METHODOLOGICAL

PROBLEMS IN THE
PSYCHOANALYTIC
INTERPRETATION OF
DAVIDWERMAN,
M.D.
LITERATURE:
A REVIEW OF STUDIES
ON SOPHOCLES’
ANTIGONE

E ’ VER SINCE FREUD DISCOVERED psychic function, applied

,psychoanalysis has been closely related to the main body
of psychoanalytic theory. This relationship was a natural
consequence of Freud’s classical education and his fascina-
tion and preoccupation with literature as a derivative of
man’s mental life. In art and literature Freud found illustra-
tions of the theoretical concepts he was organizing out of his
clinical experience; at the same time, art and literature pre-
sented a convincing body of data to corroborate and demon-
strate his ideas.
Although Freud and others such as Abraham and Rank
made extensive and often brilliant excursions into a number
of cultural areas, recasting them in the light of psychoanaly-
sis, their efforts were limited by methodological difficulties
which were evident to the writers themselves. The inherent
problem is that the psychoanalytic interpretation of a cul-
tural phenomenon lies outside of the therapeutic process in
which an interpretation can be inserted and become a
45 1
452 DAVID WERMAN

“mutative” element. Ricoeur (1970) likens applied psycho-

analysis to data about the analysand that might be supplied
to the analyst by a third party. Despite the claim of some
authors, such as Greenacre, that “the study of the works of a
prolific artist offers material as usable for psychoanalytic in-
vestigation as the dreams and free associations of the patient”
(1955, p. 13), this assumption has been disputed.
This essay will present some of the methodological
problems encountered in the psychoanalytic study of liter-
ature. For my purpose I shall examine selected aspects of a
number of psychoanalytic studies of Sophocles’ Antigone. I
shall also indicate methods of approaching the work based on
textual analysis and on subjective response- procedures that
appear complementary to the usual methods of psychoana-
lytic explication of literary works.
It might be appropriate to begin by reviewing the
mythological background to the Antigone. Following Oedi-
pus’ death, his sons agreed to rule Thebes during alternate
years. But at the end of his year on the throne, Eteocles
refused to step down. His brother, Polyneices, with his
father-in-law, raised an army and attacked Thebes, but their
attempt ended in a disastrous rout. At the foot of the walled
city the two brothers killed each other, and Creon, the
former regent and uncle of the brothers, became king. Al-
though he buried the Theban dead, he denied sepulchre to
the enemy, including Polyneices. According to the myth, An-
tigone managed to bury her proscribed brother. The forego-
ing is all we possess of the mythological context of the play,
and it is presumed that the events occurring in Sophocles’
tragedy are largely his invention or that of his contemporaries.
The play opens on the day following the deaths of the
brothers and Creon’s assumption of the throne. Antigone
tells her sister, Ismene, of Creon’s edict that Polyneices’ body
must go unmourned and unburied, “a tasty meal for vul-
tures,” and that whoever violates his decree shall be stoned to
death. Pleading fraternal love and the laws of the gods,
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 453

Antigone announces her determination to bury Polyneices

even if she must forfeit her life. The more Ismene insists that
the idea is madness and bound to fail, that as women they
must be obedient, the more hardened does Antigone become
in her resolve.
When she attempts to carry out the funeral rites, she is
seized and brought before Creon, to whom she avows her act
but evokes “unwritten laws”- divine laws- that are timeless
and universal, that transcend the edicts of any man. Creon
proclaims his rule and law, asserting that enemies must be
treated differently from friends, even though they be. blood
relatives. Antigone responds that she loves both her brothers.
The king rejects this view and condemns her to death, ab-
surdly and spitefully including Ismene in this sentence.
Although Ismene pleads to be permitted to die with her
sister, Antigone spurns her offer, desiring neither help nor a
partner to share her sacrifice.
Creon’s son, Haemon, appears before him and asks that
Antigone be pardoned. Although engaged to marry her, his
plea is free of emotion; he is logical and tactful, dealing with
issues of justice and what he perceives are his father’s pro-
found errors. The scene ends with father and son exploding
with rage and pain, and Creon poised to kill Antigone before
Haemon’s eyes.
Nevertheless, the king decides not to carry out the sacri-
legious execution and orders that Antigone be immured in a
cave with “enough fodder only to defend the country from
the filth of a curse” (Braun, 936-937).’ In her last appear-
ance Antigone chants of her pain in departing from life, of
never having been a bride, and never having nursed a baby.
She is succeeded on stage by the prophet Tiresias who
describes a series of strange omens symbolic of the gods’

I All quotations are taken from Braun (1979) unless otherwise indicated. I
should like to thank Professor Braun, as well as the Oxford University Press, for
their kind permission to quote from his translation. Numbers correspond to lines
in this edition.
454 DAVID WERMAN

anger with Creon’s impious decree. It is clear that Polyneices

must be buried at once. Creon incredibly accuses the seer of
selling him out for money; Tiresias replies that the king is a
sick tyrant who is committing a “crime of violence” and will
be pursued by the “furies of death and deity.” Although he
repudiates the prophet, Creon is frightened and turns to the
Chorus for counsel; they advise him to immediately release
Antigone from the cave and to build a tomb for Polyneices.
When he sets off to rescind his edict, the dramatic action
rushes toward its ineluctable tragic end: Eurydice, his wife,
learns that just before Creon reached the cave, Antigone had
hanged herself. Haemon, in a frenzy of rage and anguish,
attempts to kill his father, fails, and plunges the sword into
himself.
Creon enters, bearing Haemon’s shrouded body, lament-
ing his folly and violence; but his punishments are not yet at
an end, for a messenger reveals that Eurydice, cursing her
husband, has stabbed herself. Tom with grief and guilt,
Creon yearns for oblivion, and the play ends.

From his studies on “neurotic virginity and old maiden-

hood,” Weissman (1964) sought to demonstrate that Anti-
gone is a typical “old maid” reflecting a specific psychosexual
development. He found that the fixation of the old maid is
not “truly Oedipal,” but a fixation on the preoedipal mother
-a wish for unification with her; and by displacement these
disturbed object relations lead to the wish for unification
with other family members-father and siblings-which
results in an “indiscriminate devotion and loyalty to various
members of the immediate family” (p. 32).
In support of his thesis Weissman cites Antigone’s pas-
sionate desire to bury her brother as a demonstration of her
“irrational devotion to the family unit” (p. 34). Similarly,
Antigone’s request that Ismene join her in the burial is
regarded as an “unconscious motive” to unite all the family
members in death. Since the pivot of the tragedy consists of
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 455

Antigone’s unrelenting drive to secure Polyneices’ burial,

Weissman does not lack for quotations to buttress his point of
view. But at no point does he suggest an alternative interpre-
tation of these actions, such as the sacred import of burial in
ancient (and even modern) times. For the ancient Greeks,
failure to bury the dead was an unspeakable crime. Bowra
(1944) wrote that, although Sophocles’ audience might, at
most, have disagreed with Antigone, they would have readily
understood her need to bury Polyneices. The dead have
undeniable rights: to justice, to vengeance, and especially to
proper burial. Without sepulchre the body lies unsanctified
and homeless.* Through powerful images the dramatist
makes us see the degradation of Polyneices’ corpse: “ripped
for food by dogs and vulture,” “the body was oozing,” “the
mangled body lay . . . where the dogs had dragged it,” “the
eagles ripped him for food,” and so on. Clearly, the poet
forces us to experience the horror of this uncared-for body.
The omission of the issue of burial seriously weakens Weiss-
man’s thesis.
He stresses Antigone’s “irrationalism,” indicating that it
comes from her unconscious wish for reunion with her
mother: logically, her defiance of Creon’s edict is “irration-
al,” since it will lead to the death she unconsciously seeks.
Weissman quotes an exchange with Creon wherein she
declares that Hades makes no distinction between the
brothers. But Creon retorts, “Not even death can metamor-
phose hate to love.” To which Antigone responds: “No, nor
decompose a love to hate” (p. 34).3 To this affirmation of the
power of Eros, Creon, the “rational” protagonist, exclaims,
“Curse you! Find the outlet for your love down there [in
Hades]” (p. 34).
To further establish Antigone’s irrationality, Weissman
presents Ismene not only as a standard of rationality, but as
* Sophocles also dealt with this issue in the Ajux.
’This line is usually translated as: “I was born not to hate but to love.” See
translations of Braun (1973), Fitts and Fitzgerald (1939), and Wyckoff (1973).
456 DAVID W E R M A N
-

the “loyal mature mate or daughter,” who “gives evidence

. . . of a mature oedipally derived love.. .” (p. 40). His
evidence for this characterization is that Ismene, unlike
Antigone, did not wish to die when their father, Oedipus,
died. Furthermore, during Oedipus’ lifetime, Ismene did not
“become his eyes or his single prop, or his partner in pain”
(p. 39). Her maturity is illustrated by her “see[ing] no sense
in Antigone’s wish to die for her dishonorable brother. Her
wish is to live, to be forgiven, and perhaps fulfill her own
life” (p. 40). (Goethe described Ismene as a “beautiful stan-
dard of the commonplace [Eckermann, 1836, p. 1851.)
Finally, Weissman’s interpretation of an ambiguous
passage is of particular significance. He asserts that the fol-
lowing speech of Antigone gives us a

climactic portrayal of [her] psychosexual development

toward old maidenhood, her preoedipal attachments,
her devaluation and incapacity for a finalizing hetero-
sexual relationship and having her own child. She
explains to Creon:
On what principle do I assert so much?
Just this: A husband dead, another can be found,
A child, replaced; but a brother lost
(Mother and father buried too)
No other brother can be born or grows again.
That’s my principle, which Creon stigmatized
As criminal-my principal for honoring
You my dearest brother. So taken
So I am led away; a spinster still
Uncelebrated, barren and bereft of joys;
No children to my name [pp. 34-35].

While Weissman’s broad interpretation of these verses

seems challenged by the last three lines, his choice of this
passage is of special interest because these lines (904-920 in
the original version) have been the focus of a long-standing,
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 457

unresolved controversy among scholars regarding their very

authenticity. At this point it will be useful to make a detour
in order to review another psychoanalytic study which is
based entirely on the foregoing speech.
Van der Sterren’s (1952) thesis is succinct and his
methodology explicitly described: “I have used Freud’s views
on the psychology of the dream as my starting-point . . .
myth and poetical productions come into being in the same
way and have the same meaning . . . [except that] the secon-
dary elaboration is much further developed.. . . I hold,
a priori, that this conception is the correct one, and the close
study of these plays of Sophocles has shown me once more
that this approach alone is able to solve the various problems
and is moreover, a fruitful method” (p. 343). Van der
Sterren seeks to demonstrate Antigone’s neuroticism by
asserting that by the time she speaks these lines (904-920) she
has “lost the esteem of everyone.” Clearly, if this allegation is
correct it would totally undermine our acceptance of Anti-
gone as a heroine. However, the evidence to support it is
flimsy: Ismene rejects helping in Polyneices’ burial only
because it means risking her life; the Chorus, a group of
timid old men, indeed at first support Creon’s edict, but by
the time of Antigone’s final confrontation with the king they
proclaim to her: “You go with fame and in glory/ to the
hidden place of the dead . . . Your doom is worth grand
fame; for living and dying, both you share/ the heritage of
the gods’ equals” (972-973, 988-990). Tiresias flatly calls
Creon #‘stupid’’and “criminal.” Haemon declares that “the
whole nation denies [that Antigone did wrong]” (882). Creon
himself, far from disputing these assertions, retorts: “Will the
nation tell me what orders I can give?” (883). And the
denouement of the tragedy is Creon’s destruction, working as
a counterpoint to the paean of praise to Antigone.
Van der Sterren castigates critics who have questioned
the validity of the speech: they are attempting to cover up its
dl
real motive,” he notes, and they “make false translations”
458 DAVID W E R M A N

(p. 349). In this context, he ambiguously quotes Goethe.

Inasmuch as Weissman (1964) and Seidenberg and Papa-
thomopoulos (1962) also refer to Goethe’s comments, it
would be instructive to examine them. According to Ecker-
mann (1836), Goethe observed that: “. . . Creon by no means
acts from political virtue, but from hatred towards the dead.
Polynieces . . . did not commit such a monstrous crime
against the state that his death was insufficient, and that
further punishment of the innocent corpse was required . . .
Creon . . . has everybody in the play against him” (p. 177-
178; emphasis added). As for the disputed passage, Goethe
did regard it as a “blemish,” but stated he “would give a
great deal for an apt philologist to prove that it is inter-
polated and spurious.” In short, he believed the “passage . . .
very far-fetched” (p. 178).
Although Jebb (1898) observed that “Few problems of
Greek Tragedy have been more discussed than the question
whether those verses, or some of them, are spurious” (p. 164),
only Seidenberg and Papathomopoulos utilize this literature.
This apparent lack of familiarity with the work carried out
by nonanalytic scholars, as well as the not infrequent neglect
of primary sources, often justifies the criticism of amateurism
leveled against studies in applied psychoanalysis.
One might agree with Weissman’s thesis that “neurotic
virginity and old maidenhood” may mask a deeper attach-
ment to the preoedipal mother; such a psychological schema
may be an important factor in some women’s avoidance of
marriage; but we have little basis for assuming that Antigone
had such an attachment to her mother. In fact, we do know
that she is betrothed and deeply in love with Haemon; that
she yearns for marriage and children; and that, far from
“welcoming” death, she goes toward it with suffering and
reluctance. At the end she chants: “No wedding song has
been sung for this bride. I never nursed a child; and with
those I love gone, I go alone and desolate” (1072-1074).
These do not sound like the words of a woman in search of
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 459

death fleeing from life, love, and men. We are overwhelmed

by her death because it is a denial of all she desires. The poet
obliges us to perceive Antigone as especially rich with the
promise of life, precisely so that we experience the tragedy of
her death rather than regard it as senseless, paltry, and
banal.

Seidenberg and Papathomopoulos have dealt with Anti-

gone in two communications. The first (1962) presents lit-
erary examples of “daughters who tend their fathers”; the
second (1974) overlaps the earlier paper, but deals entirely
with the “enigma” of Antigone. Their thesis is that Oedipus
bound Antigone into caring for him, an “enslavement” which
she dutifully accepted. “Although she is unable to fight on
the battlefield, she seeks arete [virtue] in the capacity of a
rebel, against the humiliation which her uncle demanded”
(1962, p. 154); she prefers honor and mete to marriage and
motherhood; in agreement with Van der Sterren they believe
her defiant act represents an “abandonment of the feminine
role,” and is perhaps a defense against incestuous wishes
toward Polyneices; that her defiance of Creon’s edict repre-
sents an identification with her brothers; and that she has “at
last succeeded in playing a role on the battlefield.” They
believe that “in the age of misogyny” Sophocles apparently
realized the “hidden desires of certain women who did not
conform to the general role . . . of homemaking and child
rearing” (p. 155). Thus, while Antigone perhaps lamented
being deprived of marriage and children she “secretly gives
them up in favor of . . . a nobler destiny” (pp. 155-156).
Why Antigone “secretly” means the opposite of what she
says is not demonstrated. Indeed, if Sophocles intends her
words to be false, the drama would cease to be a tragedy and
Antigone a heroine. Their speculation (also made by other
writers) of her incestuous yearnings for Polyneices cannot be
faulted. But much more prominent is the special role of
women, in ancient societies, of attending to the sacred burial
460 DAVID WERMAN

rites, If one views Antigone’s behavior in terms of the values

and mores current in Sophocles’ time, one tends to accept
this as a motive rather than a desire to shed her enslaved
feminine self. Curiously, while Van der Sterren’s argument is
that Antigone is ‘neurotically unhappy being a woman,
Seidenberg and Papathomopoulos refer to him in support of
their position that she is secretly and appropriately unhappy
being a woman-because she is oppressed.
. Seidenberg and Papathomopoulos demonstrate another
methodological error in treating Antigone and other fictional
characters re-created by the artist (despite their mythological‘.
antecedents), as if they are historical figures, treating Euripi-
des’ Antigone to explain Sophocles’ Antigone.
In their 1974 paper these authors again “confirm”
Weissman’s contention that Antigone is “a pre-oedipal old
maid whose basic drive is to return to her nurturing mother.”
Through unification with her mother, Antigone “would
make herself and create unto herself all those things which
her mother lacked, strength, loyalty, convictions, in order to
win mother, to be loved and be united with her. With good
authority, Antigone would become irresistible to such a
mother, for mother could never resist authority” (p. 202).
Seidenberg and Papathomopoulos arrive at these conclusions
in the following manner: Robert Graves, they note, “feels”
that the name of Antigone in Greek means “in place of a
mother”;’ “ ‘in place of mother’ . . . might . . . mean identifi-
cation with mother; it is more likely the name represents the
life that a woman might lead apart from motherhood with
the confinements and passivity it engenders. The ancient
Greeks in their wisdom knew that all women did not submit
to the role of inferiority that the culture ruthlessly de-
manded” (p. 202). Such linguistic “evidence” is unconvinc-
ing and, furthermore, does not explain the contradiction
Braun notes: “Sophocles took their [names’] meaning seriously. for he
created an Antigone who, ‘born to oppose,’ relies on innate courage in facing
.”
tyranny.. (1973, p. 7).
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 461

between what is described as a “ruthlessly” misogynistic

society and the wise ancient Greeks who inhabited it.
Through the same need to establish an aura of universal
misogyny, they cite, correctly, Creon’s depreciation of
women. Yet they observe that Antigone was “esteemed” by
the “whole” city. Actually, Sophocles seems primarily intent
on the aesthetic task of polarizing Antigone and Creon in
every plausible way. Undoubtedly, the growing regard for
women in fifth-century Greece had some impact on him. But
his artistic imperative is to stress the conflict between Creon
and Antigone, and this is expressed in their respective
imagery, the rhythms of their speech, their age and their
sex-in order to make the drama work as theatre. Accord-
ingly, Creon is the only male character who demeans women.
Seidenberg and Papathomopoulos, along with the authors
reviewed here, minimize aesthetic considerations.
The conclusion of their article reiterates their feminist
interpretation of the Antigone through a series of specula-.
tions, of which I shall quote but one: “Had Antigone been a
male youth and had been similarly disobedient, there would
have been at most talk of generational gap, oedipal conflict,
primal horde, but not deformity” (p. 204). One cannot
disagree with the authors’ impassioned denunciation of the
oppression of women, but one must challenge the correctness
of their interpretation of Antigone, its ahistoric viewpoint,
and their concept that the Antigone concerns the subjugation
of women.

Along with others, Kanzer (1948, 1950) regards the

Oedipus Tyrannus, the Oedipus at Colonus, and the Anti-
gone as an Oedipus Trilogy, which “dramatize[s] three stages
in the development and resolution of the oedipus complex”
(1950,p. 571). Kanzer’s focus is on Oedipus, and his remarks
on Antigone for the most part relate to her relation to him.
For example, he interprets the blinded Oedipus’ dependence
on Antigone as her playing the “role of the mother.” Sim-
462 DAVID 1VERMAN

ilarly, he regards her defiance of Creon’s ban on the burial of

Polyneices as a displacement of “her loyalty from her father
to her brother”; thus, her behavior is seen primarily as a
manifestation of her unresolved oedipal conflict. While this
interpretation is plausible from the perspective of the total
“trilogy,” it loses cogency when considered within the re-
duced frame of the Antigone where the oedipal dynamics do
not appear central to the drama and in which more acute
and gripping issues occupy the stage.
By maintaining an oedipal interpretation of the Anti-
gone, Kanzer is led to interpret Creon as a f l p r e comple-
mentary to Oedipus; as the latter partially identified with his
rejecting father, Laius, and hence expelled his sons, so, in
the Antigone, Creon is the castrator of the sons: Haemon,
Polyneices, and Eteocles.-:It -is the force of this castration
anxiety,” Kanzer writes, “effecting the resolution of the oedi-
pus complex, which is the unconscious content of the Anti-
gone” (p. 566). But are the sons Creon’s victims? In the first
instance it is his niece, Antigone, whom he destroys. His son
and wife kill themselves, admittedly because of what Creon
has done. But Polyneices and Eteocles destroy each other,
and the former is victimized by Creon only by being denied
reunion with the other dead in the family. In the broadest
sense, Creon’s victims are all the citizens of Thebes who
quickly found themselves under his yoke. Even Creon’s clash
with Haemon is unconvincing as an oedipal father-son battle
because the element of jealousy is totally lacking. Only by
hypothesizing a series of displacements can Creon be plaus-
ibly described as essentially a “castrating father.” As I shall
show later on, his behavior seems more understandable when
viewed in terms of narcissistic considerations.
Perhaps because Kanzer was not satisfied with his inter-
pretation of the Antigone, he concludes his essay by focusing
on the Athenian society of Sophocles’ time, which he presents
as a necessary background for understanding the tragedies.
He suggests that Antigone’s behavior might represent a love
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 463

of family. But he does not integrate the psychoanalytic and

sociologic interpretations beyond noting that “Social forces
impinge on and are transmitted into the idiom of individual
experience” (Kanzer, 1950, p. 571).

Wolman (1965) has related Antigone’s sacrifice of her

life to Freud’s description of self-sacrificing love: an over-
flowing of narcissistic libido onto the object. The latter be-
comes increasingly precious “until at last it gets possession of
the entire self-love of the ego, whose self-sacrifice thus follows
as a natural consequence” (Freud, 1921, p. 113). Wolman
calls such self-sacrificial love the Antigone Principle and
describes it in terms of valorous acts in battle, rites of pas-
sage, martyrdom, and resistance to religious persecution.
Since he makes no distinction between heroism in general,
heroism in Greek tragedy, courage, martyrdom and self-
sacrifice, he is able to place in his Pantheon of heroes the
youth of Sparta, Jan Huss, Londoners under the Blitz, and
Israeli soldiers. Wolman concludes that, since “not every
suffering is heroic,” the true heroes are “men who willingly
suffer for others” (p. 193). How one might determine willing-
ness to suffer, the degree of pain endured, and what Wolman
means by “a better future for others,” is unclear. Antigone,
he asserts, was a normal individual, not a masochist: she
loved life, but her “love for justice was stronger than the love
for herself” (p. 200). This abstract “love for justice,” how-
ever, is different from Antigone’s piety, from her moral
imperative, from her powerful sense of family bonds, and
from her outrage at Creon’s violation of the unwritten laws.
Furthermore, Wolman does not use the meaning of the
hero in the specific sense in which it was understood in
ancient Greece, particularly in Greek tragedy. What makes
Antigone a heroine in the classic mold, what distinguishes
her from ordinary mortals, are, it seems to me, superior
powers: her burning emotions, her keener insight, her
capacity both to give and to experience pain, and her endur-
4 64 DAVID WERMAN

ance of suffering. The hero may rise above common men by

his mastery in battle or statecraft, in athletics, in prophesy,
or in dance or song. He demands respect, inspires love, and
is recognized as noble -as befits “a strange being neither
man nor god but both” (Bowra, 1944, p. 315). This deline-
ation of the classic hero has little in common with many of
Wolman’s heroes, who are measured by other scales: but it is
the very essence of the Antigone of Sophocles, who forges her
character precisely so that she becomes a heroine in this
sense. To misconstrue Antigone’s heroism reduces the Anti-
gone, at best, to a brilliantly constructed tale of martyrdom
and a one-dimensional view of Creon-as-villain.

Erich Fromm’s remarks on Antigone appear in the

context of a general discussion of the Oedipus complex and
the Oedipus myth (1949). He asserts that the Oedipus myth is ,
“a symbol not of the incestuous love between mother and son
but of the rebellion of the son against the authority of the
father in a patriarchal society” (p. 338). Like Kanzer (who has
critically reviewed Fromm’s essay) he leans heavily on regard-
ing the three Oedipus plays as a unity. Although much of
their respective theses depends on this hypothesis, the evi-
dence remains inconclusive. In a scholarly discussion of this
question, Jebb (1898) presents internal evidence in support of
the view that the plays do not constitute a connected trilogy,
and that the Antigone was actually part of another trilogy, of
which the other’two plays are lost (of the over 120 written by
Sophocles, only seven remain). He concludes that “In
nothing is the art of Sophocles more characteristically seen
than in the fact that each of these three masterpieces-with
their common thread of fable, and with all their particular
affinities -is still, dramatically and morally, an independent

’ The three plays were actually written over a forty-year span, with the
Anfkone written first, the Oed+us Tyrannus at least thirteen years later, and the
Oedl’pur at Colonus over 22 years after that, when Sophocles was close to 90
years old.
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 465

whole” (xlix-1). Disagreement with Jebb -and other like-

minded scholars-is hardly a breach of critical rigor, but
such differences should be acknowledged even if not eval-
uated.
Again, like Kanzer, Fromm interprets the conflict
between Creon and Haemon as analogous to the clash be-
tween Oedipus and Polyneices in the Oedipus at Colonus,
where the unforgiven son is cast out. But where Kanzer inter-
prets this conflict as fueled by the son’s incestuous strivings in
a headlong encounter with the castrating potential of the
father, Fromm explains it in terms of a conflict between a
matriarchal principle incarnated by Oedipus, Haemon, and
Antigone, and a patriarchal principle represented by Creon.’
These principles were formulated by J. J. Bachofen, between
1859 and 1870, and emerged from his detailed scholarly
work on “mother right.” Since Fromm reviews this work, and
it is also alluded to by Kanzer, only a brief exposition of it is
required here.
Bachofen studied the symbols found in the myths, art,
and artifacts of ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and other
areas of the Mediterranean basin. He conceptualized a
nomadic, hetaeristic, primitive world governed by unbridled
sexuality, which was slowly replaced by an agricultural,
socioreligious culture, in which mother right dominated.
Ultimately, this era was superseded by a patriarchal society
which brought the “liberation of the spirit from the mani-
festation of nature, a substitution of human existence over
the law of material life.. .” (Bachofen, 1859, p. 109). Bach-
ofen stressed that elements of the old often coexisted with the
new, or re-emerged after periods of oblivion.
During the era of mother right, there was an “emphasis
on maternal property and the name of the maternal line, the
closeness of maternal kinship .. . . and the inexpiability of
matricide” (p. 71). There was greater love for sisters than for
brothers, loyalty to mothers, and “. . . the divine principle of
love, of union, of peace” (p. 79). Matriarchal love is more
466 DAVID WERMAN

intense, and unlike the patriarchal principle, which is “in-

herently restrictive, the matriarchal principle, is universal.”
It is the basis of freedom, equality, and hospitality. “Devo-
tion, justice, and all the qualities that embellish man’s life
are known by feminine names . . .” (p. 91). The rise of patri-
archy saw the emergence of spiritual over corporeal existence,
of the Apollonian over the chthonian-maternal principle.
Laws, rationality, monogamy, authority, a hierarchical order
in society, and inequality became the hallmarks of the
new epoch.
Against all objections to Bachofen, Fromm finds the
theory of matriarchy “established beyond any doubt,” and
thus he explicates the Oedipus “trilogy” as a clash between
the matriarchal and patriarchal principles. The slow,
painful, and often violent passage of matriarchal into patri-
archal society, and the continued presence of aspects of the
earlier period in the later is represented, according to
Fromm, in the conflict in the Antigone. Antigone herself
embodies the importance of the human being, of natural law
and love, in contrast to Creon who proclaims the state, man-
made laws, and obedience. Ismene is the prototype of the
woman who accepts patriarchal domination and the defeat
of women. For Creon, his son is mere property whose unique
purpose is to serve; the king’s defeat brings to an end the
“principle of authoritarianism, of man’s domination over the
people’’ (p. 353).
Fromm thus projects onto the Antigone his social
ideology, but, despite undoubted relevances, his formulation
seems strangely external to the passions of the drama itself;
its approach to the play is with an ideological yardstick that
reductively interprets this (or any) work of art, in which the
protagonists are in conflict over such issues as authority, law,
conscience, and religious standards, as representing a conflict
between the matriarchal and patriarchal principles.
Fromm appends to the foregoing interpretation of the
Antigone an auxiliary but unintegrated view which attempts
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 467

to relate the drama to the “specific political and cultural

situation of Sophocles’ time.” He identifies Sophocles as an
adversary of the Sophists, whom he describes as seeking to
establish a despotism of the intellectual elite and “upholding
unrestricted selfishness as a moral principle” (p. 354), and he
equates Creon with the Sophists, a view shared by Kanzer.
While both authors urge us to accept Sophocles’ straight-
forward antagonism to Sophism, Fromm interprets the tril-
ogy as specifically expressing not only Sophocles’ opposition
to the Sophists, but his sympathy for the old, nonolympian,
religious traditions of the matriarchy, when love, equality,
and justice were valued. These assertions are questionable if
we look at Sophocles’ place in Athenian society. Bowra
(1944), Kirkwood (1958), Kitto (1956), Whitman (1951), and
other scholars mentioned here, have made authoritative con-
tributions in this area. I shall only touch on some of the
sociologic issues raised by Fromm and Kanzer.

There is, in fact, little difficulty in identifying aspects of

the Antigone with matters that were prominent in Sophocles’
lifetime. That he himself was totally a part of his era, if not
an active partisan of positions, is attested to by even the scant
knowledge we have of him: a total of perhaps four pages of
uncertain biographic data. Letters (1953) sums up some of
this material: “Sophocles was not only one of Athens’ ‘lofty,
grave tragedians,’ he was an active citizen, man about town,
lover of food, wine and company, musician, coriversation-
alist, wit, homosexual, actor, literary dictator, juror, ad-
miral, priest and copious writer of Rabelaisian farces . . .”
(p. 2). It is not then surprising that .the play brilliantly
reflects issues such as divine and human justice, the nature of
the unwritten laws, the position of women in society, the
individual vis-a-vis the state, the role of the king, and fate
versus free will. Much of the critical literature seeks to estab-
lish which of these questions is what the Antigone “is about.”
And yet, the only certain conclusion one can reach is that the
 468 DAVID WERMAN

drama is as remarkably free of open partisanship on these

issues as it is thoroughly penetrated with the social, philo-
sophical, political, and religious issues of its day.
The Antigone, on one level, demonstrates that unrea-
son, impiety (even if religion is only a projection made by
man-as the Sophists averred), and pride (hubris) are among
the greatest dangers for man. These themes are characteristic
of that “impact of society” on the drama to which Kanzer
alluded, and they reach us on conscious and preconscious
levels of apprehension. But there exists another dimension to
the poet’s work, of which he himself may have been unaware,
and which we may deeply experience even if without intel-
lectual understanding: the resonance of the drama with our
unconscious, which has only the most intricate, indirect, and
long-term relation to society.
If we seek a psychoanalytic understanding of the
Antigone, or any other work of art, we must turn to the text,
with as few a priori ideas about it as possible, as the source
best embodying the data to be studied (the analogy of listen-
ing to the patient, rather than studying documents from
other people, seems valid). It is my impression that the first
and most striking observation about the drama, as an
aesthetic entity, is that it is a tissue of contrasts. The struc-
ture is built up through a series of confrontations: of Anti-
gone and Ismene, of Creon and the sentry, then with Ismene,
Haemon, Antigone, and Tiresias. Light and dark episodes
alternate, as do life and death, hope and despair, authority
and revolt, justice and injustice, man’s law and divine law,
piety and impiety, free will and fate, democracy and au-
tocracy, the individual and the state, reason and passion,
flexibility and rigidity- the list of antinomies could be
continued. And affectively, as scene follows scene, we swing
between states of tension and relaxation, until we are finally
swept to the horrifying denouement.
The poet uses all his craft to suggest contrast. As men-
‘ tioned earlier, the very language used by each character, the
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 469

cadences of their speech, their imagery- everything builds

the atmosphere of conflict. The details of how this is done,
e.g., Creon’s repeated use of animal images, has been eluci-
dated by Goheen (1951).
Although the superstructure of the tragedy consists of
contrasting elements welded into an aesthetic whole, and the
chief polarities of that conflict are represented by Antigone
and Creon, these characters are not simple conduits for
contrasting beliefs; on the contrary, they are concrete as well
as generic individuals, whose personalities reverberate in our
unconscious. It is because Creon and Antigone are not mere
standard-bearers, engaged in abstract verbal exchanges, but
are plausible flesh-and-blood individuals, that the drama
“works” on the affective as well as cognitive levels. The poet
engages us in a powerful enterprise of empathy.
To experience the play is also to recognize that Antigone
and Creon transcend simple opposition, for each serves to
define the other. If “Antigone is the balance in which Creon
is weighed and found wanting” (Whitman, 1951, p. 80), then
Creon must be the crucible in which Antigone becomes
tempered so that she may achieve the grandeur that death
bestows upon her. Creon’s behavior leads Antigone to hero-
ism. To experience the Antigone obliges us to enter Creon’s
inner world.
What manner of man is this ruler? Some authors, such
as Kitto (1956), assert that he is the central character in the
Antigone; in fact, a third of the drama takes place after
Antigone’s final appearance. For the Athenian audience, to
whom Sophocles spoke, Creon is a tyrant. He first appears
with homage to the gods on his lips, asserting that the worst
ruler is one who “fails to embrace the best man’s counsels”
(218). But he swiftly reveals his duplicity, and by the end of
his first speech his authoritarianism is revealed in his decree
that brutally violates all tradition. Each succeeding confron-
tation of his power progressivcly exposes him as stubborn,
arrogant, violent, and irrational. At one point his sense of
470 DAVID WERMAN

reality is so overwhelmed by rage that he forgets that it is

only Antigone, and not Ismene as well, whom he has con-
demned to death! The more his authority is challenged or
even questioned, the more his self-esteem is threatened and
the more are ignoble qualities brought to light. His piety is a
sham; he courts the gods only when they serve him and deni-
grates them when they no longer meet his needs. When he
fears their anger at his decree of death for Antigone he
changes only the letter of his command by ordering that she
be permitted to die of starvation. From wherever the source,
whatever the validity, he intemperately rejects all criticism-
even the timid questions of the old men in the Chorus.
Repeatedly, Sophocles shows us that Creon values indi-
viduals only as possessions to be utilized and manipulated for
his own aggrandizement. His view of love is mostly limited to
its physical aspect: when Ismene asks him if he means to “kill
the girl you promised your own son would marry” (701-702)
he crassly responds that “There are other fields to furrow”
(703). Of utmost importance are the growing distortions in
his thinking: he levels totally unjustified accusations of cor-
ruption by bribery against those who oppose him: the
unknown individuals who first attempt to bury Polyneices
“were seduced by money” (372); the sentry who reports the
deed is told that “for money-you sold your soul” (402); even
the saintlike Tiresias has it flung in his face that he “and his
kind, for a long time now, have been selling me out . . .”
(196-197). This almost delusional thinking is scarcely surpris-
ing, for early in the play Creon complains of “certain men in
the city . . . [who] mutter about me” (366-368). When
Tiresias aptly states “you are a sick man” (1216), we concur
that Creon indeed exhibits paranoid thoughts. His narcis-
sistic hunger pervades all his behavior, his thoughts and
feelings, domestic as well as public, and leads to his resent-
ment of youth and women and to his voracious yearning for
power. “Nations,” he pronounces, “belong to the men with
power. That’s common’knowledge” (888-889).
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 47 1

And yet, beyond all expectations, at his downfall, after

we have witnessed the blood bath he has brought about, we
do not cast this prototypical tyrant into darkness, but instead
feel, as Bonnard put it (1951), “only tenderness and pity.”
Creon is a figure of “human error” whom Sophocles has
given us, not as a warning, but as a fraternal being; too
much a part of us to condemn him from the heights of our
own abstract principles. Within his character Creon is
“right” and must act as he does so that the drama will
confront us with our divided self and the real world in which
it must act. Through Creon the poet awakens sleeping
aspects of ourselves, illuminating our complexity. His child-
like tyranny acts not only on the people around him but on
himself because he is in bondage to his instinctual impulses
and primitive modes of response. In contrast, Antigone is
more autonomous and object-seeking, and through her death
she escapes the very solitude that finally descends on Creon.
His need for power becomes impotence; he fears and despises
Eros for it would make him vulnerable to the world, and with
the loss of narcissistic objects his world collapses. But his late-
learned wisdom echoes our yearning to be free from the
imperious reign of our own infantilism-thus we rejoice in
his tragic growth as we do in Antigone’s tragic and heroic
death.
This brings us to consider the feelings we experience at
the conclusion of the drama. I believe that this subjective
dimension, the experience of the spectator, is a critical aspect
of the psychoanalytic investigation of literature, and yet,
more frequently than not, it is neglected in favor of more
“objective” criteria. The “evenly suspended attention” of the
analyst in the analytic situation, his brief identifications with
the patient, the scrutiny and analysis of his own fantasies,
dreams, and feelings are processes that do not often occur in
applied psychoanalysis. Paradoxically, the Antigone leaves us
with a special sense of pleasure, which suffuses us at the
conclusion of the tragedy. The universality of this experience
472 DAVID WERMAN

may be open to question, but its widespread occurrence is

readily obseked. “Tragic pleasure” is more than a simple
experience of evasion and disengagement, or a vicarious
brush with Antigone’s pain from which we escape unscathed.
Bonnard (1951) described it as “the price of our active par-
ticipation in the poet’s work. It manifests our commitment to
this enterprise of recreation of the world” (p. 71). The tragic
poet’s classical vocation was educative and formative, and his
drama, in which we participate, becomes an apprenticeship
in pain that leads to a mastery of the human condition
through a process of self-elucidation- a process reminiscent
of psychoanalysis.
The contradiction between our pain and our pleasure is
only apparent once we recognize that Creon and Antigone
represent profound aspects of our self. As Creon acts out
before us his infantile wishes for omnipotence, omniscience,
approval and admiration, and total license, we cannot reject
him because too much of him resonates with elements that
once were in us-and may still reside in only relative silence;
we see in him our “negative ego ideal”; he incarnates all that
we would project on to the other. Antigone, on the other
hand, embodies what we would become. Her tragic end
represents the expression of our yearnings of our ideal ego;
with her we triumph over blind fate, over our infantile self,
and we identify with her victory.
Antigone might be perceived as embodying many facets
of our ego ideal: courageous, passionate, loyal to her kin,
eloquent, loved and loving, generous, competent, and pos-
sessing “superior powers”; in short, the qualities described by
Bibring (1953) as constituting our narcissistic aspirations. Al-
though we are aware of her arrogance, irrationality, and
stubbornness, it is her positive characteristics that engage us.
On the other hand, while Creon is stubborn, increasingly
irrational, arrogant, misogynistic, unloved, and not truly
loving, he feels pain, bereavement, fear, shame, and in some
manner he loves his wife, his children, and his subjects, and
 PROBLEhlS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 473

yearns to be approved of by the city. His downfall brings US

no pleasure, for we experience his despair.

Somewhat analogous to the two levels of experiencing

the Antigone which I have described, Holland (1968) hypoth-
esized two paths of experiencing a work of art: one tests
reality, is intellectual, is generally characterized by other
aspects of secondary-process thinking, and is in connection
with the “central theme” of the work; the other is character-
ized b.y the introjection of the work, the experience of the
nuclear fantasy and the formal management of that fantasy
as if it were our own. We analogize the work to our own
fantasies which become more acceptable to us, and the work
’ itself takes on an intellectual meaning. Our identification
with a character would be due to a complicated mixture of
the introjection of that character’s drives and defenses and
our projection onto him of elements within ourself. We can
identify with certain characters chiefly on the basis of their
instinctual drives, and with others mostly because of their
defenses. From this perspective, some of the pleasure of liter-
ature would derive from various combinations of limited
gratification of drive and other fantasies, and the defensive
management of those fantasies, leading to pleasure in the
totality of the work. Holland’s conceptualization further ex-
plains the pleasure we experience from the Antigone.
This dimension of aesthetic pleasure appears to promise
much in furthering a psychoanalytic view of literature.
Despite studies by Freud (1905), Kris (1952), Lesser (1957),
Rose (1964), Waelder (1965), Coltrera (1965), Within
(1969), and Ricoeur (1970), among others, the subject re-
mains far from resolved. The analysis of the aesthetic re-
sponse offers the advantage of obliging us to consider the
work as an artistic unity, rather than as a collection of
isolated characters and events. It becomes a part of the task
of viewing the work as the creation of a given poet in a
particular culture, which is being experienced by concrete
474 DAVID WERMAN

individuals at the same and other times and places. Such a

holistic view necessarily leads to interdisciplinary studies.
Regarding the expression I have used here, “the psycho-
analytic interpretation of literature,” it must be avowed that
the term is imprecise because interpretations made in the
analytic situation cannot be equated with those made in
applied psychoanalysis. Loewenstein (1951) succinctly de-
fined interpretation: “In psychoanalysis this term is applied
to those explanations, given to patients by their analyst,
which add to their knowledge about themselves” (p. 4);. these
explanations are given piecemeal and ultimately encompass
ego and id elements. This definition applies specifically to
the clinical psychoanalytic situation. A number of authors
have discussed the differences between interpretation in an-
alysis compared with other settings. Kohut (1960) observed
that in applied psychoanalysis there is no free association, no
therapeutic alliance, no emotional tie to the therapist, no
reverbatory dreams that might follow an interpretation, and
no motivation (and, one might add, .there is no patient).
Ricoeur (1970) noted that “the psychoanalytic interpretation
of art is fragmentary because it is analogical” (p. 164). What
is lacking is the process of interchange, on many levels,
between patient and analyst, involving fluctuating levels and
varieties of resistance, the vicissitudes of transference and the
integration of insight-in a word, the flux of a human
relationship in the analytic setting.

Con clwio ns
The problems inherent in the psychoanalytic interpretation
of literature, not to speak of other areas of applied psycho-
analysis, have led at times to skepticism that scholarly work
can be accomplished in a field so fraught with pitfalls. Such
a position is counterproductive because it is only through
many efforts and repeated critiques that more rigorous ap-
proaches will be developed.
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 475

Great works of art, such as the Antigone, offer different

levels of meaning. They are ambiguous in that the elements
within them are highly overdetermined -a concept explored
by Kris and Kaplan (Kris, 1952). It is natural that exclusive
attention to selected aspects, or levels of meaning, of a liter-
ary work, can be carried out for research purposes, but these
must ultimately be integrated into the work as a whole lest
serious distortions occur. Similarly, while it may be useful to
isolate a character from a work, to explore him “indepen-
dently,” that character must be reinserted into the network
of his dynamic relations with the other characters and with
the writer’s overarching aesthetic conception. Perhaps the
greatest weakness in the psychoanalytic studies of liiera-
ture is that they rarely acknowledge that several interpreta-
tions may all plausibly reveal sdmething about a work
of art.
It must be stressed that psychoanalytic interpretations of
literature, just as interpretations in the analytic situation,
must not only be logical and internally consistent, but must
be supported by the text. The more of the work that can be
reasonably explained and the fewer the exceptions and. con-
tradictions, the sturdier will be the interpretation. The text
itself is the final arbiter: other data-such as information
about the author and his motives-can at best be used to
support and confirm interpretations based on the text, its
style, form, and content.
T o seek to understand some literature through a purely
“psychological” approach appears as untenable as the reverse
of that coin-a purely “sociological” approach. It has be-
come increasingly apparent, especially for certain literary
works, that it is not possible to understand them unless the
web of relations of the work to society are carefully explored.
Similarly, certain works will remain an enigma unless
brought into relation with the author’s life if useful data
about it are available. In still other works, biographical data
and information about the social setting may be relatively
476 DAVID WERMAN

unimportant for our understanding, and the text itself

remains the crucial datum.
Despite the hazards that confront psychoanalysis when it
attempts to understand literature, despite the shortcomings
and the reductionism, there is little doubt that psychoanalysis
has made valuable and unique contributions. Psychoanalysis,
of all disciplines, remains the only one able to explore the
unconscious and all its derivatives. The cultural products of
man are therefore a most fitting subject for psychoanalytic
investigation, and if the difficulties are vast, the process itself
is its own reward.

Summay
Through a critical review of several studies dealing with
Sophocles’ drama, the Antigone, I have explored some of the
prominent methodological problems encountered in the
psychoanalytic interpretation of literature. Foremost among
these is the inherent difficulty that the interpretation of liter-
ature is unable to benefit from the process of the analytic
situation. Divorced from the realities of the therapeutic pro-
cess, the drama itself is often used to corroborate an author’s
theoretical bias or to advance some special interest, with
consequent distortion or blurring of the text. Although data
about the artist’s life and sociocultural environment may be
of crucial significance, it is the text itself that must be the
ultimate object of study. Through a re-examination of the
Antigone as an aesthetic totality I have sketched out what
appears to be an alternative manner of approaching the
drama, and suggested that works of art reach us on both
unconscious and conscious levels. I have stressed the need to
analyze our emotional response to a work as affording a
valuable source of insight into the work itself.
Throughout, I have drqwn attention to the need for
greater scholarly rigor and the value of interdisciplinary col-
laboration. An open recognition of the problems in the
 PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE 477

psychoanalytic study of literature should serve to minimize

dilettantism and raise the level of scholarship.

REFERENCES

Bachofen, J. J. (1859-1870). hfyth, Rellgion and hfother Rlght. Trans. R.

Manheim. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967.
Bibring. E. (1953). The mechanism of depression. In: Affective Disorders, ed.
P. Greenacre. New York: International Universities Press, pp. 13-48.
Bowra, C. M. (1944). Sophoclean Tragedy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bonnard, A: (1951), La Tragidie et I'Homme. Paris: A la Baconnisre.
Braun. R. E.. trans. (1973). Sophochles, Antigone. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Coltrera, J. T. (1965), On the creation of beauty and thought: The unique as
vicissitude. ThisJournal, 13:634-703.
Eckermann, J. P. (1836), Conversations with Goethe. Trans. J. Oxenford.
London: Dent, 1930.
Eissler, K. R. (1959). The function of details in the interpretation of works of
literature. Psychoanal. Quart., 28:l-20.
-(1968). The relation of explaining and understanding in psychoanalysis:
Demonstrated by one aspect of Freud's approach to literature. The Psycho-
analytic Study of the Child, 23:141-177. New York: International Univer-
sities Press.
Fitts, D. & Fitzgerald, R., trans. (1939), Sophocles, The Oedipus Cycle. New
York: Harcourt. Brace & World.
Freud, S. (1905), Psychopathic characters on the stage. Standard Edition, 7:
305-310.
(1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. Standard Edition,
18:67-143.
Fromm, E. (1949), The Oedipus complex and the Oedipus myth. In: The Family:
Its Function and Desfiny, ed. R . N. Amhen. New York: Harper, pp.
334-358.
Gedo, J. E. (1970), Thoughts on art in the age of Freud. This J o u m l , 18i
219-245.
Goheen, R. E. (1951), The Imagery ojSophocles' Antigone. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Greenacre, P. (1955), Swift and Carroll: A Psychoanalytic Sfudy of Two Lives.
New York: International Universities Press.
Holland, N. (1968). The Dynamics of Literary Response. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Jebb, R. (1898), Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments. Part 111, The Anflgone.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Kanrer, M. (1948), The passing of the oedipus complex in Greek drama. Infer-
nut. J. Psycho-Anal., 29:131-134.
(1950), The Oedipus trilogy. Psychoanal. Quart., 19:561-573.
Kirkwood, G. M. (1958), A Study of Sophoclean Drama. Ithaca: Cornell Univer-
sity Press.
478 DAVID WERMAN

Kitto. H. D. F. (1956). Form and Meaning in D r a m : A Study of Six Creek Plays

and of Hamlet. London: Methuen.
Kohut, H. (1960), Beyond the bounds of the basic rule. ThisJ o u m l , 8:567-586.
Kris, E. (1952). Psychoanalytic Explorutions in Art. New York: International
Universities Press.
Lesser. S. 0.(1957), Fiction and the Unconsciour. Boston: Beacon Hill Press.
Letters, F. J. H. (1953). The Life and Work of Sophocles. London: Sheed &
Ward.
Lwwenstein, R. M. (1951), The problem of interpretation. Psychoanal. Quurt.,
2O:l-14.
Ricoeur, P. (1970), Freud and philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rose, G. J. (f964), Creative imagination in terms of ego “care” and boundaries.
Internut. J. Psycho-Anal., 45:75-85.
Seidenberg, R. lk Papathomopoulos, E. (1962). Daughters who tend their fathers.
A literary survey. The Psychoanalytic Study of Society, 2:135-160. New
York: International Universities Press.
(1974), The enigma of Antigone. Internat. Rev. Psycho-Anal.,
1 :197-205.
Van der Sterren, H. A. (1952), The “King Oedipus” of Sophocles. Internut. J.
Psycho-Anal., 33:343-350.
Waelder, R. (1965). Psychoanalytic Avenues to A r f . New York: International
Universities Press.
Weissman. P. (1964), Antigone-a preoedipal old maid. J. Hillride Hosp., 13:
32-42.
Whitman, C. H. (1951). Sophocles: A Study of Heroic Humanr. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Within, P. (1969), The psychodynamics of literature. Psychoanal. Rev., 56:
556-585.
Wolman, B. (1965), The Antigone principle. Amer. Imago, 22186-201.
Wyckoff, E., trans. (1973), Sophocles, Antigone, ed. D. Greene & R. Lattimore.
New York: Washington Square Press.

Department of Psychiatry
NP Box 3812
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, North Carolina 27710