I’ve started Sophocles’ The Three Theban Plays (Antigone, Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus), translated excellently by Robert Fagles. I read Antigone first, which was the first of the three written by Sophocles even though it’s the last in chronological storytelling. The tragedy deals with the clash of two opposing principles - (1) the holy burial of the dead according to the Gods, and (2) the primal importance of the safety of the city/nation, as exemplified here by the king’s right not to bury a traitor. These principles are played out by the characters, with Antigone insisting on the first and King Creon insisting on the second. The tragedy arises, from my read, because of both characters’ insistence that their perspective alone is correct, as opposed to understanding that both perspectives are partial - not all right, not all wrong - in this realm of limitation and finitude. That both perspectives have some degree of correctness is what gives the weight to the tragedy. The message seems to be when a legitimate partial truth becomes absolute, it can become destructive precisely because it has ceased to recognize the truth contained in its opposite.

These tragedies were performed at the time in front of tens of thousands of people. One of the main effects that it seemed to have had, from my read, is that the dramatized version of the crucifixion of opposites (as seen in Antigone) expanded the ability of the Athenian population to hold contradictions without either collapsing or tilting too hard into any one particular polarity. There is a lot of resonance, obviously, between the Greek tragedian’s perspective and my own, although there are differences as well - especially relating to my relative isolation vs. the Athenians’ deep engagement in communal life.