Various literary essays have been written with the intent to properly interpret the play Antigone. The opinions represented give insight into the plot layout, how the play flows, the characters" strengths and weaknesses and of course critiques on how the central conflict is to be interpreted. Each critical essay gives strong arguments as to who is in the right and who is in the wrong regarding the controversy between Creon and Antigone.
Richard C. Jebb begins citing that the main conflict, divine law vs. human law, is the strength in the play. He states that the simple clarity of the plot is exemplified through the hearty conflict. Also, the constant drama holds interest well, right up to the climax. Jebb relates the play to the modern world, explaining how this particular conflict could potentially arise in any day in age. He goes on to say how the controversy is made very vivid thanks to the excellent character depiction of Creon and Antigone. In the end, Jebb tends to side with Antigone's actions. He believes that she is wholly in the right and that in such a case, human law must yield, despite her reasoning being one-sided.
Maurice Bowra first states that modern critics have been jaded in their interpretation of Antigone since they have a lack of understanding about the duty of burying the dead and are too influenced by political authority, or, human law. He holds that Sophocles left no doubt about what conclusion should be drawn in the end. He believes Antigone was right and Creon was certainly in the wrong for his irreverence to the Gods. The Chorus speaks for Sophocles, says Bowra. The conflict, according to Bowra, built good contrast - the real arrogance of Creon vs. the apparent arrogance of Antigone. However, what matters more to him is the means by which the resolution to the conflict was reached. The presentation, the views that the readers take and the feelings that are forced all give the play unparalleled substance.