Category: Oedipus the King

Introduction

Oedipus Tyrannus is one of Sophocles’ masterpieces. This play brings into action different historical issues that are pertinent in contemporary world. Written between 428 and 425 B.C, Oedipus Tyrannus remains all time favorite play. Sophocles explores “how it is to be a human and live in a world that does not bend itself to support humanity” (Meineck & Woodruff 10). Sophocles addresses historical issues like oracles and divination and Greek religion among others.

These plays were part of Greek religion; actually, it was a form of worship where they worshiped, Dionysus, a seditious revelry god who lived in the wilderness. According to Meineck and Woodruff, amongst Greek people, divination and oracles served as the only form of revelation, no priesthood, sacred books, theology, or founders, only seers and oracles (13).

Delphi; being the most sanctimonious place in Greece, gave the final word on every matter and all people had to respect its oracle. Oedipus Tyrannus expounds on these works in a colorful event dealing with society issues like murder, rape, marriage, family, leadership, and divinity among others.

Importance of the Story

Though written many years ago, Oedipus Tyrannus addresses important issues that affected people during those times. Interestingly, the same issues appear to be affecting people in the contemporary world. This fact solidifies the common adage that, ‘the more things change, the more they remain the same.’

It is amazing that the issues that rocked the newly civilized society are still pertinent in a fast moving world where civilization has hit climax. The main character here, Oedipus, is acting like most of our leaders in modern times, confident, heroic, saying one thing and doing the other coupled with deliberate denial of the truth even when all evidence is available. This play is important because it handles issues that are happening in our society today.

Oedipus appears as a hero especially at the beginning of the play where he solves the Sphinx’s enigma. It takes a lot of confidence to engage in a dangerous activity that Oedipus engages in.

He offers to give Sphinx an answer although he knows a wrong answer would lead to death. After this incidence of freeing people from the wrath of Sphinx, Oedipus becomes popular and garners massive following due to his intelligence and bravery. This phenomenon is common in modern world where a single act of boldness and bravery will lift someone to stardom.

The first person to hail Oedipus is a temple priest who says, “You freed us from the Sphinx, you came to Thebes and cut us loose from the bloody tribute we had paid that harsh, brutal singer. We taught you nothing, no skill, no extra knowledge, still you triumphed” (Sophocles 44-47). According to the people of this city, nothing short of god’s gift would deliver them from the hands of Sphinx. This blessing came through Oedipus.

Unfortunately, once the Thebans start to idolize Oedipus, he assumes powers that are not his. It is interesting how people are hungry for power and recognition, and the things they will do once they gain all that they have been wanting all along. Oedipus assumes powers of gods.

Instead of people praying to their gods, he offers to answer their prayers. He says, “You pray to the gods? Let me grant your prayers” (Sophocles 245). This is ridiculous. Maybe out of gullibility and hypnotization, people start offering their prayers to Oedipus. This is because their gods does not seem to answer their prayers anymore.

It is easy for people to be lured away from what they believe and what they have cherished for long. As aforementioned, though written in many years ago, this play is of great significance in the contemporary world. Day after the other, people are becoming followers of new sects that they do not really understand. Not because they did not have beliefs and religions hitherto, they are simply hypnotized.

Nevertheless, Oedipus’ popularity begins to take a nosedive as the reality of Laius’ death starts to set in. At this point, the vehement denial of truth sets in. leadership without honesty cannot stand. Oedipus becomes a tyrant for he cannot swallow the truth that he killed Laius.

As Locasta recounts the events that preceded her husband’s murder, it becomes clear to Oedipus that he is the subject in this case. Suspicion plunges him and absentmindedly says, “Strange, hearing you just now . my mind wandered, my thoughts racing back and forth” (Sophocles 800-02). People cannot just accept the truth; however, they will always look for scapegoats and point fingers to others. What happened to owning up mistakes and taking responsibility?

Oedipus is not different, despite the mounting pressure he continues to carry out investigations to what he already know. In a typical way of people in modern world, Oedipus goes on to question the credibility of the Oracle. Just like people nowadays, they want to challenge every ruling to satiate their selfish ambitions.

After Tiresias implicates Oedipus in the murder of Laius, Oedipus becomes offensive and he actually infers that Tiresias is the murderer. He says, “You helped hatch the plot; you did the work, yes, short of killing him with your own hands .” (Sophocles 394-96). Dying of suppressed guilt, he extends the blame to Creon and accuses him of treason and conspiracy.

He says, “I see it all, the marauding thief himself scheming to steal my crown and power!” (Sophocles 597-98). Talk of assassinating the messenger with a complete disregard of the message. Man is known to deny the facts. This paper aforementioned that, interestingly, the things that were pertinent in society many years ago, they remain the same even to date.

Citizens and leaders alike do not want to come out and accept the truth. Selfish ambitions are the rule of the day and no one is ready to take responsibility of his or her actions. It appears that Oedipus set the pace, and we have followed his footsteps so faithfully.

At this point Oedipus cannot be contained. He acts with complete disregard of divinity, by spiting a prophet and even igniting the ire of gods. This wrath is inevitable as we find out in the chorus that, “But if any man comes striding, high and mighty, in all he says and does, no fear of justice, no reverence for the temples of the gods-let a rough doom tear him down, repay his pride, breakneck, ruinous pride!” (Sophocles 972-77).

This tyrant behavior is typical in modern society. People choose leaders to be a blessing to them only to be a curse. Our leaders go to the people, beg for votes, and get that highest seat in the land, and turn out to be tyrants once seated in the throne of powers.

Think of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. The only thing the people of Thebes could show after Oedipus reign is wrath from their gods. Similarly, the only thing the people of Zimbabwe can show after many years of poor governance by one of their elected leaders is a wretched economy.

Lastly comes the payday. Oedipus has to pay for all his sins and face humiliation in front of the very people he ignored with contempt. He admits his mistakes by saying, “I stand revealed at last-cursed in my birth, cursed in marriage, cursed in the lives I cut down with these hands!” (Sophocles 1309-11).

On top of this, he gouges out his eyes but moves quickly to justify his actions, “What good were eyes to me? Nothing I could see could bring me joy” (Sophocles 1473-74). Truth has a way of finding ‘her’ way home. No matter how hard we try to cover the truth, nature has a way of bringing our deeds to light. This is a fact that Oedipus came to learn, unfortunately, it was a belated bitter lesson.

When people reach this point of life where they realize everything is vanity, they become remorseful. Oedipus did not miss in this common arena and he concludes by saying, “Oh no, what can I say to him? How can I ever hope to win his trust? I wronged him so, just now, in every way.

You must see that-I was so wrong, so wrong” (Sophocles 1554-57). He regrets how contemptuous he acted towards Creon. This is a typical ending of many people in our times. People have risen to stardom only to come down crumpling as we watch.

Apart from the significance of this play in contemporary world, it plays a crucial role in Greece’s history. This play reflects greatly the character of Athenians rulers; who were diligent, brave, and daring on one side, while arrogant and contemptuous on the other side (Silverman para. 6).

These leaders defended their territories but they could not defend themselves as individuals, just like Oedipus. Moreover, Athenians struggled with religious issues and this play highlights all these. Lastly, this play expounds on human suffering that, sometimes people get what they deserve while at other times they endure the most of fate.

Conclusion

Sophocles knew exactly what he was writing when he compiled the play Oedipus Tyrannus. This play is a true reflection of what people go through. Oedipus is an epitome of modern day leaders who start their leadership reigns in style only to turn tyrannies and come to humbling ends.

The place of this play in today’s society is important and it is amazing how humanity has not changed after many years of civilization. Issues to do with divinity were critical in Greece during the times of Oedipus and they still weigh heavily on society today.

There has been a deliberate shying away from and denial of the truth; a fact highlighted strongly in this play. People have continually neglected the truth, choosing to pursue what seems right in their own eyes regardless of criticism that may be surrounding them.

Finally, this play emphasizes on historical issues in Greece’s history like nature of leaders, religion, and human suffering. Oedipus Tyrannus is an educative and entertaining masterpiece that cannot afford to take a backseat in today’s literature.

Works Cited

Meineck, Peter, & Woodruff, Peter. “Oedipus Tyrannus.” Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Company, Inc. 2000.

Silverman, David. “Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus.” 1995. Web.

Sophocles. “The Oedipus Tyrannus with English Notes.” Crosby, Howard. Ed. New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1857

Studies on ancient Greek literature and mythologies indicate that the Greeks were deeply searching for knowledge. Characters often worked hard to gain knowledge, especially divine and mythical revelations. Although most cases involve terrifying truth, society often believed that truth is a critical virtue.

In his play “Oedipus the King,” Sophocles examines Oedipus the King as he pursues self-knowledge that eventually changes him from a prideful king to a humbled, fearful and condemned the individual. An analysis of this journey contradicts the 5^th-century belief that man is the measure of all things in several ways.

At the beginning of the play, Oedipus is presented as a valiant and confident individual, often as a hero. For instance, he resolves the riddle of the Sphinx. He is aware that his background is not Thebes and is likely to face the threat of the Sphinx. However, he heroically chooses to answer the riddle, which he did before running from the Sphinx tyrannical rule.

However, he changes from a hero to a person in self-denial, especially when he learns of the story behind the death of Laius. He becomes more of a tyrant than a real hero. When Queen Jocasta narrates the story of her husband’s death, Oedipus suspects that he killed his father. Although he does not want to admit the truth or disclose it to any person, it haunts him.

He becomes paranoiac. Oedipus says, “…my mind wandered, and my thoughts raced to and fro…” However, he thinks that other individuals are to blame for the plaque that has befallen the city due to his actions. For instance, he blames Tiresias for the king’s murder and Creon for treason. He does not want to accept that he is guilty.

Finally, Oedipus the King accepts the truth and changes from a man in self-denial to a humbled character. He condemns himself for killing his father and sleeping with Jocasta. He decides to destroy his sight because it did not help him see the truth “…What good did my eyes do to me? I saw nothing that could bring me happiness…”

The idea the Man is the measure of everything originated from the philosopher Protagoras in the 5^th century. In Plato’s analysis, the maxim is used to mean that man is the source of knowledge. This means that gods do not provide man with knowledge of the things in his nature; neither do they hold the reality of nature. The maxim means that things that are related to or used by man can be measured based on human aspects.

This means that Protagoras did not mean that man is the measure of things that do not originate from the mind, such as the movement of stars, growth of plants and animals and earthquakes. According to Plato, Protagoras’ view of humanity and nature of reality is that anything that appears true to an individual is true or real to that person.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Plato also says that Protagoras emphasized on the fact that all views should be treated with respect as truth. Nevertheless, it is clear that not all views have the same gravity. In other words, some views have a higher degree of truth than others.

Applying Protagoras view in the case of Oedipus, the king shows that Oedipus embodies critical anxiety that was common at the time. Oedipus had the suspicion that his intelligence, like that of other humans, was the appropriate divine privileges.

Some writers have argued that the intellectual progress that Oedipus undergoes as he pursues self-knowledge is an example of symbolic history that was common in the writings of the 5^th-century rationalism. Thus, it is relatively correct to consider Oedipus the King as an example of the ancient Greek individuals regarded as paradigmatic heroes possessing unnatural humanistic self-knowledge.

Therefore, it is worth noting that Oedipus provides a good example of the ancient Greeks who toiled to reveal the mythical and divine truth. To philosophers like Protagoras, this truth is measurable based on the human mind because it originates from there. However, Oedipus’ self-knowledge does not originate from his mind. Instead, it originates from the gods, yet he uses it to determine his fate.

Also, it is clear that Protagoras’ maxim of ‘man is the measure of all things’ is contradicting with Sophocles’ play because Oedipus gains supernatural knowledge that completely changes him.

On the other hand, Protagoras thinks that the knowledge originated from the human mind rather than from gods. Also, the knowledge is Oedipus own view and should be held as such, but should not be considered as the ultimate truth as long as there are other views worth respect.

Introduction

In his literary works, Kafka amalgamates almost all literary components and crowns them with new ideas and purposes. In ‘The Metamorphosis’ Kafka uses metaphor and pushes it through its highest points. He successfully used metaphor to demonstrate human relationships (Mitchell 1).

The play ‘Oedipus the King’ is full of tragedy and sorrow that results into greater pain just as the story progresses. This only serves to advance to popularity of the story (Stewart par. 1). By examining the two stories, one notices various ways that father-son relationship permeated and influenced the lives of both Gregor and Oedipus (Mitchell 1). This paper seeks to explore the father and son relationships in Metamorphosis and Oedipus the King and offers a comparison for the two.

Discussion

In the ‘Metamorphosis’, the author clearly talks about poor communication among the members of a low family class. To clearly depict this poor relationship, the writer converts Gregor Samsa, the main character, into a gigantic bug (Kafka 1). The writer uses this character to represent himself, meaning that Franz Kafka and Gregor are analogous to one another. By analyzing the two, readers get an insight of the father –son relationship as illustrated in the story.

The author uses his life relationship with his biological father and the effects of his father’s dominance and dictatorships to depict their relationship (Wyllie par.1-3). In his translation, David Wyllie describes the bug as a horrible vermin that has pitiful thin legs (Rohl 280-391).

In real life scenario, a bug is imagined as weak, insignificant and does not attract much attention. In this context Kafka depicts his own low self image by using the metaphor of the bug. In Metamorphosis, the inferiority problems that Kafka encountered in his childhood are depicted by the traits of the bug (Kafka 1).

Even with the challenge of interpreting Metamorphosis, nonetheless, it is still possible to provide a plausible explanation of the works of Kafka. As the metamorphosis unfolds, we see Gregor Samsa waking up and to his utter amazement he realized that he has undergone a transformation into a beetle.

With the unfolding of this story, it becomes apparent that Gregor is slowly coming into terms with the transformation (Fitzgerald 1). However, this does not deter him from pondering on how exactly such a transformation might have occurred in reality. Already, a keen reader will almost certainly ponder on the peculiarity of a lack of questioning by Gregor about the transformation.

The expectation would be that for an individual to have turned into a beetle in the space of one night there is every reason to ask oneself how such a dramatic transformation could have possibly occurred. As such, the reader is left wondering if at all Gregor underwent any physical change.

Even as the presentation of the story is such that mutation appears more of a fact, nevertheless, one could as well infer that the story is more of a metaphor seeking to depict the household of Samsa and its state. Before Gregor underwent the transformation process, his life was rather boring.

Coincidently, this boring life bears a close correlation with that led by such an insect as a beetle. Gregor was fully occupied with his work and was determined to ensure that remained a god provider of his family. Gregor neither had a hobby, nor did he have close friends. Even within the family, the only person that he had a close relationship with was her sister.

As such, Gregor may be seen as a complete departure from what one would expect of a normal human being. Once he becomes aware of his responsibility at the household level and upon a realization of his p current plight, this is the time that the actual metamorphosis takes place.

In his early childhood, Kafka failed to figure out his father’s motives and reasons for the frequent punishments he received. For a long time, Kafka had assumed that his father’s punishments were naturally harbored by his sinful actions. However, this idea is in contrast to classical sentiments which consider children as entirely innocent (Rohl 280-391).

This unusual view of himself was fostered by the nonsensical treatment from his father. In his letter to his father, Kafka says that he was skinny, weakly whereas his father was strong, tall and huge. In this regard, Kaka viewed himself as a bug; something that could be easily grabbed and manipulated. Just as Kafka suffered in the name of punishments from his father, in ‘Metamorphosis’ Gregor too suffers the same treatment under his father’s heavy boots as bug (Wyllie par.3-7).

Kafka shows that his father was superior in almost all aspects; physical strength, ability to command, and also in the innate power over the world that Kafka also thought he had. This influenced the writer in many ways. In metamorphosis, Kafka depicts Gregor as a woman’s portrait framed by hand and dressed in fur.

This is an illustration of the jealousy that Kafka felt for his father’s stable and strong marriage. The picture frame of how Gregor holds on to the things that appeal to him loudly echoes to the reader the inadequacy that Kafka felt due to his relationship with his father (Mitchell 1-3).

The play ‘Oedipus the King’ explains about the fall of king Oedipus from his domineering position because of his pride. At the opening of the play, Oedipus has excellent qualities that enable him, as a ruler, to determine the needs of his subjects.

His fame and powers came as a result of resolving the Sphinx riddle. After the terrible plague befalls his kingdom, Creon, the brother to the Queen comes from Thebe oracles and warns that the person who murdered the old king, Laius has to be revealed first before the plague could be lifted.

Due to his dedication to protect his people, the king is determined to reveal the root of the problem (Stewart par. 1-3). This shows some kind of responsibility in a parent; however his swiftness turns out dangerous when he kills the ‘traveler’ who tried to traffic him off. The writer shows that Oedipus has the potential of acting harshly (Stewart par. 1-4).

As demonstrated in Metamorphosis, the tragedy of the son is an illustration of punishment that has no fault. Oedipus was abandoned by his parents whereas Gregor, who represents Kafka, was brought up by his parents. Oedipus was acting out of unknown urge to kill his father, a situation that resulted in total destruction within the family.

After his birth, Oedipus was to kill his father and later marry his mother, as it had been foretold. In this regard, his father orders that his son be dumped in the wilderness. Oedipus was adopted by another royal family who do not reveal to him about his background.

When he had about the prophecy, he ran away to avoid the predicament. But on the way, he met his true father who overtakes him in traffic. After a heated argument, Oedipus kills the man without knowing it was his father. Later on he becomes the king and unknowingly marries his mother and they both have children. When the mother discovers, he kills herself while Oedipus goes into exile (Stewart par. 2-5). In the metamorphosis, Kakfa was fighting with the alienation that he felt by not being a Czech or a German.

More so he was the only son in a family of three siblings. This increased the pressure that he encountered from his family who expected him to behave in certain ways (Rohl 280-391). This same case applied to Gregor in The Metaphor story where Gregor is shown as the eldest child and the only son. His father made him provide for his family yet the members were capable of finding food for themselves as it is seen as the story progresses. This is a form of punishment without any fault (Mitchell 9)

More so, like in Metamorphosis, the tragedy that befell Oedipus depicts a strange and contrasting father –son relationship. In this story, although every father needs a successor, in this play, the father wants to kill his child at birth. This is a fate that is unchangeable by human. The sorrow and pain as depicted in the story changes the usual mood into a tragedy creating a horrible scenario (Stewart par. 6-9).

Oedipus unknowingly confronted his father by killing him. The father and son relation in this play is depicted as one with so many problems. This is seen when Oedipus’ father commands that his son be abandoned in the wilderness to die so that he does not overthrow him.

However, Oedipus unknowingly kills him. This came as a result of a confrontation. Although the writer says that Oedipus killed his father and then married his mother, he successfully uses pity and sorrow to show both sides of father –son relationship in the story (Stewart par. 1-3). In the Metamorphosis it is clear that although Kafka could not physically confront his father for all the pains he had caused him, he had however equipped him to bravely confront him by other (indirect) means (Kafka 2-13).

Despite his hard work, Gregor still faced difficulties with his father and could not comprehend why he suffered so much anxiety and difficulties while dealing with his father. His astonishing state had so little effects and was much bothered about his work. The contrast with Gregors father worked for his good at the confrontation time.

Although his father saw him as weak and minute, he knew that his outside condition were as a result of others interpretations just as Kafka had compared his ability to his father’s (Rohl 280-391). Despite Gregor’s problem, in a conversation with the manager, his mother said, “he is not well, believe me, Mr. Manager. Otherwise how would Gregor miss a train! The young man has nothing in his head except business.

I’m almost angry that he never goes out at night. Right now he’s been in the city eight days, but he’s been at home every evening. ….” (Kafka 15). This shows that Gregor could have been wrongly treated by his father for no reasons and that Kafka’s father could be punishing him for no faults (Mitchell 9). This is in contrast to most peoples’ expectation of parents providing guidance to their children as they grow up (Wyllie par. 7-10).

As depicted in the two different literary works, the two ignorantly make decisions that directly affect the lives of their sons without measuring their impacts. These deliberate moves directly or indirectly affect their children. Oedipus is seen to be in constant move, possibly calming down his fateful life.

He is confident and swift when interrogating Creon who later brings in Tiresias so that they could lift the plague. However in a superseding play, Creon takes Oedipus’ children without him acting and getting them back would force him to wholly depend on Theseus (Stewart par. 4-7). This is a situation that has its basis on the poor relationship with his father (Rohl 280-391). More so, the impact of his father’s decisions was felt among his family lineage (Mitchell 6-9).

Conclusion

Looking at the two stories, it is also notable that the decisions that individuals take, shapes the fates and destinies of the people we live with or of those who are around us. More so, both literary works show that father and son relationship in a child’s life plays a significant role in shaping the child’s image and life.

In reading ‘The Metamorphosis’ one would not that knowledge is power (Rohl 280-391). As depicted by Gregor’s actions, Kafka demonstrated that he was empowering himself by the awareness that the effects of his father’s treatment could damage his self image. In the story, Gregor for some quality time was not concerned about his being a bug and different from the rest of the family. Oedipus never had the choice to determine the fate of his life as well as Gregor who turned into a bug in an overnight.

Works Cited

Fitzgerald, Conor. Metamorphosis or realization? April 2007. Web.

Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. Kessinger Publishing: U.S .2004. Print

Mitchell, Christopher. The metamorphosis understood through Kafka’s relation with his father. 2007. Web.

Rohl, Freda K. Kafka’s Background as the Source of His Irony. The modern language review. Vol.53.No.3 (1958): 280-391.

Stewart, Julie. Oedipus the king-review of Oedipus the king. 2010. Web.

Wyllie, David. Metamorphosis. Trans. Project Gutenberg, 2005. Web.

Abstract

Oedipus is a tragedy because it fits the definition of a tragic hero as established by Aristotle in the Poetics. In a classic tragedy, we see a noble and a heroic protagonist whose destruction is caused by a flaw in his character. This flaw can cause him to get involved in circumstances, which overpower him or make him unable to deal with a destructive situation caused by another character or by circumstances.

Although the play ends with the tragic hero’s death, he does experience an insight or awareness, which makes him and the audience more perceptive and aware. This research paper seeks to explain how Sophocles’ Oedipus exemplifies Aristotle’s description of a tragic hero. The paper incorporates research mainly from primary and secondary scholarly sources. By the end of the paper, the reader should be able to identify a strong correlation between Oedipus and the tragic hero outlined by Aristotle in the Poetics.

Introduction

Oedipus is a tragedy because it fits the definition of a tragic hero as established by Aristotle in the Poetics. In a classic tragedy, we see a noble and a heroic protagonist whose destruction is caused by a flaw in his character.

This flaw can cause him to get involved in circumstances, which overpower him or make him unable to deal with a destructive situation caused by another character or by circumstances. Although the play ends with the tragic hero’s death, he does experience an insight or awareness, which makes him and the audience more perceptive and aware.

This research paper seeks to explain how Sophocles’ Oedipus exemplifies Aristotle’s description of a tragic hero. The paper incorporates research mainly from primary and secondary scholarly sources. By the end of the paper, the reader should be able to identify a strong correlation between Oedipus and the tragic hero outlined by Aristotle in the Poetics. (Else 17)

By following the theory outlined by Aristotle on the theory and definition of a tragic hero, it is evident that Oedipus the hero of Sophocles fits this description. According to Aristotle, a tragic hero must have the ability to provoke the spectator’s pity and trepidation and to make them more perceptive. In the play, Oedipus has nearly all the characters of a tragic hero as outlined by Aristotle.

Ideally, the perception of tragic hero is essential in the creation of tragedy since it should be the central cause of sympathy and awe. Usually, the tragic character as outlined by Aristotle evolves between two limits. According to the description, the character should border between being virtuous and evil. Additionally, this character is superior to the ordinary men and he has excellent traits. As a tragic hero, the character moves from bliss to despair and hence his downfall.

Usually, a flaw in character causes the downfall of the tragic hero and not through the chords of evil or corruption. Additionally, the tragic hero is usually prosperous and has high social standing. By reading the story, one is able to realize that all these characteristics befit Oedipus and one is therefore right in claiming that he is a tragic hero. (Golden 35)

Actually, every aspect in the description of a tragic hero seems to fit Oedipus character. To begin with, Oedipus is naturally a noble man. By his virtue, he helps the people of Thebes to solve the riddle of Sphinx something that saves their city. After solving this riddle, Oedipus is made the Theban king and this is where we find another good nature to his character.

Once he is in the throne, the king shows a deep concern for the suffering of Thebans owing to the plague. He actually tells the Thebans that his suffering is greater than their own. Since his aptitude and wit had saved Thebans before, all the people are now looking up to him for their salvation from the ravaging plague. In fact, the people compare his intelligence to that of God.

Even before the people begin complaining, Oedipus has already sent Creon to consult the oracle of Apollo. This shows that he is a great man and as a king, he knows the right thing to do for his people. Another virtuous quality in Oedipus is demonstrated when he decides to inflict himself with blindness just to fulfill the punishment that he had sworn would be given to the king’s killer.

Had he been a weak character, Oedipus would have chosen to commit suicide alongside his mother Jocasta. Instead, Oedipus chooses the option of confessing his hideous mistake to the Thebans. This account is proof enough that Oedipus has a good character and this makes him fit the role of a tragic hero as outlined by Aristotle. (Steiner 107)

On top of being a noble person, Oedipus has royal blood since he later emerges to be the son of King Laius. Even before the people know that he is King Laius son, Oedipus tells Jocasta that he is indeed the son of Polybus who is the Corinth king. Indeed, Oedipus left Corinth once he received prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother.

Afraid of this prophecy, Oedipus flees from Corinth to Thebes where he marries Jocasta. In the course of events, Jocasta tells Oedipus of a prophecy that had been given to the late king that he would give birth to a son who would cause his death and marry his own mother.

Jocasta then tells Oedipus that he should disregard this prophecy since no man has the ability to see in to the future. In fact, things get more complicated for him once he learns from Jocasta that they killed their own son to escape this prophecy. As the events unfold, it is proved that Oedipus in indeed the son of King Laius and Jocasta something that confirms his royalty. Despite the fact that Oedipus is of royal blood, he has a flawed character that makes him a tragic hero as outlined by Aristotle. (Kaufmann 120)

There is no doubt that Oedipus is a virtuous, courageous, and smart king. Despite his admirable personality, he also has some flaws in his character that seem to be inborn. As a tragic hero, these errors finally cause his eventual downfall from glory. By clearly analyzing the whole text, one quickly learns that Oedipus is stubborn in character. In fact, all the ills that he suffers are caused by this stubbornness since he does whatever he thinks is right despite the consequences.

At first, Tressias declines to divulge the truth about the death of King Laius but Oedipus pressures him to disclose the truth so he can save Thebes. Upon being pushed to the limit, Tressias reluctantly tells him that he was indeed the killer of the king. When his wife Jocasta tells him to stop inquiring of the matter, Oedipus dismisses her and instead continues to question the shepherd.

Despite the warnings, his stubbornness makes him want to know the bitter truth from the shepherd. Indeed, this stubbornness becomes the source of agony once he realizes the identity of his parents. Apart from his stubbornness, Oedipus is also presented as a moody person and can do anything when he is in a bad mood. This is demonstrated when he kills King Laius on his way to Thebes.

It is clear that Oedipus was in a bad temper when he committed this act owing to the prophecy that had been given to him. On top of this, he is a quick character who speaks without stopping to think. This is demonstrated when he accuses Creon of plotting with Tressias to deny him the right to the throne.

This can definitely be attributed to bad temper owing to what Tressias had told him. Just before this confrontation with Creon, Oedipus is seen mocking and insulting the blind prophet Tressias. Tressias tells him that both of them are alike since he is unable to see the sinful union that he has with his mother. Indeed, this stubbornness and quick speech leads to his downfall. (Hyde 322)

By closely analyzing the situation, one easily finds the link between Oedipus downfall and his stubbornness. This therefore leads to the conclusion that his downfall did not come from malice or depravity but it is rather caused by natural flaws in his personality. In fact, the tragic end of this hero occurs once the audience learns that he is indeed the real son of Laius and Jocasta.

This not only brings to fulfillment the prophecy given at Delphi but it also brings to pass the words of Tressias that no man would know greater suffering than Oedipus. This happens when he gets to a point where is unable to know if he is the father of his daughters or their brother.

After his identity is revealed, Oedipus leaves Thebes to free the city of the plague and gorges out his eyes to fulfill the punishment he had promised the killer of King Laius would get. In fact, neither the prophet nor the shepherd is willing to make the truth known to him but his own stubbornness becomes his downfall. This clearly fits Aristotle’s’ description of a tragic hero when he claims that his downfall is caused by a flaw in his character. (Miller 2)

By the time the curtains fall, it is clear that that the audience is in a state of purgation. Throughout the play, Oedipus attains the sympathy and fear of the spectators. Nearly everyone fears the real identity of the hero and they keep on hoping that he does not discover it. Once the truth is out in the open, the audience is moved to pity by what happens to Oedipus.

By arousing both pity and fear from the audience, it becomes clear that Oedipus has the traits of a tragic hero as outlined by Aristotle in the poetics. Indeed, there is a clear pointer to the wheels of fate in his life since everything prophesied about him happens. Whatever happens to him is a clear indication that it is preordained fate and nothing he does can prevent it from happening. (Else 22)

Conclusion

Oedipus is a tragedy because it fits the description of a tragic hero as outlined by Aristotle in the poetics. In fact, this play by Sophocles is termed as the best piece of literature that fits Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero.

By analyzing the character of Oedipus, one is able to realize that no forces of evil cause the downfall of this hero but rather his stubbornness and bad temper, which are obvious character flaws in his nature. Throughout the play, the audience is spellbound by the acts of this hero but at the end, everyone is moved to pity by what has happened to him. This also clearly fits the description of a tragic hero as outlined by Aristotle.

Works Cited

Else, Gerald. Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument. Harvard University Press, 1963. 16-22. Print.

Golden, Leon, trans. Aristotle’s Poetics. With Commentary by O. B. Hardison, Jr. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967. 32-41. Print.

Hyde, Isabel. The Tragic Flaw: Is It a Tragic Error?” The Modern Language Review. St. Louis University Library, 2008. 321-325. Print.

Kaufmann, Walter. Tragedy and Philosophy. Princeton University Press, 1992. 120-122. Print.

Miller, Arthur. Tragedy and the Common Man. University of California, 1949. 1-2. Print.

Steiner, George. The Death of Tragedy. Yale University Press, 1996. 105-111. Print.

The literary work is a reflection of what is happening in the society. Authors normally voice their opinions about issues affecting the society through various themes. These themes are closely linked together through analysis of a character’s actions.

In the contemporary society, introduction of literature research has extensively increased the volume of literature in every topic of interest, especially in use of expression tools such as metaphors to present a symbolic view that a character display in a play.

As a matter of fact, irrespective of the level of knowledge and understanding of research facets, literature versions are inclusive of literature tools such as metaphors.

Literature comparison is about enjoying the phrases, feeling the narrator’s words in action, imagining, and placing oneself in the writer’s shoes. This paper analyses comparison between the plays “Comedy of errors” by William Shakespeare and “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles.

Indeed, the two plays are significant, although they express concealed implication to readers. Though each poem presented dissimilar information, their underlying ideas are related, imperative and vital to readers in general.

The key aspects of Sophocles’ play captures learners’ interest for the purpose of comedy and twist of fate. Sophocles depicted various stages of the play’s episode through the associating dependence of mankind to God.

For instance, the main character Oedipus is arrogant is retorting to the Chorus that, “You pray to the gods? Let me grant your prayers” (Sophocles 13).

Moreover, the key considerable notion of play is fate and prophecy that demonstrates how human has decayed due to fate, and needs to acknowledge god’s reverence. Furthermore, Sophocles presents his mental picture of the path towards Supreme Divinity in his play.

This is viewed as the likelihood for the human heart to fate rather than to descend choice at a personal level in the conservative society.

Besides, Sophocles employed irony that is conspicuous in the representation of the main character Oedipus. Oedipus states that “no skill in the world, nothing human can penetrate the future” (Sophocles 13) when explaining to his wife on the fate which he attempts to twist in vain.

On the other hand, Shakespeare’s representation of the twins in the play “Comedy of errors” presents an organized tossing of ideas intended to derive significant meanings.

For instance, the illustration of the characters of Antipholus and Dromio explains how the author succeeded in tossing the implication of words and thus, it was the duty of learners to catch such implications (Shakespeare 14).

The two plays are analogous of their relation regarding vast imagery, visual outcome and a typical rhythmic construction that presented special consequence.

The main theme presented by these plays is personal identity as a component of realism. A literary writing attempt to portray a certain piece on thoughts of characters not explicitly expressed.

Recognizing themes of loyalty, honor, and tragedy, Sophocles and Shakespeare sarcastically ridicule fate and religious beliefs as a determinant of position of an individual in the society.

The main character Oedipus in the play “Oedipus the King”; is full of pride which he loses at the end and has to bow down to fate. Destiny is depicted as having forced the rather tensed society to embrace sudden change in order to escape the plague.

The audience is moved by Oedipus and imaginative exploration of memory manipulation and how fate can wreak havoc on humanity.

On the other hand, Shakespeare tries to blend the high-concept vision of the world with his own stylized and highly dramatized language in reflecting on the lives of Antipholus and Dromio. He creates a very human story that combines stories of both self-discovery and love.

Shakespeare succeeds in convincingly mingling the ‘futuristic’ and the ‘realistic’ imaginations to create a world of exotic exploitation and mind control characterized by time variances and societal imbalances (Shakespeare 14).

Same as Shakespeare’s reflection, the theme of tragedy is illustrated in the play “Oedipus the King”. Indeed, the author considers time as a marvelous nasty task. Oedipus intends to turn over features of time in order to command over time.

However, he fails miserably due to the underlying supernatural forces that had sealed his destiny at birth. However, with intelligence and braveness, Sophocles reflects on tragedy in an open, attractive and agitating language.

On the other hand, Shakespeare’s dedication possibly overlaid the approach for studying culture in the sundry time.

The key antagonists and protagonists accept fate eventually in the plays “Comedy of errors” and “Oedipus the King”. Interestingly, acceptance of fate is presented as a redeemer of what each character stands for. Oedipus, in the play “Oedipus the King” is the hero.

In the climax of the play, revelations point Oedipus as responsible for the death of his father as was prearranged by fate at his birth through the prophesy. Particularly, the death of Oedipus father forms the focal story line.

Comparatively, the play Comedy of errors, the two sets of twins also have to pay the price of mistaken identity in the then conservative society. They have to live with this fate despite being the victims.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William.The Comedy of Errors. Ed. David Bevington and David Scott Kastan. New York: Bantam, 2005. Print

Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Ed. Grene David. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2012. Print.

The drama “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles is considered to be one of the most prominent dramatic works in the history of world drama. It vividly discloses and illustrates the talent of the ancient Greek dramatist as the master of disclosure of the themes that have been topical in the course of development of human society and literature. Human knowledge is very limited, it is simply tiny in comparison with all information existing. However, humanity has been always characterized by the thirst of knowledge. The question of the benefit or danger that may be caused by knowledge is a philosophical question. The lack of knowledge and quest for it, as well as the possible consequences form the main theme of the drama under consideration. The general theme of “Oedipus the King” may be formulated in the following way: life may be imagined as the undiscovered road that is full of unexpected corners, new knowledge may crown you, and it may ruin your life as well, not everyone is strong enough to bear the burden of knowledge.

The statement that Sophocles puts into the mouth of the tragic hero of the drama: “Oblivion – what a blessing … for the mind to dwell a world away from pain” is one of the key ideas of the whole work (Sophocles 243). The statement may be treated as unexpected and striking because the reader knows that the King of Thebes, Oedipus, used to have a reputation of wise and intelligent ruler. It is his intelligence that predetermined the future development of action, because once it gave him the opportunity to solve “the riddle of Sphinx” and ascend “the throne of Thebes” (Sophocles 159). Knowledge gave the tragic hero the opportunity to save the people of Thebes from outrages of the terrible creature. And Oedipus was considered the savior, the person who had full right to become the king of the saved people. By a strange quirk of fate or by the will of gods the new king was the murderer of the previous king, what is more, the most awful tragedy happened, the father was killed by the son.

It is evident, that the tragedies in the drama happened because of knowledge, the lack of knowledge or, on the contrary, the availability of the information that should have been hidden. Though the action in “Oedipus the King” starts with the plague, “the fiery god of fever hurls down the city, his lightning thrashing through us” torturing Thebes, the development of action suggests information about the secret of Oedipus’ birth (Sophocles 160). The prophecy told the deceased king Laius that he would be killed by his own son, and this fact played the decisive role in the development of action, eventually showing the reader that even awareness cannot save a person from his fate. It is known that ancient Greeks ascribed absolute power to fate; they thought that everything was predetermined in our life, however, no one knew if fate would build up the same flow of action if Laius chose not to play tricks with fate. Thus, it might well be that knowledge ruined Laius’ life.

At the same time, the absence of knowledge inspired the quest of knowledge in Oedipus’ soul. He was thought to be a man of wisdom by the population of Thebes, and there was no denying the fact that he was characterized by high moral standards and faithfulness to his subjects. This was one of the motives in his constant search for the truth and knowledge. However, it cannot be stated that the character of Oedipus is entirely perfect as it is presented by the dramatist. One more motive of the character’s thirst for knowledge is his hubris. Great power has made Oedipus blind, at first in figurative sense of the word, but then the king became physically blind. Sophocles wanted to teach his descendants a lesson that said that everyone who was inspired by pride in his search for knowledge is erring, he is blind, his power is limited, and he is doomed to be punished severely. Just as Oedipus’ father was trying to delude gods, his son was trying to dethrone them in order to take their place. He says: “You pray to the Gods? Let me grant your prayers” (Sophocles 171). The king is blind with his own power, though it is evident for the reader that the king’s life will be ruined as soon as he learns the truth about the secret of his birth and his present life in sin with his own mother. Oedipus does not know the value of the proverb “Sic transit Gloria mundi” (Thus passes the glory of the world), he cannot see that glory is fragile thing that should be cherished. His arrogance and extreme self-confidence doom him to failure. His shallowness is paradoxical: it is in his desire of knowledge, and it is in his inability to get at the truth.

Drawing a conclusion, it should be stated that the quotation mentioned above, which presents oblivion as the highest blessing is the central idea of the whole action. The entire lives, terrible deaths of the characters of the tragedy, Oedipus’ self-made trauma present the proof of the limitedness of human power in comparison with the power of fate. Sophocles is trying to persuade the audience that sometimes it is better not to know the whole truth if you are not sure that you are strong enough to bear the consequences of your search. Physical blindness of the tragic hero is just the symbolic consequence of his intellectual blindness. “Oedipus the King” narrates about the strength of man that is needed if he wants to get knowledge and face the truth.

Works Cited

Sophocles. The Three Theban Plays: Antigone, Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonius. Trans. Robert Fagles. NY: Penguin Classics, 1984.

Oedipus is swift and confident throughout the play. He cross-examines Creon, asks for Tiresias, makes threats about sending Creon and Tiresias to exile, asks to see the servant who ran off from the assault on Laius, and finally requests to be banished. He is always in motion, apparently chasing his fate although it goes out of his control. Despite the fact that his fate was doomed from the beginning when his mother abandoned him, his aggressiveness lands him in great trouble. It leads him to his tragic end.

Oedipus is not morally at fault. In fact, he attempts to find out who killed Polybus, as he sees it as injustice. The closer he gets to the truth, the bitter the reality of his dreadful fate unveils. The junction where Laius was murdered is the same spot where Oedipus had killed somebody on the same day.

A prophecy was also given to him stating how he would do unspeakable things, “You are fated to be a couple with your mother, you will bring a breed of children into light no man can bear to see-you will kill your father, the one who you will life!” (Sylvan, William and William 1321).

Oedipus is not morally at fault because he flees from Corinth as he does not want the prophecy to be fulfilled. In other words, he cannot bear the thought of killing his own father, or marrying his mother. It is therefore very difficult to say that Oedipus was at fault or that he was foolish because he appears to have no alternative, but to fulfill the prophecy.

His judgment is not flawed because all he wanted was justice. It was a harsh judgment though. He did not know that his judgment will be his downfall. His mother pleads with him to leave the matter of Laius’ death and focus on the future but he insists on finding out who killed Laius.

He asks people of Thebes to give him any valuable information regarding the death of the king. He promises them that the murderer will be killed or sent to exile not knowing that he was judging himself, and proclaiming to his own damage: “Now my curse on the murderer.

Whoever he is, a lone man unknown in his crime or one among many, let that man drag out his life in agony, step by painful step-I curse myself as well…if by any chance He proves to be an intimate of our house, Here at my heart, with my full knowledge, May the curse I just called down on him strike me!” (1307).

Oedipus is not at fault. He does not willingly kill his father or marry his own mother. He persistently searches for the truth in the attempt of altering his fate. This is the mistake he made as this search made his life full of agony. This search also exposed those he loved to astonishing fates. Oedipus lived his life with no hope for the future. He had no joy. After finding out about all his unfortunate fate, there was nothing more but to await his death.

The results of the sorrowful events that took place in the life of Oedipus caused him a lot of pain, hatred, and regret. These events are too overwhelming for the queen that she commits suicide in the end. Oedipus cannot take the sorrow any more on seeing his mother and wife dying; he blinds himself by stubbing his eyes with some pins that he pulled from his mother’s clothes.

This made him unable to see his children. His weakness contributed to his exile. He is weak to the extent that instead of trying to solve his problems and living with them, he opts to destroy his life and those of his daughters as they cannot get married. This is where his weakness is traced.

When Oedipus was born, his mother decided on his fatal destiny. At this point, it can be seen that his life was taken out of his control right after he was born. He is not lucky as his mother gives him out to an empire nearby, where he is raised as one of their own.

As he grew up, a prophesy was given that he would murder his own father and sleep with his mother, and give birth to children that would not be pleasing to look at “Revealed at last, brother and father both to the children he embraces, to his mother son and husband both- he sowed the loins his father sowed, he spilled his father’s blood “(1313).

On fear of this prophesies coming to pass, he runs to Corinth. He became king in Thebes inheriting the previous king’s wife. Together they had children. Not knowing he had killed his father, Laius, and married his wife being his mother. He had cursed himself when he asserted that he would seek revenge for Laius’s murderer. He went on further to promise to sacrifice his own future if Laius’ murderer was a member of Thebes’ empire.

It is evident in the play that man has no power over his fate. Oedipus tries to run away from his fate, but it still gets hold of him. Oedipus’ flaw cannot be clearly pointed out. The play simply implies that tragedies and errors can befall anybody, and that man has no power before the gods.

Laius tries all he can to prevent the prophecy he was told; that he would be killed by his son. When his wife Jocasta bore him a son, Laius and his wife gave him up to a servant and told the servant to take the child to Mt. Cithaeron, and leave him to die. However, the servant did not obey the instructions and instead, gave the child to a shepherd from Corinth, who took the child to his king and queen.

He grew up in Corinth, and later killed his father, ignorant that he had killed his own flesh and blood. Either way, Apollo’s oracle came to pass despite the attempts of Laius and his wife to kill their son so as to break the fate that had been predicted by the oracle.

It is clear that the events that resulted in misfortune in the lives of Jocasta, Oedipus, and Laius are as a result of the supernatural oracle, which is the work of the gods. This oracle had predicted these events in advance, and they were aware of it.

They tried to prevent these misfortunes from taking place by taking different measures, but the events turned out as they had been predicted. They all have not done anything to deserve the fate they had. In this play, it appears, therefore, that the gods want to make a point using Oedipus. The play proves that the gods have the right over the fate of ma

Reference

Sylvan, Barnet, William Burto and William Cain. An Introduction to Literature. London: Longman Publishing, 2010. Print.

Introduction

Oedipus explores a rich Greek Mythology casting Oedipus as a strong, young man with great determination in all his undertakings (Bagg 5). However, one outstanding feature of these qualities comes out strongly when this young man was walking down the rustic lane where an arrogant young opulent merchant nearly rumbled over him with a chariot. Oedipus, according to McNamara (23), engages the opponent in a duel, killing the young opulent merchant.

In another outburst, Oedipus encounters Sphinx whose theatrics has been to plague the populations in the City of Thebes. Using riddles, the Sphinx draws attention in the streets robbing the pedestrians of handsome cash (Bagg 5). Oedipus is able to solve a riddle properly, and this makes him a pillar in the eyes of many. Consequently, Oedipus is made the King of Thebes and further marries Jocasta, – a widowed Queen of Thebes who at the time was the admiration of many.

Characters, performance in Oedipus

Oedipus

Oedipus’s cleverness makes his candidature to surface as the best individual to inherit the throne, hence becoming the King of Thebes. Oedipus is evidently a sharp and quick thinker that makes him a most admired King (McNamara 14). He seems to have clear-cut out policies to redeem his people from their plights. When the plague hit the city, for example, he readily presents different action plans to deal with the crisis.

His good decision-making skills permeate the drama, and his frugality at the throne is more about securing the betterment of his people. His decisions, according to Bagg (25), are both bold and wise; they are devoid of regrets. Oedipus probably led his people to success and merriment. Unfortunately, the very prudent leadership skills that he used to drive his people to believe he is perfect ended up destroying him.

Creon

Creon is a brother to Jocasta and brother in law to Oedipus. Creon is typically political and critical to Oedipus’s reign. In an attempt to contain him, McNamara (23) notes that Oedipus accuses him of treason, but he refutes the claims and demands that Oedipus produce evidence of his allegations. As the play ends, Creon seems more energized to inherit the throne as the dwindling power of Oedipus grips the Kingdom (Bagg 15). Creon is evidently careful with his actions not to fall in the same trap as Oedipus did. He pays more attention to the gods of the Kingdom to direct his attentions.

Tiresias

Tiresias is Creon’s co-accused by Oedipus, and together they face treason charges. He is a seer and prophesized that the end times of Oedipus is nigh. Though not outspoken, McNamara (32) observes that Tiresias is keen with his utterances though he claims that Oedipus is responsible for the murder of King Laius whom he succeeds as a King (Bagg 35). He utters riddles that openly show that Oedipus is guilty of killing his father and inheriting his mother.

Jocasta

She is both a wife and mother to Oedipus. Oedipus inherits her upon assuming the throne left vacant by his father. As the play unfolds, McNamara (45) explores that she seems reluctant to believe the prophecy of the seers. She thinks Jocasta does not take Tiresias claims cordially and advises Oedipus to ignore him (Bagg 55). Her trust in Oedipus wanes when it dawns on her that Oedipus killed his father – her husband – to bequeath the throne and inherit her. Jocasta is very much perturbed at heart by several revelations prompting her to take away her life.

Conclusion

Watching the drama as Oedipus’ fates unfolds could be very appalling. At first, the audience encounters a very admirable hero. However, as the plot progresses, one is likely to share in the vicarious horror that permeates the fate and suffering that characterize the power and destiny of Oedipus the King.

Works Cited

Bagg, Robert. Oedipus the King. Amherst: U of Massachusetts, 1982. Print.

McNamara, Kilian. Oedipus Rex. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.

Introduction

Sophocles lived during a time when the Greek society excelled in theatre and drama. Art was a main attraction in the Greek society as was politics. The advancement of art in the Greek cities cannot be compared to any in the other civilizations that existed at the time. Sophocles lived in the same period with other playwrights such as Euripides and Aristophanes.

The Life of Sophocles

Sophocles wrote over 200 plays, but of these only about five are still existent. Apart from Oedipus, other famous plays attributed to Sophocles artistic genius are Antigone and Elektra. Most of Sophocles’ plays emphasize the tragedies of life and the pain inherent in the dynamics of human existence (MacCollom 231).

However; Sophocles did not live long enough to see the decline of Greek literature to which he had greatly contributed. Years after his death, the Greek city states were embroiled in conflicts that ultimately led to their fall and the decline of the arts (Leefmans 12).

Greek Theater at the Time of Sophocles

Greek theater at the time of Sophocles was markedly different from today. It was a religious occasion, a dramatic departure from today’s performances which are pastimes and occasions for entertainment. To attend the theatre was a way of worshipping and revering the Greek gods who were highly revered in the Greek society. Dionysius was the Greek deity who took centre stage during these theatre festivals.

This particular deity was said to live in the bush. The theater festivals were punctuated by much celebration and other excesses. Theater also celebrated culture. Theaters would be filled to maximum capacity and the plays were performed during the spring period. The plays were marked by their beautiful language, punctuated by songs and dances that awed the audiences with their impressive and dazzling displays (Knox 88).

Another convention t this time was the competitive nature of the performances. A panel of judges would decide winning plays from an array of playwrights who presented their works before the audience.

The presentation of the plays followed a particular pattern. A total of twelve plays would be presented for adjudication with three playwrights presenting four plays each. Three of the plays would be tragedies and one would either be a comedy or a satirical piece. Men were the main actors in these plays and they performed against a temporary backdrop.

Oedipus Rex Adaptations

Oedipus Rex has undergone a number of adaptations. The adaptations are in keeping with an emerging trend where modern playwrights are turning to ancient plays and merging them with the reality of the present circumstances. One of these adaptations was the 1967 film by Pier Paolo Pasolini which has its second part reflecting the Greek myth.

Although Pasolini’s play begins with scenes from the Italian fascist era the playwright goes ahead to use the characters in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex to create a relationship with his own life story. He relates the episodes in Oedipus Rex in a dramatic twist that fits beautifully in the story of his birth. In a way, the adaptation is autobiographical and it draws its strength from the design and picturesque landscape of the setting.

The adaptation is set in Morocco with the film maker employing beautiful scenery in the Moroccan landscape to bring to life his adaptation. He himself acts the role of the High priest of Thebes. There are many other adaptations of Oedipus Rex, but an outstanding element among most of them is the way they have emphasized on the aspects of sex and psychology evident in the Sophocles’ original work.

For example, in some of the adaptations, Jocasta has been portrayed as an intelligent, independent sexually liberated figure. In the film, Darker Face of the Earth, Jocasta’s figure comes to life in this perspective (Leefmans 134).

Oedipus Rex Perception

In writing the play, the author had various intents that he hoped to fulfill. Sophocles hoped to fill the gap that existed in Greek literature, and more so on the myths and legends that defined the Theben society. Although some of the writers of the time such as Aeschylus had explored these aspects of Theben society, their writings were not comprehensive.

Aeschylus for example did not exhaustively explore the finer details of the horror of the curse visited on Oedipus. The author was also enthralled by dynamism of the themes that his story permitted. For example on the issue of one’s responsibility after committing transgressions and people’s knowledge of their own history and lineage (MacCollom, 56).

The work was produced during the author’s time in 425 BCE. Considering the popularity of plays in the Greek society, the reception of Oedipus Rex was overwhelming. It is also important to note that the author was known for his competiveness and this resulted in the urge to emulate other Greek writers whose plays had received wide acclaim and positive receptions from the Greek audiences.

The popularity of the play has not changed overtime, considering the relevance of most of the themes to the modern world. The theme of ‘hubris’ which refers to human pride is a phenomenon which is applicable to all societies. Oedipus for example had the wrong perception that he had the cure for the afflictions of Thebes.

This pride is what we see in the world today. A case in point is in the world financial crisis where experts believe that they have the panaceas for the financial crisis but fail to realize that they too form part of the wider crisis. The author wanted to pint out the imperfections that reside in every human being.

Oedipus Rex Tone

The tone of the play is set by the fact that the myth of Oedipus was evident even before it was presented by Sophocles. The audience anticipated the tragic events that would come at the end of the play even at the beginning.

This awareness greatly affects the tone f the play. The drive by Oedipus to solve the afflictions of Thebes therefore has an ironic touch to it as the audience already knows that his actions are in vain. The play is devoid of a narrator. The chorus which forms the commentary of the play shows great understanding and expresses sympathy for the fate of the play’s characters. The commentary is also anticipatory of the upcoming events of the play.

Conclusion

The senses of foreboding in the face of tragedy are important factors in setting the tone of the play. The mood of the play is set at the beginning with an opening that reflects the tragedy that has befallen the people. They are in a situation of grief following the death of the king. The play opens with a sense of mourning and grief following the death of the king.

References

Knox, Bernard M.W. “The Oedipus Legend” Readings On Sophocles 56.2 (2008).

Leefmans, Bert M.-P. Modern Tragedy: Five Adaptations of Oresteia and Oedipus the King. , 1974. Print.

MacCollom, William G. Tragedy. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Print.

Sophocles and E H. Plumptre. Oedipus Rex: (oedipus the King). Stilwell, KS: Digireads.com Publishing, 2005. Print.

Psychology and literature are united by a common intent in searching for the universal answers. Philosophy and literature helps to understand the motives of the heroes’ behavior and psychology explains how the poetry affects human emotions.

One of the greatest tragedies of Sophocles, Oedipus the King touches upon a deep psychological theme of the parents-son relations which lately was called the Oedipus complex and the theme of faith as a main key of the human’s life movement.

Based a myth, the story begins before Oedipus’ birth when the oracle predicted Laius the King of Thebes the death from the hands of his son in case if he marries with Jocasta. Nevertheless, Laius disobeys the prediction and after the birth of his son, fearing for his life, orders to kill the child. Oedipus was left in the mountains but didn’t die. A Corinthian shepherd found the boy and cared about him.

He took the boy to the Corinthian king Polybus who gave him the name of Oedipus and cared about him like a father. Suddenly, after many years, Oedipus learns that he was adopted. Asking Oracle about the solution, he is informed about a destiny to kill him father and marry his mother. Trying to avoid the faith, Oedipus leaves his home and goes to another place. However, the destiny can’t be changed.

Running away, he travels down a road. He meets a group of people included his real father Laius. Oedipus kills all of them on the road after the arguments. Obviously, Oedipus couldn’t know that one of the men he killed was his real father. Therefore, the first prediction comes true.

Oedipus comes to the City of Thebes, marries the queen and becomes a king saying that his “spirit grieves for the city, for myself and all of you” (Sophocles). Seeing his responsibility, Oedipus tries to find the king’s murder. He lives happily with his wife for years and has four children.

The will of man vs. the will of the Gods as a key characteristic of the whole Greek literature is clearly described by Sophocles. In spite of a will of the protagonist to avoid the prediction, faith is more powerful issue as an instrument of the Gods. Trying to find the murder of Laius, king Oedipus needs to ask the Gods. There is no solution in ancient Greece that can be found without Gods’ help.

Oedipus asks Oracle from Apollo to help his investigation. And Oracle commands them “to drive the corruption from the land, and don’t harbor the murderer any longer” (Sophocles). Oedipus learns that he is that murder and his wife, in fact, is his mother. Thereby, the whole prediction has come true. Oedipus is a good ruler and honest and decent man.

However, according to the ancient Greek literature, nothing can change the faith. King Laius has to be killed by his son and this happens by chance in such random situation. Nobody can prevent this to happen, if there is a faith that Oedipus has to be a murderer of his father.

The heroes have no control over their lives. Perhaps, nowadays, an idea of the absolute faith seems quite bizarre, but for the ancient people such attitude was completely reasonable.

Segal says that “the play is a tragedy not only of destiny but also of personal identity: the search for the origins and meaning of our life, our balance between “one” and “many” selves” (4). The theme of self-injury and suicide are also connected to the family until the end. Oedipus rightly feels guilty and blinds himself. Sophocles sees only one possible conclusion based on his idea of moral and faith.

This physical change also is a symbol of the internal transformation of the protagonist which comes from the place of king to blinded and abandoned old man. This idea is similar to the biblical story of Samson. The family betrays Oedipus. However, the protagonist accepts this situation just because he is sure of the predictability of his life.

It seems that the solution can’t be found and the terrible mistakes of the past will always follow Oedipus’ family. Realizing an impossibility of the change of past, Oedipus can’t achieve other good things, he doesn’t see any perspective.

The awful crime of his past destroyed his life forever. Looking back on the life, Oedipus sees that things could be prevented. However, it is the faith and, perhaps, everything would be the same even in case of choosing the way and events.

Obviously, the psychological theory of the Oedipus complex had not been known in the ancient Greece. The psychoanalytical approach of this problem appeared only at the beginning of 20th century. However, such complicated topics and psychological motives of the heroes’ behavior were quite popular among Greek.

The conception of the Oedipus complex was produced by the German psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud. He sees Oedipus as a story of the hidden sexual impulses that lead man to dangerous situations (174).

Basically, this conception is stated on the sexual attraction to the opposite sex parent and angry attitude to the parent of the same sex. Exploring the psychological stages of personal development, this theory describes a boy’s feelings for his mother and jealously and anger toward his father. A boy sees the life as a competition between him and father for possession of mother.

The Oedipus complex represents the universal unconscious sexual attraction to the child’s parents (Goodrich 182). Nowadays, this conception is a key top of the psychoanalytic theory.

Although this theory is called after the tragedy of Sophocles, the main psychological motives of the heroes’ behavior are the hopelessness and conscious subjection to the faith and Gods’ will. If Oedipus has suffered from the complex, he wouldn’t run from his family. He loves his foster father and wants to avoid the prediction. Oedipus’s example is rather a story of the meaningless of life.

He lives in a tragic universe where nobody can understand his horrible suffering. Oedipus begins with pride and looses it becoming ashamed and abandoned. He can’t bare his meaningless life and blinds himself. However, Oedipus is the only one who can blame him.

He did everything to prevent the tragedy and fatal end. Sophocles clearly defines his protagonist as a hero archetype which starts from the state of knowledge and sacrifices his life in order to help his family.

Sophocles doesn’t give us the final answer about a future of the protagonist. The story has no moral lesson. Sophocles’ tragedy Oedipus the King discovers several psychological motives of the human’s behavior where the most acceptable solution is the resignation to the faith and Gods’ will.

Works Cited

Freud, Sigmund. A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. Trans. S. Hall. New York: Horace Liveright, 1920. Web.

Goodrich, Peter. Oedipus Lex : Psychoanalysis, History, Law. US: University of California Press, 1995. Web.

Segal, Charles. Tragic Heroism and the Limits of Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Web.

Sophocles. Oedipus Plays of Sophocles: Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Kolonos, and Antigone. Trans. R. Bagg. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004. Web.