Category: Oedipus

There were so many things that I did not realise as I read the play. The interactive oral made me apprehend those things I could not imagine at first. During the discussion, student D. expatiated on the fact that the curse did not start on Oedipus at first but really began with what Laius did. The curse actually began at the stage of the ancestors. Before Oedipus’ parents took over the throne, Amphion and Zeth usurped the throne of Thebes. Moreover some Thebans, wishing to see the streak of Cadmus keep on, smuggled Laius out of the city before the assault, in which they slain Lycus and took the throne. My classmate clarified this when he said Laius was welcomed by Pelops, king of Pisa.

According to some sources, Laius abducted and raped the king’s son, Chrysippus, and carried him off to Thebes teaching him how to drive a chariot. This abduction is thought to be the subject of one of the lost tragedies of Euripides. With both Amphion and Zethus having died in his absence, Laius became king of Thebes upon his return. Before the class discussion, I thought that Oedipus was the first to receive a curse. I never understood where the curse came from.

Furthermore, the metaphor that Teiresias used to describe the blindness of Oedipus when he prophesises to him that he is the murderer of Laius. I only understood the primary meaning of that metaphor which was the act of Oedipus removing his eyes at the end of the story. I only got the secondary meaning when my classmate talked about it. The secondary meaning was the fact that he could not realise the fact that he accomplished the prophecy.

The development of my understanding of the contextual meaning of the riddle of the sphinx also made me acknowledge how it described Oedipus. The riddle was;”What walks on four feet in the morning, two in the afternoon and three at night?” Oedipus crawled when he broke his ankles, walked as he grew up on his two legs when he became king and walked with a stick when he was old and blind after accomplishing the prophecy.

Women in the traditional Greek society were treated differently from the men and were seen as inferior to them. The men controlled women’s lives and made sure the women felt this way and knew their place. From birth girls were given fewer opportunities than boys. Girls were not allowed to go to school; they stay home with their mothers to be taught how to run a household. Boys attended school until they are nineteen and then were sent off to war.Men overpowered women in many aspects,notably,women were not allowed to have jobs and had no way to receive money of their own. When girls became aged for child bearing they were married offby their fathers usually to men more than double their age.In Sparta, men stayed in barracks until they were thirty. Since Spartan women did not have this restriction, they had more freedoms and responsibilities in public life. They were able to go out in public unescorted, participate in athletic contests and inherit land. In the fourth century, over two-fifths of the land in Sparta was owned by women. In Athens, the law required all inheritances to go through the male line and limited propertieswere owned by women. It was the wives who supervised the slaves and managed the household responsibilities, such as weaving and cooking. In affluent homes, women had a completely separate area of the house where men were not permitted. In the homes of the poor, separate areas were not available. Poor women often worked outside the home, assisting their husbands at the market or at some other job. Poorer women often went to the market without a male escort.

Talking about this aspect in Oedipus the king, women played the same roles that women in ancient Greece had; they are just there to serve men. The female characters in the play are Jocasta, Merope, the sphinx, Antigone and Isméne. The sphinx is actually a female character in the Greek mythology. Goddess Athena also plays a role in the play.

The female who plays a great role in Sophocles’ play is certainly Jocasta. From the beginning, one can assume that she has no say in the events of her life. As queen of Thebes, she had little power over the rulings of the kingdom.She got married very early to Laius in Corinth and that is why she was not too old to marry her son Oedipus. Her role is just to accomplish the prophecy of the oracle which stated that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his brother. Women have little responsibility in the workings of society and are basically seen as child bearers. For example, anytime Jocasta is mentioned, the fact that she is the bearer of children seems to always follow. In the first scene, Oedipus describes how indebted he is to Laius. ‘Now I, having the power that he held before me, having his bed, begetting children there, upon his wife, as he would have, had he lived their son would have been my children’s brother, if Laius had had luck in fatherhood!’ (727) Jocasta is not presented as an actual being; instead, she is described as Laius’ property that had come into Oedipus’ possession along with the throne, land, and power. A similar instance occurs in the third scene when the Chorus says, ‘It is this very place, stranger; he is inside. This is his wife and mother of his children.’ Instead of presenting Jocasta as the queen of Thebes, the chorus introduces her as belonging to Oedipus and as the bearer of Oedipus’ offspring showing how they minimized the role of the women.

Also, the sphinx has a vital position in the play because she is actually one of the points about which the story revolves. She is the one who will give a riddle to Oedipus to answer and save Thebes from the plague threatening the city. Her appearance brings him closer and closer to his malediction. We can spot this out with the direct enthronement of Oedipus and his reward, the hand of Jocasta, queen of Thebes but unfortunately his mother. Without the sphinx’s encounter with Oedipus, he would surely not meet Jocasta due to the plague she was about to trigger. She is a good example of the weakness of women as compared to the men. Although she is powerful and can destroy the whole city of Thebes, she still gets defeated by Oedipus who did not even struggle that much to have the correct answer to the riddle.

Just like the sphinx, Merope is a minor character. She appears less on stage but has a great position in the development of the plot. She is Oedipus’ foster mother and she was presented to Oedipus when he was still young. Jocasta and Lauis attempted to kill Oedipus after they heard the prophecy of the oracle but a servant of Merope and her husband Polybus found him and adopted him as their son. Merope and the sphinx play the same role which is, bringing Oedipus closer to his destiny. Oedipus is aware that he will kill his father and marry his mother but he thinks that Merope and Polybus are his real parents so he runs away from them. Merope could say the truth when Oedipus came to her to find out if they were his biological parents and due to this Oedipus flees to Thebes to avoid killing Polybus and marrying his “mother”. She is not courageous enough to tell Oedipus the truth about his origins.

Antigone and Isméne are Oedipus’s sisters and daughters and their mother is Jocasta. They say nothing in the play but are living symbols of Oedipus’s doom and the curse that he has brought upon his family by fulfilling his fate. In murdering his father, he stains his children’s honor, but in marrying his (and their) mother, he tainted his children’s being. They are destined to be shunned by all people in their entire life. Oedipus grieves for them now that he realizes their true nature. Antigone and Isméne are just victims of circumstances and the circumstance here is Oedipus’ fate. They cannot say something about that since women had no say in Thebes, they just saw things happen. Nevertheless, their role is to make Oedipus realize the gravity of theerrors he made and how it affected people around him.

However, despite the fact that women seem to be insignificant, some like the goddess Athena, daughter of Zeus seemed to play an important role. She is the goddess of wisdom and she first appears in Oedipus the king in the first chorus at the end of the interaction of Oedipus with Creon and the priest of Zeus. Just like gods she protected a city and she was venerated. Teiresias was bathing and she appeared to him but she sprinkled some water in his eyes and so he became blind and to cover up she gave prophesying powers. She was always uplifted by the chorus and she can be related to Oedipus’ capacity to solve problems and his manner in which he overcome certain challenges.

In a nutshell, ladies generally play a role in Oedipus the king; the one that was played by women in ancient Greece at the exception of female gods like Athena who was praised worshipped and idolized. Specifically, some of them played the role of pushing Oedipus towards theachievement of the prophecy. The sphinx and Merope, although they are minor characters intervene efficiently in making Oedipus accomplish the divination of the oracle. The riddle of the sphinx represents the pride of Oedipus and Merope’s lies represent the symbol of Oedipus’ inability to escape from his fate. Antigone and Isméne are Oedipus’ victims of his misfortunes. Jocasta’s role is to accomplish the prophecy by getting married to her own son. We can also cite the role of the women in the crowd which was to seek Oedipus to save them from the plague attacking the city and be their male protector since most of their men passed away.From theabove it can be concluded that women in Oedipus the king play a minor role like the women in ancient since most women in the play are minor characters.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.bartleby.com/writing
2. https://brightkite.com/essay-on/women-in-ancient-greece
3. https://www.debate.org/opinions/are-women-inferior-to-men
4. https://brightkite.com/essay-on/the-roles-of-ladies-in-ancient-greece-and-the-reasons-with-regards-to-their-subordination
5. https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Significance-of-Women-in-the-Play-FKBS2JNMJ
6. https://quizlet.com/97786349/oedipus-rex-flash-cards/
7. http://historylink101.com/2/greece3/women.htm
8. https://answers.yahoo.com/
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laius
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus
11. https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-role-women-sophocless-oedipus-king-221575

W.E.B Dubois said, “Education among all kinds of men always has had, and always will have, an element of danger and revolution, of dissatisfaction and discontent. Nevertheless, men strive to know.” From this, we see the search for truth calls danger and bewilderment. The status quo dictates we accept the knowledge we are given, and skepticism is essential yet often frowned upon. Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex portrays the struggles from a cynical view of truth.

The pursuit of truth, if conducted with excessive pride, will blind oneself from the truth. The search for truth and its perspectives are explored in the motif of literal and metaphorical sight. Tiresias, a physically blind man, predicts Oedipus’s demise, as he is a seer gifted with the sight of the truth. Tiresias is initially insulted by Oedipus for not knowing the truth, and Oedipus continues to ridicule him. When asked about whether his confidence and dealing with the consequences of speaking, Tiresias asserts his position only to be rebutted: “‘Unscathed indeed, if the truth is strength.’ ‘It is. But not for you, you purblind man: in ears and mind and vision’” (Sophocles 21-22). As Tiresias is insulted for his ignorance, Oedipus chooses to ignore the truth. The irony in Oedipus’s metaphorical blindness foreshadows his fate as his hubris renders self-reflection impossible in any capacity. The lack of open-mindedness is what dooms Oedipus’s skepticism, and accompanied with his pride, Oedipus becomes blind to the truth. Recognizing this Tiresias criticizes Oedipus for his pride, proclaiming, “I’m blind, you say; you mock at that! I say you see and still are blind” (Sophocles 23). This seemingly paradoxical statement depicts the blindness to the truth he seeks. While being physically able to see, Oedipus’s extreme desire of the truth led him to abandon any factual basis. When removed of all semblance of truth, cynicism ultimately masks the deeper truth it was trying to uncover and thus perpetuates Oedipus’s ignorance. Oedipus’s downfall – which Tiresias correctly points out – arose from his hubris and cynicism which eliminated any chance of finding the truth.

The danger of being cynical towards the truth is heavily portrayed through the pain that approaching the truth with a prideful attitude can bring. Oedipus was clearly warned before his fall of the dangers of a prideful venture into acquiring the truth. When Oedipus first starts his journey to uncover his heritage, he calls Tiresias, who can see the truth. He immediately wails, “Oh, what anguish to be wise where wisdom is a loss!” (18). The sadness expressed at having the truth indicates that knowing the truth would be a burden to those who so rashly approach it. Towards the end of Oedipus Rex, Oedipus realizes his faults and gouges his eyes out.

After doing so, Oedipus says, “You shall not see me nor my crime, not see my present shame. Go dark for all time blind to what you never should have seen and blind to the love this heart has cried to see” (70). Oedipus’s paradoxical reflection functions as his new thought process. By gouging out his eyes, he paid the price for finding the truth he so actively desires. The methods in which he decided to acquire that truth demanded a sacrifice that was collected once the truth was revealed. Thus, gouging out his eyes was a result of trying so hard to see within oneself whilst chasing the truth. Therefore, Sophocles uses violent cynicism as a means to portray the truth and the pursuit of it is a form of destructive behavior that affects many.

Since the universe has been created, there are certain patterns of life that the whole world is following. People born, they grow upon, face certain challenges of the life and devout their live towards the will of the God. So basically, all the events of life are written and organized by the God. However the conflict and problems of the life arises when we try to challenge the will of the God, when we try to write our own fate and when we consider ourselves superior to everything.

Tragedies in the Greek dramas have been designed in a manner that each action leads towards the tragic downfall, as it is the basic element of the Greek plays. Moreover, the hero is confined to commit an error that would lead to his downfall, otherwise it doesn’t validate to Greek’s tragedy. As Roche in The Orestes Plays of Aeschylus wrote that: “The theme of all tragedy is the sadness of life and the universality of evil.”

Therefore, the reversal of the action is an important component, to show the tragic downfall of the heroes. Oedipus, similarly, was a king who himself tried to develop his fate, which led to the tragic reversal and destruction of his fate. His condition in the end was presented in a way that from power and pride, his character was changed to being a pitiful and helpless person. As the lines of the play Oedipus Rex suggests: “Then once more I must bring what is dark to light.” (Prologue, Line: 159)

This statement is the evidence about the prophecies that Oedipus made as he had a confidence that he can achieve and gain anything in his life.

If the play is looked thoroughly, there are certain proofs which give a clear idea that the gods have been present in the play since the beginning. From one point of view, it can also be assumed that the role they have been playing was evil. Although they were not visible to the readers, the references made to it was an indication that Oedipus, no matter how much is powerful and confident about his success from the past events of his life, there is the destiny that is pre written by gods and can never be eradicated. The initial lines of the prologue, which contains the words that were uttered by the priest is one of the proofs that indicates what destruction the gods have prepared for Oedipus, since the beginning of the play. Thus the lines mentioned below creates a mindset for the readers that what chaos is the land of Oedipus is currently going through and how much dark is his destiny to be in the future.

“Your own eyes

Must tell you: Thebes in her extremity

And cannot live her head from the surge of death.” (Prologue, Lines: 23-24)

In addition to this, there are several other clues, which led towards the idea of Oedipus’s reversal of fate, which he kept on denying as he thought that he is as pure as God and can never make any blunder in his entire life. Oedipus and his wife had unwillingness to accept the truth. When they were close to the truth, they started denying the prophecies of the god and his messengers. Although many witnesses were being provided to them who told the story of the murder, but they both acted extraordinary as if everyone except them were lying about the prophecy that Oedipus killed his own father. In this regard, they denied Teiresias (the messenger of God) too, as it can be seen in the following words of Oedipus:

(1). “He has brought this decrepit fortune teller, this

Collector of dirty pennies, this profit fraud-

Why, he is no more clairvoyant than I am” (Scene I, Lines: 465-467)

(2). “Am I to bear this from him? Damnation

Take you! Out of this place! Out of my sight! (Scene I, Lines: 518-520)

Moreover, Oedipus in some places of the play can be seen as being authoritative as god. For example, while announcing punishment for the one who would be behind all the destruction happening in the city, he specified some harsh and profound acts that would be charged against that person, as if he himself is in the hold of life and death of everybody.

“Where power and throne are mine, ever to receive that man

Or speak to him, no matter who he is, or let him

Join in sacrifice, lustration, or in prayer.

I decree that he be driven from every house” (Scene I, Lines: 277-280)

Chorus in the Greek dramas performed an important role. They commented on the all the actions of the story and also built a connection between the readers and the writer, as much as it seem that the chorus was also part of the story. Through them, the audience or the reader was able to get a more meaningful insight into the play. Similarly in this play, the chorus has delivered some intricate details. The chorus in the introductory lines of the Parodos I of the play can be seen uttering:

“Now I remember, O Healer, your power, and wonder;

Will you send doom like a sudden cloud, or weave it,

Like nightfall of the past?

Speak, speak to us, issue of holy sound:

Dearest to our expectancy: be tender!” (Parados I, Lines:185-190)

These lines are the indication towards the important role that the gods have been playing. Through these lines, they are trying to catch our attention towards the fact that no matter how much big is the difficulty, one should always seek help from God and call to Him in prayer, as there is no greater or high power than Him. Likewise, in Parados I, some other gods have been referred by the chorus including “Phoebus Apollo”, “Artemis (goddess of moon)” and “Bacchus of Thebes”.

However, before the start of Scene III lies the crux of the play, which contains the whole message that what a person has to suffer as a punishment for the denial of the gods. Despite all the power a person has in this world, no matter how much is he admired and accepted by the people or how many riddles is he capable to solve, there always come a point when human actions lead them towards their destruction and in that situation, the wrath and highness of the God can never be denied.

(1). “The tyrant is the child of Pride

Who drinks from his great sickening cup

Recklessness and vanity

Until from his high crest headlong

He plummets to the dust of hope.

That strong man is not strong.”

(Ode II, Lines: 1041- 1045)

(2). “Haughtiness and the high hand of disdain

Tempt and outrage God’s holy law;

And any mortal who dares hold

No immortal power in awe

Will be caught up in a net of pain:

The price for which his levity is sold.”

(Ode II, Lines: 1052-1057)

These lines give a lesson that anyone who has pride, who tries to plot their destiny against the will of the God and does not obey His order and laws will suffer. Due to these reasons, Oedipus had to suffer from the tragedy of life. Living a perfect life as a king and enjoying his position, Oedipus never realized that how the gods have planned his fate to murder his father and then losing all he has and that is why it is said that he was measuring his fate against the gods.

Therefore, although Oedipus has been portrayed as a very responsible and intelligent king were some places where he made those blunders that led to his downfall. If we consider his life from one aspect, he was a good king and does not deserve all the tragedy he had to deal with. However, from another aspect, he planned this all unconsciously, by his own self. His stubborn and arrogant nature pushed him towards making the wrong decisions. He thought that he is as immortal as God and can never be destroyed, “I would still be the ruler” (Scene II, Line: 64). His true and the utmost crime was that he stood against the gods. It is a general characteristic of the Greek heroes that as an attempt to avoid their fate, they try to prevent the will of the gods and so was done by Oedipus. Throughout the play, it can be seen how he avoided his destiny starting from running to Thebes after he heard about the oracle that he would kill his father to denying all the evidences presented before him about the incident. But as the will of gods can never be denied he had to suffer.

To conclude, as a debate to whether fate was responsible for Oedipus’s destruction or his own self, it can be said that he was himself more responsible for all his actions. If he had not avoided and tried to run away from God’s will, the God might have given him a reward for his humble behavior. However, as he was ignorant of the ways of the God and natural law, he tried to measure the events of his life against God which led to the reversal of his fate and ultimately to his destruction. Therefore, it is truly said that human condition is reversed as soon as one measures it against the gods.

“Know your limitations, especially in relation to the gods. And stay within them.”

Works Cited

1. Roche , Paul, “The Orestes Plays of Aeschylus.”
2. Sophocles, “Oedipus the King”

Oedipus Tyrannus is very fascinating and controversial. The stronger subjects in this nstory such as murder not only cause controversy between readers with different viewpoints, but they also open the readers minds to new ways of thinking. For years there have been debates over whether or not Oedipus should be deemed guilty or innocent for his actions on the crossroads. The countless articles written about this subject provide very strong points for both sides. They also feature many methods to help persuade the reader that their side is objective.

The first three authors discuss Oedipus’ fate. PH Vellacott asks the simple question; If the characters were warned about their fate, why wouldn’t they try to avoid engaging in those actions? Professor Kurt Fosso shares that his students are convinced that what happened to 1 Oedipus in the play was the result of a cruel fate. Rudynytsky mentions that each episode of 2 Oedipus is a thematic repetition of the previous. Vellacott argues against Oedipus unlike the 3 others.

The other authors discuss different areas of the story. Laszlo Versenyi’s Oedipus: Tragedy of Self-Knowledge breaks down Oedipus’ character by asking multiple questions about his traits, which will explain his eventual decisions. Based on my assessment of the story along with the information given within each article, I have concluded that Oedipus is should not be blamed for his actions as he had no choice but to partake in them. I will first counter the argument that he is guilty with information from the story and articles. After countering the opposing theory, I will provide information from the text to prove my argument.

One of the more common parts of the opposing argument is “If Oedipus knew of what the prophecy foretold, why wouldn’t he try to alter his fate or avoid making it a reality?” Lazslo Versenyi says in his article that there are no real antagonists of the story. I immediately agreed 7 with this statement as the only factors that oppose Oedipus in the story, are the circumstances of his life. Oedipus was told of the prophecy by the oracle before traveling to thebes. Upon interaction with a variety of characters, he found that the man he killed was his father The opposing argument is that Oedipus is guilty of killing his father by his own decision. PH Vellacott mentions in his article that Oedipus should be blamed for the murder as he was the one to kill laios. This prophecy was told to Laios by an oracle before Oedipus was born. Aware of this prophecy, Laios proceeded to marry Jocasta which causes Oedipus’ birth. The opposing argument is invalid as Oedipus wasn’t aware of who his father was until it was too late.

Although Oedipus is trapped by his fate, he still acknowledges what he’s done and is shameful of it. This is evident towards the end of the play as he and his mother discovered that the foretold prophecy was true. Shortly after realizing this, Jocasta hangs herself out of shame. Oedipus also regretting his actions, proceeds to stab himself in the eyes to blind himself. Lazslo Versenyi mentions that one of the most motivating factors of Oedipus’ actions is his nature. This statement is a good explanation as to why he decided to blind himself.

In Kurt Fosso’s article he assigns his students with the task of explaining their views on Oedipus being guilty but they unanimously decided that his fate was the blame of his actions. 9 The concept that Oedipus’ fate is set in stone and that it’s inevitable in the very end supports the argument that he is innocent. The prophecy technically started to take place the moment Laios married Jocasta. If the prophecy was really avoidable then Laios would have most likely not married Jocasta or have sex with her. He did take action to avoid the prophecy from coming into fruition, but that only resulted in his downfall.

In The Guilt of Oedipus, PH Vellacott asks the question “If Oedipus has solved the riddle to save Thebes, why could he not figure out that his fate was aligned with the prophecy?” While Oedipus was in fact the one to solve the Sphinx’s riddle, he was still unaware of how true the prophecy was becoming. His unknowing of the prophecy might not be the fault of his as the prophecy does not include him avoiding it. As Oedipus’ life unfolds in front of him, he slowly starts to realize how peculiar some elements of it are.

In God and Man in “Oedipus Rex” Lauren Silberman explains both outcomes of Oedipus’ fate. On one hand, Oedipus’ fate was locked from the beginning and would inevitably 11 end with the outcome that was prophesied. On the other hand, the fate of Oedipus was the result of the actions he took within the story. It is really impossible to tell which theory is correct as the prophecy ended as expected. These theories support the Innocent Oedipus side as it is difficult to determine if he had a choice in the actions, or if he could have avoided them.

Silberman also makes the point that Oedipus’ knowledge and action are not absolutely separable. She uses Jocasta and Tiresias’ warnings to Oedipus as an example of this. They try 12 their best to halt his quest, but he has no real cognition of upcoming danger until it’s already upon him. While he is confident that his search for the truth won’t contain anything unexpected, he would not have been in such a precarious position had he heeded the warnings. Oedipus did not connect the lines until the end of the story, in which he is already shameful.

In Oedipus: Tragedy of Self Knowledge, Laszlo Versenyi states “If all the action in the drama is impelled by nothing but Oedipus’ nature, and if this nature can be expressed by the now transformed demand, *know thyself*, then it is this demand for self-knowledge, man’s possession by the demand, that is the ‘tragic flaw’ that leads to Oedipus’ downfall.” I have taken 13 from this quote that Oedipus’ quest in this story involves a big part of finding out about himself and how he fits into this greater story. Oedipus’ curiosity has caused him to do engage in certain things that have had an effect on his outcome, which may not be his fault. If there is in fact this undeniable outcome that will come true, then it would be wrong to assume that Oedipus would have been able to do things differently. It is evident that when he kills Laios at the crossroads that he is not aware of who he is, which supports the theory of him not being able to avoid the outcome.

Lesser uses the analogy that Oedipus The King is a box within a box, a play within a play. He mentions this as the play has two parts that overlap information within the bigger story. He also mentions that both stories include conflicts and Oedipus is the result of the resolutions. This continuity between the stories makes for a better reveal when Oedipus finds out what he’s done. I have taken from this information that this style of storytelling is ideal for psychological adventures such as this. Rudnytsky breaks down the psychological aspects of this play as well.

Fosso does research on Oedipus having fear of what may come in his future. He finds that Jocasta’s report to Oedipus on Laios’s death is very similar to his encounter on the crossroads. If Oedipus was confident in his actions of killing Laios, he would not be full of fear 16 in this moment. As Tiresias warned him of his crime earlier in the play, Oedipus dismissed the notion thinking it would be impossible. Oedipus’ emotions in this part of the story are justifiable as he realizes the actions he took would come back to haunt him.

Something to note as the story progresses is Oedipus’ slow descent into his final phase. At the beginning of the story Oedipus is not even aware of his alignment with the prophecy. By the end of the story, Oedipus is fully aware of how he ties in to the prophecy and his emotions are fully reflected by his actions. The worst part of Oedipus finding out that the prophecy came true was the fact that things could have easily been avoided if he did things slightly differently.

His regret was so strong that he blinded himself so he would not have to see what he has done, he blinded himself literally and figuratively. The argument that opposes mine is Oedipus being guilty of murdering the previous king(his father). Oedipus does in fact kill Laios on the crossroads, but he did so in the belief that it was self defense. A question for those who argue this point, is a man really guilty if he is forced into this fate by greater circumstances? Due to the fact that he was not aware of his birth parents, he had no idea who he was fighting or what it would mean in the future. Versenyi’s article discusses Oedipus’ self knowledge and how the story features his life unfolding as it is in the prophecy. The Vagueness of the prophecy helps both sides of the arguments as the prophecy is stated to end in a certain way, but the journey to the end is undisclosed.

Oedipus is a character who was victim to circumstances that he couldn’t control. As the story progresses, Oedipus finds out more about himself. There are multiple warnings given to him by the characters he interacts with throughout the story that hint at what the conclusion of the story will be. Oedipus having killed Laios was not his fault due to a prophecy that was given before Oedipus was born. To argue that Oedipus is guilty is invalid as Laios set the prophecy in motion the moment he married Jocasta. In conclusion, Oedipus’ actions are the result of something that he couldn’t control he is in fact innocent due to this.

Through Oedipus Rex, composed by Sophocles, the play shows the snared relationship of man’s unrestrained choice coinciding with the fate that by then the Greeks guaranteed had driven everything and every other person in a serene aim. Lady and man were allowed to settle on and settle on their own choices, and even their very own activities were considered responsible. Both the thoughts of fate and unrestrained choice assumed a significant job all through the devastation in Oedipus. Despite the fact that he was an objective of such a destiny, he was additionally not directed by this one. From the most punctual stages, Oedipus was ready to wed his organic mother from origination to one day, just as to kill his genuine dad. This prescience, as cautioned by Delphi’s Apollo prophet, was unlimited and could eventually happened, independently of what it could have satisfied to fend off it from it however. His past activities were controlled by destiny, however he did as such through his own unrestrained choice for the present time in Thebes.

Oedipus previously embraced many, numerous deeds from the opening of this play contributing towards his definitive end. Oedipus could’ve trusted that the plague will stop, however the empathy he had for his kin that were enduring would not give him a chance to agree to this, so he had Creon sent to Delphi to counsel the prophet of Apollo. After finding out about Apollo’s promise, Now Oedipus is capable currently to examine murder of King Laius, his uncle, all the more unquestionably and all the more dispassionately, yet in his thoughtlessness, he enthusiastically reviles the culprit, and with that be done he winds up reviling himself accidentally in light of the fact that he’s the real killer of his dad. “Upon the murderer I invoke this curse whether he is one man and all unknown, or one of many may he wears out his life in misery or doom! If with my knowledge he lives at my hearth, I pray that I myself may feel my curse.” (Oedipus Rex)

So with respect to Sophecles’ Greek group of spectators to have some connection to Oedipus, the heartbreaking figure of the play, he needed to have a few defects or blunder of ways. This sort of brought the character down to a level comparative with us, putting or summoning in them this kind of dread that whatever ‘it could happen to them.’ And Oedipus is positively not one without blemishes. His pride, numbness, disrespect and skepticism in the divine beings, and unwavering mission for reality eventually added to his destuction. At the point when Oedipus was told, that he was liable for the homicide of his dad, he lost control and considered the antiquated prophet a liar. He fled from his home, Corinth, with expectations of outflanking the divine beings awesome will and attempting to get away from his destiny. Similarly as his dad, Oedipus searched out various approaches to get away from the inevitable destiny told by the prophet of Apollo. The chorale cautions us of man’s have to have respect for the divine beings, and the perils of an excessive amount of pride.

I liked the play and the themes in Oedipus. The best part of the book is to see how Oedipus develops as a character. The progression as a character from who he was at the beginning to the end shows all factors of a dramatic character that most books need and love. He shows pride, faith, and intelligence in himself. When he finally sees everything, he has done at the end also shows that he finally got some sense and what is going on around him. Through Oedipus, we learn the truth behind being delusional and how it can affect people in the long run. Oedipus shows that the search for truth is a necessary part of the human condition, and in the process how its suffering causes emotion and potential heartbreak. Another theme that was important to me was human freedom vs. fated destiny. When Oedipus looks to get around the fate that has been set out for him it shows us that no matter what we do is the gods have a destiny for us that there is no way around it.

I think that people from different ethnic groups might see Oedipus Rex in a different light than I did. Some groups around the globe fine relations between family members normal and what they regularly do. So, from one of those groups, if they were to look at this play, they might not see it as different and uncomfortable between Oedipus and his mother as people in North America. People from different age groups also might not see Oedipus and his mother in different lights. Now children around ages 1-6 might not understand the classic marriage roles in Canada, so if they were to hear this play or watch it, they might not know yet how strange this relationship is. Now for a teenager to around mid-thirties might find the relationship so weird and strange because this man was having sex and had children with his mom and somehow didn’t put the pieces together. Lastly, you have elderly people. If they were to look at the situation, they could think that everyone is being overdramatic about it because in reality they didn’t know about each other so looking at it might not be so strange because it wasn’t their fault. Oedipus Rex says a lot about gender roles. They make it seem like women are objects to men and that men are always the head of the relationship. Women have little responsibility in life and are basically seen as child carriers. Anytime Iokaste is mentioned, the fact that she is the carrier of children seems to always be mentioned. In the first scene, Oedipus talks about how owing is to Laios. ‘Now I, having the power that he held before me, having his bed, begetting children there, upon his wife, as he would have, had he lived their son would have been my children’s brother if Laios had had luck in fatherhood!’ (727) Iokaste is not presented as an actual being; instead, she is described as Laios’ property that had come into Oedipus’ possession along with the throne, land, and power.

In Oedipus Rex, fate is in my opinion the reasoning for the outcome of the play. The gods decided Oedipus and Jocasta’s fate before anyone knew. Trying to avoid this fate was pointless because no matter what, it caught up to them no matter what. He thought that he could change his destiny to kill his father and marry his mother, but in reality, their fate was put into action the day Oedipus was born.

During the play, Oedipus tries to change his fate. When he was told by two messengers and an oracle that his destiny was to marry his mother and kill his father, he panicked and left. He knew that he definitely had to avoid the situation, so he decided he would attempt to change his fate. But at that time, he did not realize that your fate will not change. When Oedipus realizes what his future holds, he decides to avoid it at all costs. As a result, he picked up and ran away. Then, in the end, Oedipus realized the man he killed in that street was actually his dad and that his parents that he knew forever were his adopted parents.

I think the main concept that Oedipus Rex shows about morals is the concept of pride. The fact that Oedipus thinks he can have a say in his fate and what the gods have planned out for him shows his pride. Oedipus is also proud of the fact that he does not want to see his fate go through. Also, in Oedipus Rex, it shows a moral implication of how you can’t run away from your fate. No matter what Oedipus did or journey through he could not run away from the fact the gods had been controlling his life and there is nothing he can do about what they have decided. This shows that people will go through close to everything to change what is written in stone even though there isn’t a chance.

One main metaphor used in this play would be Sight vs Blindness. The blind man that told Oedipus his destiny could see something about Oedipus that he couldn’t see in himself. Although the blind man was unable to visually see, he had thoughts that could allow him to see Oedipus’ future through a prophecy. Oedipus had the ability to see and was warned by others and did not take the advice that was offered by others. As a result, he cut his eyes out because of the awful things that he did. How does Oedipus Rex relate in the 21st century some might ask, well if he had been assured of his own goodness, he would not have believed the Oracle when she said he would kill his father and bed his mother. He would have stayed where he was rather than flee and inadvertently cause his own demise. I think that applies to our modern situation because if we were true to our own moral beliefs, we would not give in and give up, we would fight for what we believe and stand by what we believe instead of believing some stranger about who we are and what we’re capable of.

In Oedipus Rex, the subject of visual impairment and vision alludes to the information and knowledge or the absence of it that the characters endure. Destiny is another solid topic. In endeavoring to get away from his destiny, Oedipus just turns out to be all the more profoundly weaved with it – he is oblivious in regards to and bound by his own destiny. Conversely, the storyteller in Truth Unwanted Feels ready to dismiss the limitations of destiny, since he has rather chosen to pursue his heart.

Oedipus Rex contains numerous occasions of lamentable incongruity, in scenes where the crowd is demonstrated the genuine conditions of the circumstance, and can plainly observe that disaster will result when the characters discover also. For instance, there are a few occurrences where Oedipus ‘fates himself’ by reporting what will happen when the ruler’s killer is found: ‘And on the killer this revile I lay (On him and every one of the accomplices in his blame): Wretch, may he pine in absolute wretchedness!’ Another case of this is the means by which Oedipus keeps running from the prediction he is given, not realizing that he is in certainty running directly to the main spot where the prescience can be satisfied. Trusting Polybus to be his normal dad, he goes out, and after that experiences and killed King Laius, who is obviously his characteristic dad, in spite of the fact that he has no chance of knowing this at the time.

In addition to the fact that Oedipus is bound to his destiny, he is likewise incognizant in regards to it. Oedipus is said to be aware, however, conditions have blinded them to the reality of his introduction to the world. Indeed, even in the wake of hearing that King Laius was killed at a similar intersection where he killed an obscure man and after that Polybus isn’t his characteristic dad, Oedipus still doesn’t perceive reality. When, in the wake of a hearing declaration from the shepherd, he at long last understands, he physically blinds himself with the goal that he doesn’t need to confront. Sean Quinlan’s ballad Truth Unwanted additionally investigates the idea of destiny and how one can feel caught by such an idea. Notwithstanding, in contrast to Oedipus, who is bound by destiny and can’t escape it, the storyteller in Truth Unwanted Has chosen that his destiny is ‘still to be chosen.”

The storyteller is by all accounts settling on a decision between the directs of destiny, and the opportunity of cherishing, of the ‘quest for the heart’, and says that picking adoration is a sort of dismissal of the limits of destiny. The storyteller feels that his heart is ‘picking its own way’ and that while destiny may maybe be composed as of now, how he arrives is up to him. Relating this to Oedipus is fascinating, in light of the fact that Oedipus himself was not able to separate destiny from the activities that carried him to his destiny since they were one and the equivalent. What’s more, it was his destiny to wed his very own mom, and it appears from the play itself, this was a political marriage instead of whatever else. On the off chance that adoration was what might liberate Oedipus of destiny, it appears he didn’t get the chance to discover it.

Oedipus can’t get away from his destiny. As appeared, he has attempted to escape it, yet just winds up ending up more immovably enmeshed in it. In the end, he attempts to get away from his destiny by blinding himself to reality. When eventually he is compelled to understand that the prediction has been satisfied in spite of his endeavors to forestall it, he reacts by making a move that emblematically blinds him to it for all time.

The dramatization is unified around the hero character, Oedipus, who gets the title of the disastrous figure because of the appalling destiny anticipated to him by a prophet. The disaster is emphatically organized around the establishment of sight. In examining Oedipus Rex, bits of knowledge can be assembled and concluded on the essentialness of sight and visual deficiency, which are predominately utilized all through the Greek catastrophe. Sophocles utilizes the capacity and powerlessness of sight to enable artistic components, for example, incongruity, imagery, and hinting, to satisfy the three significant components of a terrible plot, which are inversion, acknowledgment and a scene of enduring to realize the awfulness of characters, and to stress a subject.

It is essential to comprehend what sight and visual deficiency exemplify in the abstract domain and how it could be utilized for incongruity, imagery, and foretelling. A character’s vision is similarly identified with physical sight all things considered to be educated and edified of current conditions, which enables the two conditions to be utilized into scholarly images all through the show. Tiresias alludes to Oedipus’ demonstration of homicide and interbreeding, which the new ruler can’t comprehend or interfere with as a result of his shut eyes towards reality. Oedipus can be delineated as one who sees everything with the exception of reality and accommodates everything aside from the catastrophe that really happens. Sophocles shrewdly makes the two characters, Oedipus and Tiresias, dazzle in two separate ways: Tiresias is oblivious in regards to the physical world, consistently needing hireling to lead him one spot to another and Oedipus can’t see that the prediction he once fled from has been satisfied. The incongruity is actualized into the play with Oedipus’ sight and Tiresias’ visual deficiency.

It is Tiresias who realizes that Oedipus is the one that Lord Phoebus, the prophet to Apollo, advised Creon and the Thebans to dispose of so as to end the plague that expends Thebes Oedipus expedited. Oedipus affronts Tiresias and his capacity as a prophet by sneering You have no quality, dazzle in your ears, your explanation and your eyes. At the point when he won’t accept he is the guilty party that has carried the plague to Thebes. At the point when Oedipus can’t observer reality, Tiresias can anticipate that this day will give you birth and ruin as well. Birth is alluding to the disclosure of the genuine personality of Oedipus’ folks. Obviously, Sophocles utilizes visual impairment as a picture to speak to the furthest reaches of humankind. However, this shouldn’t dishonor Oedipus nor should it cause his character to be displayed as totally dazzle from the information. It was with his knowledge that he had the option to fathom the Sphinx’s puzzle. Oedipus is sure to blame the soothsayer for mental visual deficiency since he fathomed the enigma of the Sphinx though Tiresias didn’t. Once more, incongruity is woven into the play so as to draw out the fullest impact of catastrophe, this time with the utilization of the Sphinx’s question. The Sphinx, an animal of lady, lion, and feathered creature had held the city of Thebes prisoner until one individual had the option to tackle her puzzle, eating up the individuals who addressed mistakenly. Until the enigma was illuminated, no individual could leave or enter the city. The puzzle presented by the animal was ‘What goes on four legs and two legs and three legs and when it has the most legs is at its weakest?’ Oedipus addressed to man, who creeps as a baby, strolls on two legs as a grown-up and utilizes a stick as the third leg like an old man. The conundrum and the appropriate response hold reality in Oedipus’ destiny when he was a newborn child, he slithered, as a grown-up strolled upstanding, not matured, yet visually impaired, Oedipus will convey a staff and proceed onward ‘three’. Incongruity, imagery, and foretelling are altogether actualized inside the Greek catastrophe through the possibility of visual deficiency and sight.

It is with Oedipus’ ignorance or ‘visual deficiency’ that the lamentable plot that comprises an inversion, a snapshot of acknowledgment and a scene of enduring can be finished. The three components are achieved toward the conclusion to make the most dominant impact. The inversion is the adjustment in circumstance from great to awful and is exceptionally startling from the primary character, as such, something contrary to what is normal. Anagnorisis is the crucial point in time of edification a hero encounters. With this snapshot of acknowledgment, a character can recognize and respond to their positive or negative fortunes. For Oedipus, he encounters both the inversion and acknowledgment all the while with the disclosure of the satisfied prescience. It was least expected and it expedited a snapshot of explanation with the most heartbreaking of events. The area of enduring prevails in the initial two occasions.

The scene comprises of what Aristotle depicts as a ruinous or agonizing activity, for example, demise on the stage, substantial distress, wounds and so forth. Additionally, this episode, so as to excite a ground-breaking feeling of catastrophe, must happen inside or almost a family or family. Dread and pity are produced when the hero endures instead of the adversary in light of the compassion a peruser may hold towards the previous. Oedipus Rex comprises two lamentable scenes where emotion, otherwise called sentiments of pity, compassion or distress, is realized because of Oedipus’ adversity. Jocasta is first to find the reality that laid in Laius and Oedipus’ prediction and endeavors to ‘discourage him from further request.’ Jocasta, amidst her trouble, leaves the phases to balance herself in her room. After discovering Jocasta, Oedipus utilizes the brilliant pins of her dress to strike ‘into the rotating conjunctures of his eyes’. Both sensational activities incite tremendous pity and distress, which realizes a cleansing, cleansing of feelings, at last.

Oedipus’ catastrophe is underlined by his self-dispensed visual impairment. Upon Oedipus leaving the royal residence, the chorale responds to the enduring that sends fear through men’s eyes, horrible past any misery. Oedipus reports to the theme that in spite of the fact that he can’t see, he keeps on living with the enduring of his destiny and the homicides that encompass it. The self-visual deficiency additionally has a clarification, that is when Oedipus makes one wonder ‘for what reason would I say I was to see when nothing I could see bring me satisfaction?’. It is additionally conceivable that the purpose behind Oedipus’ eye-gouging is a discipline for his rapprochement of Tiresias. It has become awful that Oedipus should now endure past what was initially prophesized. It is just Tiresias that talks about Oedipus’ eye puncturing when he answers ‘now you can see, at that point, you will gaze into obscurity’. Visual deficiency has realized a more noteworthy type of disaster for Oedipus.

Sightlessness adds to a general subject created inside the play. It is a topic that analyzes human confinement and the visual impairment of man and the urgent frailty of the human condition. Oedipus substantiates himself as an extraordinary scholarly and ruler to the Thebans. Oedipus is sure that he, obviously, couldn’t have been the enemy of Laius and carrier of the plague so by chance, when Tiresias fights back with the guaranteed prescience Oedipus hears only an astounded deceiver’s fierceness. Oedipus demonstrates to be a portrayal of a man that isn’t all-knowing and foolhardy from multiple points of view. His incidents typify every one of man’s deficiencies, inadequacies, and disastrous endings. There is a wide range of cases where visual impairment and sight are organized to make an appalling plot total, make incongruity, imagery, and hinting, to realize the best scene of disaster conceivable and express an incredible subject. Sophocles had the option to use vision and its absence to achieve a convincing dramatization that has withstood the trial of time. ‘Oedipus Rex’ can be believed to be a significant puzzling play however with the understanding of what sight and visual impairment are and how it is controlled through the play one can start to cut down the complexities of characters, structure, and subjects.

Oedipus Rex is the first of the set of three about the life of Oedipus and his kids, composed by Sophocles. It recounts the lamentable story of a child who was deserted in a field with the assent of his folks so as to get away from the shocking prediction about him murdering his very own dad and wedding his very own mom. Be that as it may, the hireling who should leave the youngster in the field carried him to a shepherd who thusly gave the infant to the childless ruler and sovereign of Corinth. Subsequently, without the learning of his folks, the youngster grew up to be a fine young fellow. At the point when he became more seasoned, the kid discovered that the guardians he knew were not his genuine guardians.

The play that was recorded in 1984 presents a convincing exhibition of the various characters. Exhibited on one phase, the test of bringing an exuberant and drawing in the watch was effectively survived. In spite of the fact that the film is highly contrasting, the exhibitions have been energetically, easily, and proficiently conveyed. The utilization of highly contrasting hues really brings the sentiments of viewing an extremely old film that was taken numerous hundreds of years prior. Such procedure which was predictable all through the film was powerful in carrying the crowd into the setting which is sensibly and acceptably Theban. In addition, the entertainers played out their parts very well. The outward appearances, manners of speaking, and different angles that make them convincing have all been thought about. One could maybe be explicitly pulled into the portrayal of the worker who saw the suicide of Jocasta and the blinding of Oedipus. His part may have been somewhat overstated yet it did very well to breathe life into the pictures in the psyches of the watchers. He is an energetic and graphic storyteller and thusly, he can carry the watcher to the very scene where the story occurred.

Oedipus Rex was composed for execution at the City Dionysia, a celebration in Athens that regarded the god Dionysus by the introduction of a few plays. Sophocles’ different plays were performed at the celebration of Lenaea that respected the god Dionysus just as the City Dionysia.

Creon believes that he is advocated in his treatment of Polynices in light of the fact that the last was a double-crosser, a foe of the state, and the security of the state makes all of human life – including family life and religion – conceivable. In this manner, in Creon’s mind, the benefit of the state precedes every single obligation and quality. Notwithstanding, the resulting occasions of the play exhibit that a few obligations are more essential than the state and its laws. The obligation to cover the dead is a piece of being human, not part of being a resident. That is the reason Polynices’ decaying body is a ‘vulgarity’ as opposed to wrongdoing. Moral obligations, for example, the obligations owed to the dead – make up the assortment of unwritten law and convention, the law to which Antigone claims.

At the point when Oedipus and Jocasta start to draw near to reality with regards to Laius’ homicide, in Oedipus the King, Oedipus attaches onto a detail in the desire for excusing himself. Jocasta says that she was informed that Laius was executed by ‘outsiders,’ while Oedipus realizes that he acted alone when he slaughtered a man in comparative conditions. This is a remarkable minute since it raises doubt about the whole truth-chasing process Oedipus trusts himself to embrace. Both Oedipus and Jocasta go about as if the hireling’s story, when spoken, is certain history. Neither can confront the plausibility of what it would mean if the worker weren’t right. This is maybe why Jocasta feels she can tell Oedipus of the prescience that her child would execute his dad, and Oedipus can enlighten her regarding the comparative prediction given him by a prophet (867–875), and neither one of them feels constrained to comment on the happenstance; or why Oedipus can hear the tale of Jocasta restricting her youngster’s lower legs (780–781) and not think about his own swollen feet. While the data in these addresses is to a great extent expected to make the group of spectators agonizingly mindful of the lamentable incongruity, it likewise underscores exactly how frantically Oedipus and Jocasta would prefer not to talk the undeniable truth: they take a gander at the conditions and subtleties of regular day to day existence and profess not to see them.

Prescience is a focal part of Oedipus the King. The play starts with Creon’s arrival from the prophet at Delphi, where he has discovered that the plague will be lifted if Thebes expels the man who executed Laius. Tiresias forecasts the catch of one who is both dad and sibling to his very own youngsters. Oedipus tells Jocasta of a prediction he heard as an adolescent, that he would murder his dad and lay down with his mom, and Jocasta tells Oedipus of a comparable prescience given to Laius, that her child would grow up to execute his dad

Oedipus appears to be just to want to escape his destiny, however, his destiny constantly gets up to speed with him. Numerous individuals have attempted to contend that Oedipus realizes his fiasco on account of an ‘awful imperfection,’ however, no one has figured out how to make an agreement about what Oedipus’ blemish really is. Maybe his story is intended to show that mistake and fiasco can transpire, that individuals are generally frail before destiny or the divine beings, and that careful lowliness is the best frame of mind toward life.

At last, for his decision of the narrative of Oedipus, there are two potential explanations behind it. Initially, the conventional subject for Greek disasters was the occasions that happened in the brave time frame that was thought to be soon after the Trojan wars; numerous Greek plays by various creators depict the Theban tradition. Second, Oedipus was intently connected with Colonus, the community close to Athens where Sophocles and his family lived. With regards to the motivation behind disasters themselves, they were a piece of the strict existence of the city, displayed to respect the god Dionysus. As far as topic, they related a semi-legendary history to a crowd of people with just constrained education and demonstrated city and individual ideals, to an enormous degree by indicating how indecencies prompted catastrophe and having the chorale remark as a kind of good compass on the decisions of the principal characters.

In this play, it all starts in a really creepy setting as if it is trying to tell a story in the beginning, but having some type of suspicion throughout the beginning. There is tons of fog that sets what the play is symbolizing in that moment and having some interesting music. This play tells about a tragic story of a child who was abandoned in a field by his parents in order to escape attempting to kill his father and marrying his mother. The play filmed in 1984, shows a performance of many characters.

The technique worked in bringing the audience into the setting. Watching this play, made me better understand it than just reading it because it is better to see how the character throughout the play talk and how the voices are different. Oedipus is recognized for his compassion, justice, and action. In his first speech, he delivers to a priest. When Creon retold Laius’s murder, Oedipus was shocked that the investigation of the murder of a king was dropped for no further questions (145-147). Oedipus creates moments of irony in the play, since the relationship between his past and his present situation. For example, when the priest tells Oedipus that the people of Thebes are dying, he says that he could not fail to see this (68-72).

Some irony is when Oedipus states that he possesses the bed of the king, and that marriage might have created “blood-bonds” between him and Laius (294-300). In addition to the irony stated, the conversation between Tiresias and Oedipus is filled with references to sight and eyes. As Oedipus grows angrier, he taunts Tiresias for his blindness. The Chorus’s, speech is full of images of caves, darkness, lightning, and wings, which suggest darkness, the unknown, and, most significantly, terror striking from the skies. The gods are still present in this speech, but they are no help, because they know the truth. After Jocasta intrudes in the fight between Oedipus and Creon, Oedipus calms down and recalls that there is a riddle before him that he has to solve the puzzle.

We see that Oedipus pursues the truth when not actually having an idea of what the truth really is. When Oedipus explains detail of the three-way crossroads (805–822), he proves that he was not attracting attention in the first scene of the play when he expressed his desire to be straight forward and honest with his citizens. When he learns that there is still a piece of the puzzle left unsolved, Oedipus seems persistent to ask questions until the whole truth is out. Jocasta, solves the riddle before Oedipus and she realizes she is his mother. Oedipus must realize that something has gone terribly wrong, when Jocasta leaves the stage screaming.

The speech of the Chorus, with which this section begins (1311–1350), turns the images of the plowman and ship’s captain, which formerly stood for Oedipus’s success and ability to manage the state, into images of his failure. And the way in which it does so is quite extreme, focusing particularly on the sexual aspect of Oedipus’s actions. Oedipus and his father have, like two ships in one port, shared the same “wide harbor,” and Oedipus has plowed the same “furrows” his father plowed (1334–1339). The harbor image ostensibly refers to Jocasta’s bedchamber, but both images also quite obviously refer to the other space Oedipus and his father have shared: Jocasta’s vagina. Images of earth and soil continue throughout the scene, most noticeably in one of Oedipus’s final speeches, in which he talks to his children about what he has done (1621–1661).

These images of earth, soil, and plowing are used to suggest the metaphor of the sturdy plowman tilling the soil of the state, but they also suggest the image of the soil drinking the blood of the family members Oedipus has killed (1531–1537). Oedipus’s crimes are presented as a kind of blight on the land, a plague symbolized by the plague with which the play begins that infects the earth on which Oedipus, his family, and his citizens stand, and in which all are buried as a result of Oedipus’s violence.