the main characters to find the mean between reason and emotion as they strive towards their goals they are only brought to ruin.

            As the earliest example of the three texts, Antigonedisplays the duality of human nature by presenting the reader with two blatant polar opposites. Antigone, the heroine represents emotional thought while her uncle, Creon, is portrayed as a stalwart rationalist. Within the first fifty-five lines of the play, a bereaved Antigone swears an emotional oath to grant her brother a proper burial. Because her uncle has forbidden anyone in the city to perform burial rites on the traitor, this can be interpreted as a power struggle between Creon and Antigone. Her emotional resolve to take the matter of her brother’s burial into her own hands is her attempt to gain some of the power that Creon currently holds. Antigone says of him in a burst of emotion, “No, he has no right to keep me from my own” (Fagles 61). The inspiration and course of action for her plan to disobey her uncle are guided by emotional reasoning and the drive to override her uncle’s power. When she is discovered, she doesn’t appeal to Creon’s sense of reason, but instead clings to her reliance on her emotions. In her defense to Creon she cries, “If I had allowed my own mother’s son to rot, an unburied corpse- that would have been an agony!” (Fagles 82). Had Antigone instead tried to compromise in some way with her uncle he may have been more sympathetic to her cause. After all he was a reasonable man, and as the saying goes, “what’s the harm in trying”. She may have even observed more caution while carrying out her task and met with possible success. After all, she didn’t even try to conceal her actions, as she approached the body in broad daylight and “when she sees the corpse bare she bursts into a long, shattering wail” (Fagles 80). Unfortunately for her, Antigone was ruled by her emotions and so doomed to rush to the end before fully considering the means to get her there safely.