There are two ways I can see to approach this question. The first the opinion of the chorus about the specific character of Creon and the second is the more general observation that the chorus makes concerning the abstract “man” at the start of the play. Both are simple enough to answer, but I will begin with the general.
First, I should note that Creon is an excellent representation of a symbolic man. He holds power, acts with distinct awareness of his masculinity, and is otherwise free. While he may have the hubristic audacity to make divine decrees, he is not a god by any means. The gods exist as a third party (though not truly an “other”) who are invoked by Antigone to justify her actions. Creon is also alive and therefore is not party to the true alterity, or the…
In the inherent gerontocracy that evolves in government, these are the men that should be his advisors. That is obviously not the case as Creon’s most prominent interaction with the chorus is the issuance of his edict without room for criticism or question. This demonstrates the division between the chorus, a collective of men, and Creon, a man. One is passive and immune from mortality (since the collective does not perish), while the latter is active and uses his resource, institutional authority, to implement his desire, the eternal punishment of Eteocles. In doing so, Creon violates the will of the gods and brings about his own demise. In the terms of the chorus’s relationship, Creon’s enacted resource interacts directly with the instruments of fate and brings everything crashing down around him. Finally, on line 1024, Creon admits that he has “neither life nor substance.” The lack of life implying the dual mortality/fate and the substance referencing masculinity/resourcefulness. Therefore, the proposition of Lacan concerning the chorus’s view of Creon is accurate to the traditional fatefulness of Greek…
