Oedipus, the King of Thebes was married to Jocasta. At the start of the play, he was not aware that he had slept with his mother or that he had murdered his father. Eventually, he came to terms with the fact that he was the one who was betraying his kingdom and felt very guilty, to the extent of blinding himself using a brooch.
As a tragic hero, Oedipus had an apparent tragic flaw which resulted into his humiliating and sorrowful fate. Through his pride, he disbelieved the gods and looked after the source of plague rather than his inside self. However, Oedipus tragic flaw was not very evident- since it was reported that his sins took place before the onset of the play.
In a vigorous tempter, one of Oedipus’ sinful acts happened when he killed a man in cold blood. Eventually, Oedipus weak character that saw him dismiss Teiresias’ judgment together with the case of the Oracles’ prophesies led to punishment from gods. He suffers because of a blasphemous act which was reported by Sophocles as follows:
Ha! O dear Jocasta, why should one believe in prophecies? Why look to the birds screaming overhead. They prophesied that I should kill my father! But he is dead and buried deep in the earth. And I stand here never having raised a hand against him. The oracles, they are worthless (930).
In the play, the main character was presented as someone who thought of himself as better than someone else or rather better than something else. When he wanted to make certain decisions, he often committed an error in judgment. These attributes are also known as tragic flaws, which lead to overconfidence, excess pride, and weakness in making verdict.
It is such attributes that led Oedipus into self-destruction and downfall. He often plunges himself into situations that he can hardly escape from. Furthermore, when he chooses to get angry, he ends up choosing to kill (Hogan 255).
In another incident, Oedipus decides to free from his homeland and deserts his father and mother. He also turns a blind eye to the city and fails to recognize the reality. Incidentally, Oedipus is portrayed as a very tempered character, something that lands him into destruction and downfall.
No matter the challenges he undergoes, Oedipus does not seem to be perturbed by his fate. He is instead quick to make unwarranted judgments and is very quick to get angry. He convinces himself that Teiresias is ignorant to the city and lacks feelings. This is evident when he says “Indeed I am angry. You must be a conspirator in the deed. If you had eyes, I would have said that you alone murdered him!” (Sophocles 780).
Oedipus is symbolized by the importance of family and governing power. That is actually why he refuses to listen to the prophet Tiresias’ warning, something that made him discover the awful covert that resulted into his blindness, and on the worst, cursing his children.
His fate resulted from his adamant silencing of the words of the prophet. His tragic tale shows that his mighty as a king does not elevate him above the gods. Indeed, all his life is full of doom, since the time he killed his father and wedded his mother. He is completely unable to defy his fate and hence unable to succeed in most of what he does.
Apparently, Tiresias can be understood as a very righteous character as he is a servant of the gods, and has the ability of seeing what others cannot be able to see. Considering that Oedipus had denied Tiresias prophesy and frustrated his efforts, then it can be concluded that he is the villain in the play.
Oedipus is warned by Tiresias, “you are the curse, the corruption of the land” (Sophocles 787). That is how the tragic fate is assigned to Oedipus for his villain character. Oedipus uses his family as the price that occasions his disastrous defiance. In a bid to find out the person who had killed Laius, Oedipus sent his children to disgrace and his wife to grave, though unknowingly.
Weber puts forward, “Oedipus Tyrannus reminds us that the family has always been a significant framework more through its fragility than its stability” (par. 1). Oedipus destroyed his own legacy through his mistakes. This is because the society considers continuation of family trees as the developers of legacy.
Essentially, it can be argued that it was folly for Oedipus to have ignored the power of Apollo, and worse still, having continued his pursuit unstoppably. After discovering the reality about his complications, Oedipus realized where he had gone wrong. His case was rather a very disturbing twist of fate.
Instead of waiting for the gods to punish him, Oedipus demands voluntarily “that he be cast from the city, self-cursed and loathsome to himself, his countrymen, and his family” (Hogan par. 1). The manner in which Oedipus seals his own punishment even after creating his own tragic fate is extremely ironical.
Works Cited
Hogan, James C. “A Commentary on the plays of Sophocles.” Galileo: University System of Georgia Libraries, GA, 2005. Web.17 Dec 2011.
Sophocles. “Oedipus the king” Literature and writing process (2002): 776-818. Print.
Weber, Samuel. “Family Scenes: Some Preliminary Remarks on Domesticity and Theatricality.” South Atlantic quarterly, summer 3(1998): 335-66. Web.
The ancient Greek play Oedipus the King, written by the playwright Sophocles, premiered over 12 centuries ago, yet the grisly tale of the character Oedipus permeates modern culture, thanks largely to the influence of Sigmund Freud, the godfather of psychoanalytic theory.
Locked into a fatalistic trajectory prophesied by the all-powerful oracle so central to Greek tragedy, hapless Oedipus inadvertently murders his father Laius, marries his mother, Jocasta, and then sires two children by her, Antigone and Ismene, who become his half-sisters as well as his daughters.
In The Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freud posited that Oedipus the King retained its power over the centuries on account of “the peculiar nature of the material by which the conflict is revealed.” Sigmund Freud concluded that the fate of the play’s protagonist Oedipus maintained its resonance with modern audiences because “there must be a voice within us which is prepared to acknowledge the compelling power of fate.”
Much of Sigmund Freud’s theory rests on the assumption that unconscious drives and impulses govern the bulk of human activity; thus Greek fatalism fits neatly into the Freudian model. Sigmund Freud understood that there was “actually a motive in the story of King Oedipus which explains the verdict of this inner voice.
His fate moves us only because it might have been our own, because the oracle laid upon us before our birth the very curse which rested upon him. It may be that we were all destined to direct our first sexual impulses toward our mothers, and our first impulses of hatred and violence toward our fathers.”
Sigmund Freud understood the compelling nature of the story of Oedipus across the millennia to rest on the truth that it revealed about the “primitive wish of our childhood.” In the mind of the famous neurologist, in Oedipus the King, Sophocles successfully brings “the guilt of Oedipus to light by his investigation, [and]… forces us to become aware of our own inner selves, in which the same impulses are still extant, even though they are suppressed.”
The novel Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence analyzes the three strongest female relationships in the protagonist Paul Morel’s life: his girlfriend Miriam, his lover Clara and his mother Gertrude. Contemporary critics and readers alike typically view the relationship between Paul and Gertrude Morel as the quintessential representation of the Oedipus complex in the modern fiction canon.
Numerous critics claim that the novel succinctly and purposefully elucidated the theory that dominated the 20th century. Kenneth Roxworth argues that “there is ample evidence that Western European civilization is specifically the culture of the Oedipus Complex.” This essay offers a psychoanalytic reading of the novel Sons and Lovers and addresses the psychological needs of Paul and Gertrude Morel – both conscious and unconscious – and examines how the dynamics of their relationship mirror Sigmund Freud’s theory.
Critic Anthony Burgess conjures Sigmund Freud when he suggests that “Lawrence was the first literary artist to emphasize the huge importance of sex as a means of human fulfillment [and] what makes Lawrence…an essentially modern, if not modernist, novelist is his awareness of the sexual impulse as an aspect of nature.”
Sigmund Freud argued that both Sophocles and D.H. Lawrence understood the desire to murder one’s father and copulate with one’s mother as an aspect of the human psyche; yet each writer treated the awareness of that desire and the consequences of its realization “with feelings of aversion, so the content…must include terror and self-chastisement.”
Thus Sophocles and D.H. Lawrence differed from each other only by their location in time. The dynamic that exists between Paul Morel and his mother Gertrude in Sons in Lovers adheres to Sigmund Freud’s theory in that both characters seem unconscious of the unhealthy pull they have toward each other; their inability to live independently of each other arrests them in an infantile, needy relationship that neither can move on from.
Thus they unconsciously thwart each others’ ability to relate normally to other people. Gertrude Morel reveals a detrimental and irrational hatred for Miriam. “She’s not like an ordinary woman, who can leave me my share in him. She wants to absorb him…She exults – she exults as she carries him off from me…She wants to absorb him. She wants to draw him out and absorb him till there is nothing left of him, even for himself. He will never be a man on his own feet – she will suck him up…”
Similarly, Paul cannot spend time with other women without worrying about Gertrude. “Why did his mother sit at home and suffer?… And why did he hate Miriam, and feel so cruel towards her, at the thought of his mother. If Miriam caused his mother suffering, then he hated her – and he easily hated her.”
Paul admits to Gertrude that when he is with Miriam, he thinks only of her. “No, mother – I really DON’T love her. I talk to her, but I want to come home to you.” In Sigmund Freud’s words, “repression in the emotional life of humanity…is manifested in the differing treatment of the same material…we learn of its existence – as we discover the relevant facts in a neurosis – only through the inhibitory effects which proceed from it.”
In Sons and Lovers, Paul Morel struggles to emotionally commit to a woman other than Gertrude, and inevitably fails. In Sigmund Freud’s reading, Paul Morel’s desire to sexually posses his mother Gertrude is not the problem per se; rather, it is the rejection and suppression of this impulse within him that renders him emotionally impotent.
Paul Morel therefore becomes the embodiment of the male stricken by the Oedipus complex, emotionally and psychologically constrained by the “complex emotional content, rooted in parental love and hate as a child’s dynamics of wishes and anxieties, that brings about in an adult’s life concerns and inhibitions inaccessible to consciousness, but that play an important part in determining…intentions, actions and judgments.”
The unconscious desire of the mother looking to live vicariously through her offspring is also echoed when Gertrude expresses ownership over Paul’s artistic success. “There was so much to come out of him. Life for her was rich with promise. She was to see herself fulfilled…All his work was hers.” In a Freudian reading of the relationship between Paul Morel and his mother Gertrude therefore, both characters essentially become prisoners of their own unconscious drives and impulses, which they continually reject, deny and repress.
Critics also extend the Oedipus complex to D.H. Lawrence himself and the sexual relationship that existed between Lawrence and his wife Frieda. Anthony Burgess observes that the marriage lived in the same confused emotional and sexual landscape that D.H. Lawrence created in Sons and Lovers. “Lawrence had nothing of the paternal in him, and he was savage at Frieda’s mourning for the children from whom her elopement had cut her off.
She, in turn, mocked Lawrence when, in exile, he was working on Sons and Lovers, writing a skit called Paul Morel, or His Mother’s Darling.” Many critics claim that this relationship was the inspiration for the central conflict of the novel.
Anthony Burgess asserts that in Sons and Lovers, “the near-incest [the novel] depicts is unfulfilled and hence, unlike the classical Oedipus coupling, sterile…Lawrence himself was sterile and later impotent: the marital relationship was …essentially a tempestuous duet, a hostile symbiosis that produced nothing except a kind of grand opera without music.” The complexity of the author’s sexuality lends itself to the Freudian interpretation of his creative expression, particularly in the case of Sons and Lovers.
Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence depicts a relationship between the protagonist Paul Morel and his mother Gertrude that embodies the Oedipus complex popularized by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. The novel lends itself well to the Freudian dynamic of repression, guilt, aversion and emotional paralysis which result when unconscious drives are not acknowledged, accepted and assimilated into the larger whole of the adult’s self concept.
n the words of Anthony Burgess, Sons and Lovers “is the more profound in presenting the pains of sexual initiation, not the assured loves of the mature, with the chains of maternal possession rattling on every page.” The novel ably demonstrates the arrested quality of life that suppressed desire engenders in human beings. Similar to the ancient play that Sigmund Freud derived the theory from, Paul and Gertrude cannot escape each other and their seemingly intertwined fates.
Reference List
Burgess, A, ‘Sons and Lovers’, Atlantic, October 1992, pp. 116-117, retrieved Literature Resource Center database.
Erwin, E, The Freud Encyclopedia: Theory, Therapy and Culture, Taylor & Francis, London, 2002.
Freud, S, The Interpretation of Dreams, Taylor & Francis, London, 1971.
Lawrence, D.H., Sons and Lovers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
Rexroth, K, “Introduction: D.H. Lawrence: Selected Poems, New Directions, pp. 1-23, 1947, retrieved Literature Resource Center database.
The play “Oedipus the King” written by Sophocles is an example of classic ancient Greek tragedy, which includes all the key elements of its genre. The play is designed to trigger compassion and sadness in the audience. Traditionally the tragic plays by Ancient Greek authors depicted upper class and royalty in order to show the downfall of the characters that belong to higher society.
The play “Oedipus the King” raises an eternal question about the existence of human destiny and the inevitability of fate. The characters face prophecies and mystical circumstances, fall under the influences and end up wrapped up into the tragic and irreparable experiences.
The main characters of the play are the members of a royal family, the rulers of the city of Thebes, King Oedipus and his wife Jocasta. The king receives complaints from his citizens about their sufferings caused by the spreading plague. The play was written by the Ancient Greek author, this is why the participation of gods in it is essential.
The gods are sending the sickness to the city because they are unhappy about what happened to the previous king of Thebes. King Laius was murdered, yet no one performed an investigation of this crime. In order to protect his city from the plague and please the gods, king Oedipus decides to find “the trace of this ancient crime” (128-129) and punish the murderer whoever that person is.
Eventually, a chain of evidence and several witnesses help the king to conduct the investigation, but the information he uncovers is horrifying. Oedipus turns out to be the son of Lauis and Jocasta, the murderer of his own father, who married his mother and had children with her. Jocasta hangs herself after hearing this awful truth and Oedipus blinds himself and leaves the city of Thebes.
There are several views on the events unwrapping in the play. King Oedipus is viewed as a victim of circumstances, who could not predict or control his actions. The murder of Laius was a result of a severe argument and Oedipus’ survival instinct. Then Oedipus became the king of Thebes because he saved its people from sphinx’s curse. He married the woman he liked. All of these were the deeds based on better intentions and reasonable decisions.
There is no way Oedipus could expect that he was making a series of horrible mistakes. According to the second opinion, Oedipus was in charge of his own solutions and led himself into trouble. Truly, the murder of a stranger and marriage with the older lady are arguable decisions, and they could be avoided if only Oedipus knew what the outcome would be.
This is why the third opinion states that Oedipus’ flawed character is the reason of his tragedy; his impulsive solutions lead to very bad consequences. The fourth point of view explores the question of bad luck happening to Oedipus, which certainly does not feel like bad luck to him in the beginning, because he is loved and idealized by the people of Thebes, “the city celebrates him as its savior” (56).
The theme of free will and fate has been argued about for centuries, although, we can see from the play that the Ancient Greek society had a very strong opinion about people’s destinies. The words “curse”, “prophesy”, “fate” and “destiny” are frequent in the play. Deeper analysis shows that the name “Oedipus” can be translated as “the one who knows about feet”.
The king’s name is the key to his destiny, the pattern of the mystery of the feet follows him though his life time. As a baby, he had his feet pierced because of the prophecy; this is what Ancient Greeks did to all the “monstrous” or sinful children, which is exactly what Oedipus was predicted to become (Miller, 232).
Besides, Oedipus takes the throne of Thebes because he solves the sphinx’s riddle about feet. The ghost of fate follows the man and eventually leads him to his downfall. There is no place for the concept of free will in the Ancient Greek point of view about this tragedy.
Today we are not very convinced that there are such things as fate or destiny, yet some of us would like to believe in them. This is why popular entertainment industry keeps generating products with main characters, which are meant for some great deeds. Examples of such products are superhero movies, where the main character discovers having a special mission in life.
The theme of the chosen one is familiar to us from films like “The Matrix” or books like “Lord of the Rings”. From the scientific point of view, there is a chance that genetically people that share the same DNA may have similar characters, which makes them predisposed to making certain choices.
It also is a well-known fact that the surroundings and society influence and shape the behavior and mentality of individuals. This is how the time and place of birth may determine a person’s future.
The factors that impact and direct people’s lives are multiple. The examples of individuals untypical for their environments are existent but very rare. To my mind, humans have a certain deal of control over their own lives and all of it is hidden deep inside of their mentality and the perception of the world around.
Works Cited
Miller , Patrick Lee. “Oedipus Rex Revisited”. Modern Psychoanalysis 31.1 (2006): 229-250.
Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Trans. Johnston, I. n. d. Web.
The play Oedipus the King depicts the theme of fate and knowledge, king’s power and relations between people. Factual explanation can be given: he now knows himself to be a foundling; he has lived through many vicissitudes, and feels his achievements can cancel any shame of lowly origin. But this supreme of Greek tragedies operates at more than one level of meaning. Oedipus, born a royal babe in the city of Thebes, had yet been transferred crippled and helpless to the mountainside. There under the weather, in earth’s bosom, he had somehow survived, to be transferred back again to an adopted royalty in Corinth. Thence he comes back to Thebes and solves the famous riddle and conquers the Sphinx. He has now become technical, resourceful, and political, exercising a skill of mind which has identified the nature of man and paved the road to political power. Thesis “Unconscious knowledge” exists but in the play it cannot be used to justify actions and behavior of the king.
Unconscious events cannot be used to justify actions of Oedipus as he is a man of power driven by personal gain and desire to use his power. Elected king of Thebes, he is the source of her security and the symbol of her law; state and society repose in his keeping. He is to be returned to the mountain side, to the lonely natural earth whence he came. This is his destiny, and for this he prays in abnegation at the close of the play. There is something in the symbolism of his career, and in the words with which it is memorialized, which is evocative of drama not upon the tragic stage but in the theories and speculations of Greek science.
It is possible to refute these arguments and use examples of Jocasta’s telling Oedipus that he resembles her late husband; the fact that Oedipus walks with a limp and that his name means “swollen foot”; the fact that he marries a woman old enough to be his mother. These are unconscious actions which free a personal from moral responsibility of his actions. Oedipus had an ambivalent character and a doubtful destiny. He too had been a foundling, discovered on the earth’s surface mysteriously alive, whose early existence had been nasty, brutish and brief. Moreover, both in his origin and in his historical development, he seemed to exhibit like Oedipus the two contrary forces of chance and intelligence: his life as an animal organism was a physical thing, biologically determined, yet it could embrace the discovery of technologies, the building and ruling of cities, the moulding of custom and law. Oedipus remarks: ”I do have some hope left, at least enough to wait for the man we’ve summoned from the fields” (Sophocles).
The tragedy shows that for the norms by which his behavior is governed, while they lie within the cosmos, lie outside history and process. They are as eternal as the cosmos itself. If the cosmos had a history, well and good. But it was always a history which exhibited a complete intelligence already present in the beginning. By its standards, Oedipus the King, instrument of salvation for Thebes and source of political authority in the state, is a ‘great’ man, typical exponent of the eternal norms of justice, political authority and wisdom as applied in a given social context. He is a fixed quantity. If he falls, there is either, in his otherwise perfect virtue, a tragic flaw, an excess or a blindness, some incautious neglect of divine power, which merits exposure; or, if none, then he leaves the stage with his moral dignity still essentially unimpaired, a hero to the end, and a hero of the civilized condition. Suppose that his kingdom of Thebes, with its religion and laws, is a pattern of chance configuration that sprang from the putrefaction of worms, with twisted roots that reached down not to realms of death but to life and growth, formless, vital, without prejudice or prejudgment? He was the scientist who had solved one riddle of the Sphinx, the riddle of the nature of that human being who starts a helpless babe and returns to a frail senility.
In the tragedy, his very language is only a highly developed form of that means of communication open also to the brutes, and his codes of behavior, like his language, have been ‘invented’; they represent successive adaptations to new needs. His developing intelligence continually complicates its patterns of response, and at the same time discovers new needs which evoke the response. This does not imply any necessarily mechanical relationship between man and his environment. The tragedy shows that civilization as a historical process can be viewed as both moulding man and as moulded by man. The only science which can understand it and evaluate it is historical and anthropological; a science which does not shrink from the assumption that man never emerged full-grown upon the earth. The historical and evolutionary approach to morals and law is no less likely than the metaphysical to come up with the conclusion that ‘mercy, pity, peace and love’ have in fact proved to be historically necessary to man’s survival and development. Indeed, in the history of the west, the violence done to these virtues has been more often committed by men who professed to march under metaphysical banners. On the contrary, law and justice become recognizable as norms of conduct only as our civilized condition advances, and they are therefore only a facet, even if a very vital one, of our technological progress. The tragedy shows that there had been a tendency for life to become less savage and more humane, and for forms of government to become correspondingly less autocratic and to rest more on negotiation of opinion. Justice and law can never be placed above or beyond men to regulate them by divine or metaphysical fiat; on the contrary, they are responses to all-too-human needs; they are patently evolved by trial and error. Accordingly men had to receive those divine gifts with which we are all familiar, together with instruction and education in their use: fire and the technical skills, The advantage of citing this much shorter and simpler example is that it so conspicuously establishes the connection in Plato’s mind between a regressive concept of human history and morality.
In sum, actions and behavior of Oedipus cannot be considered as unconscious and justified by any excuse. It is this willingness to take account of man scientifically as a species, with only relative importance in the cosmos, that prepares the intellectual climate for what we shall call in this book the liberal temper in Greek politics. The term liberal can mislead; in application it should be carefully qualified. What has to be asserted at the beginning is that, in sum, here is a whole philosophy of man and a point of view towards his morals and politics profoundly different from the classic view so familiar from text-books and printed so deeply on the mind of the west by Plato and Aristotle. In the liberal-historical view, the city-state is a useful form of society, but it can never be viewed as unique, or indeed as ideal; there are too many others.
Sophocles famous tragedy “Oedipus the King” has always been a subject of thorough literary, psychological, and even ethical analysis. This play raises a great number of philosophical questions that can be analyzed from various standpoints. Certainly in the, majority of cases, the emphasis is placed on the main character, especially his complexity and paradoxicalness.
Analysis
In this essay, we are going to explore the following issues; first, whether, Oedipus can be perceived as a hero in the traditional meaning of this word, in other words, we have to answer the question whether the main character deserves his fate or not. Another issue to be discussed is the use of dramatic irony. It is necessary to show how the author plays with the characters and the readers. Judging from it, we have to answer the question why the author employs this irony.
Additionally, it is of the crucial importance to trace the relationships of Oedipus with other characters, in particular with Tiresias and Creon, because to some extent, they help us to learn more about Oedipus himself. Finally, we should explore some key motifs or probably it would be better to say symbols of Sophocles tragedy, like for instance the concept of blindness (physical and spiritual).
Regarding the first issues of our topic (whether Oedipus deserves his fate or not), we should say that there is no definite answer to this question, moreover, different ethical approaches give different interpretations of the main characters behavior. First, if we assume that Oedipus could not avert the disaster, and he was just a pawn, which was directed by some high power (in this case, Olympic gods), it is quite possible for us to say that the main character just falls victim to some overwhelming force that wants to play with him in a very cruel way. Certainly, Oedipus pursues a very noble goal, he wants to unravel the mystery of his birth, and finally he does not want to kill his foster parents. Besides, the main character tries to adhere to some moral principles (“moral” in his view). From this perspective, Oedipus can be viewed as a victim of circumstances.
However, we should ask ourselves a question, whether all of his actions are predetermined. First, the very word “prophecy” does not imply inevitability, in other words, the Oracle of Delphi does not make these events happen. It is the characters, who do it. Besides, no one is forcing Oedipus to kill Laius, his true father. Naturally, the rules, established in the then Greek society did not outlaw such action, because, in fact this murder was an act of self-defense. Yet, the main character could avoid killing but he did not do it. Finally, there is no overwhelming force, which compels him to marry Jocasta, his mother. If we look at this issue from such perspective, it is quite possible for us to say that Oedipus deserves his fate and that he is to blame for the tragedy.
Thus, we can observe some ethical controversy, which is the crux of Sophocles tragedy. In terms of Kantian ethics, which pays extra attention to the motive of the action, not to its consequence, Oedipus can be viewed as a moral person, even as a hero, because he does not want to harm anyone.
As it has already been mentioned earlier, the author often employs such stylistic device as the dramatic irony. Overall, it can be defined as the discrepancy between the knowledge of the audience and that one of the main character or characters. Perhaps, it would be to illustrate the use of this device in Sophocles play.
We can see that even the development of the plot is ironic. For example, let us suppose that Oedipus had chosen to ignore the prophecy of the Delphi Oracle and preferred inaction. Probably the tragedy itself would have never befallen on him. Oedipus is trying to disprove the prediction, to refute in every possible way, but each step that he takes only makes it come to life.
Additionally, Oedipus is trying to find the murderer of Laius, the former king of Thebes; but in point of fact he is looking for himself. The main character looks down upon a blind foreteller Tiresias He says “With other men, but not with thee, for thou.
In ear, wit, eye, in everything art blind (Sophocles, 13). However, it is he, who is blind, but he realizes it too late. Perhaps, Sophocles wants to show that appearance is often very much deceptive and that we should always look below the surface of things.
The question arises, why the author employs this stylistic device, certainly, it is not only the intention to mock at Oedipus. Probably, the main message that the author wants to convey, is that we should never be one hundred percent sure of our rightness. Such maxim as “to err is human” should be our guide. Even the most intelligent people (Oedipus is certainly one of them, because he brilliantly puzzled out Sphinxs riddle) can make mistakes. Probably, there is no exception to this rule.
The confrontations of the main character with other characters reveal some feature of Oedipus character. First, his suspicious attitude to Creon proves that Oedipus is a power-seeking (or even power-loving) person. It seems to him that Creon attempts to overthrow him. He believes that Tiresias makes up his story in order to help his opponent. Certainly, it is not explicitly stated, but Sophocles reminds us that lust for power can also make a person blind, even the most intelligent and the noblest one.
As for the relationships between Oedipus and Tiresias, we can say that Sophocles creates a very interesting symbol of blindness, physical and spiritual. For instance, the main character is perfectly capable of seeing (in the physical sense of this word). He even disbelieves Tiresias, saying that a person like him cannot possibly know (see) the truth. As we can see it is just the other way around. Despite the fact that Tiresias is blind, he does know the truth about the mystery of Laius death and his murderer. The deceptiveness of appearance becomes one of the crucial motifs of the play.
The concept of blindness becomes a dominant one when Oedipus blinds himself. The question arises, why the main character decides to inflict this heavy injury on himself. It would have been much easier to commit suicide and go to the Kingdom of Hades as Jokasta, his wife and mother did. There are several theories that explain Oedipus behavior.
First, suicide would mean that the main character throws himself at the mercy of the overwhelming force, which he desperately tries to conquer. His self-esteem would not endure such humiliation. Such action is not worthy of an Ancient Greek hero, because it implies weakness, which is abhorrent to Oedipus. However, the main character does want oblivion, and blindness symbolizes oblivion to him. In his view, it will help him to escape from misery. Again, we can see this motif of blindness. Such an expression as “to turn a blind eye to something” probably takes its origin from Ancient Greek dramaturgy. However, it is worth mentioning, that physical blindness does not necessarily mean oblivion, which Oedipus hankers for.
This confrontation of blindness spiritual and physical can be traced throughout the play. There is some kind of paradox; when Oedipus blinds himself, he eventually can see the real state of affairs. Therefore, his act can also be considered as the quest for truth. The main character understands how blind he was for all this years. His physical blindness means enlightenment. It may sound odd to say the least, but only at that point, he realizes how weak and foolish a human being can be.
Conclusion
Now that we have analyzed Sophocles tragedy from various standpoints, we can arrive at the conclusion as to the main character, Oedipus. He seems be quite a paradoxical character, a combination of cleverness and foolishness, strength and weakness, a hero and a helpless pawn that is moved by some overwhelming force. This dialectical nature of the main character only intensifies the main message of the author. The world is full of self-contradictory things or paradoxes. Pursuing noble goals, we can eventually invite disaster. Being very clever and intelligent, every person can be mistaken in his judgment. Probably, it is always necessary to question the rightness of our actions.
Bibliography
Elizabeth McMahan, Robert Funk, Susan Day. “Literature and the Writing Process” Prentice Hall PTR, 2006.
Sophocles, Francis Storr. “Oedipus the King”. Cambridge University Press, 1995
Pericles, a leader and respected man in Athens, was a skilled orator. His literary work had a significant impact on the people of Athens even after he died. During his time, Athens was occasionally at war. With the successful defense of the city, it was required that an honorable burial be conducted for those who had died. A speech from a respected figure was also required.
A monologue by Pericles, which was a speech at a funeral of some of the dead soldiers, is one of the most renowned pieces of oratory work in history (Zimmern 16). On the other hand, Sophocles was also an Athenian playwright. His plays were multifaceted and often featured elements of tragedy. In addition, he reflected on honor and victory in his plays (Berg & Clay 46). There are many similarities between his play, “Oedipus the King,” and the funeral speech by Pericles.
Sacrifice For The Sake Of the City
In the funeral speech, Pericles emphasizes on sacrifice of one’s opportunities for the sake of the city. He considers the city the first priority even in times of dangerous encounters. To show the gravity of his beliefs, he says that it is worth more for a man to die while defending the city than to live after abandoning the cause the people in the city (Zimmern 34). He continues to say that the death of the men being buried was the cost of successful defense of their city.
To him, any honorable man must endure this predicament for the sake of maintaining the glory of the city. He continues to say that the dead sacrificed themselves for the city while survivors are ready to fight for it again (Crawley 2). This shows the extent to which a man should go in the cause of defending the city. Pericles says that Athenians must love their city, and no personal gain should make any person refuse to offer his courage for the sake of the city.
On the other hand, Sophocles, in the play “Oedipus the King,” emphasizes on the value of the city in the speech of the king. Oedipus says, “I know that you all are suffering, and each of you cares for his own sake but on my part, I feel pain for this city.” In addition, Oedipus promises that he will find out the cause of the problems in the city (Kendall, 84). Oedipus says that he has chosen to worry for the city rather than for himself, and he considers this an honorable thing to do. He has sent a relative to seek advice from Apollo.
In “Oedipus the King,” Oedipus says that he bears more sorrow for the people of the city than he does for himself (Kendall, 71). Then Creon, the messenger, continues to say that the oracle requires Athenians to banish the man who committed murder (Kendall 70). According to this speech, Creon means that they should be ready to sacrifice human life for the sake of the city. It is evident that Sophocles and Pericles held the city in high regard.
Courage
Pericles portrays the theme of courage in the speech during the burial of the dead in Athens. In fact, courage and sacrifice are the main issues discussed by Pericles. Near the end of his speech Pericles says that fear is more harmful than death in the battle for the city (Crawley 4).
In this sentence, Pericles expresses his value for courage, which is a necessity for every man defending the city. He attributes the success of Athens as a city to acts of courage. Pericles observes that the men who died sacrificed their lives despite the prospect of enjoying their wealth in future.
Whether the men were poor or rich, the temptation to betray their city in order to have a chance to live into the future did not overwhelm them. To Pericles, courage and sense of duty encouraged the dead men to fight for the city (Crawley 5). According to him, it is through this sacrifice and courage that one can achieve honor that does not wear out with time. He continues to say that heroes have the whole world preserved for their burial.
This means that people who do courageous actions are honored in the whole world. In addition, he tells the people of Athens who have survived that they can rejoice in the courageous actions of those who are being buried. He advises that Athenians should not avoid the danger that defending the city may present. He says, “Do not avoid the dangers that a war may present.” (Kendall 144).
In “Oedipus the king,” courage is perceived in the character of king Oedipus. The king faces tribulations over his fate. The messenger from the oracle says that the city faces problems because it harbors a murderer. There is a possibility that this murderer is Oedipus himself.
It also emerges that Oedipus could possibly be married to a woman who is supposed to be his mother. However, Oedipus is courageous enough to try to find out whether there is any truth in the speculations. He has courage to confront his situation. Iocasta tells Oedipus not to continue with the search for truth for the sake of his own life (Jebb 106).
However, Oedipus insists on carrying on. He does not mind the consequences of finding out that he is a murderer (Jebb 1085). This shows that Oedipus is ready to face whatever the truth presents with its discovery. The king tells Iocasta that he is indifferent of what the truth might present and he values the bravery of searching for it.
Intelligence and Restraint
When Pericles talks to people of Athens during the burial of dead soldiers after a war, he talks much about courage and sacrifice. The speech that he gave has words that are carefully chosen with the reaction of the people in mind (Zimmern 26). When he is beginning the speech, he moderates his own importance by his emphasizing that his speech is subject to various interpretations. He says, “The greatness of these men should not be put in danger by one man’s words.” (Kendall 141).
Although he has been selected as the man of befitting stature to give a speech at the funeral, he exercises intelligence and restraint by portraying a modest character. Moreover, he directly emphasizes on the importance of dialogue when he says that discussion is important before commencement of any activity (Crawley 7). For any action to be carried out with success, dialogue must be used as a preliminary act of wisdom.
Thus, it is necessary for any intelligent person to have a discussion before starting any important activity. Athenians also restrain themselves by allowing foreigners and enemies to live in the city. This is evident when Pericles says that Athens is open for the enemies to observe and learn (Crawley 1).
On the other hand, Oedipus is portrayed as an intelligent and patient king in “Oedipus the King.” He does not draw any conclusions about events he has not yet seen. In the beginning of the play, he says that Creon has been away for too long, but he expects good news on his return (Jebb 770).
He does not lose his patience quickly. He restrains himself while condemning Creon’s delay. Oedipus does not express the fact that he suspects himself to be the murderer who is bringing misfortune to the country. Initially, he is intelligent enough to accuse other people such as Creon, and to this effect he says, “How did you get into the house of the master who you slew?” This shows that the king is intelligent, and does not want to condemn himself before time is due. This is also an element of restraint (Berg & Clay 23).
Conclusion
Pericles’ speech and the play written by Sophocles have many similarities. The similarities can be directly compared. One important fact is that Pericles and Sophocles were from the same society. Moreover, they lived in the same historical era. Pericles ruled Athens a few years before Sophocles wrote the play, which he presented to Athenians. The elements discussed above are some of the prominent corresponding aspects of the speech by Pericles and the most popular play among those written by Sophocles, Oedipus the King.
Works Cited
Berg, Stephen, and Diskin Clay. Oedipus the King. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print.
Crawley, Richard. “Thucydides – Pericles’ Funeral Oration.” Ancient / Classical History – Ancient Greece & Rome & Classics Research Guide. Version 1. New York Times, 2 Jan. 2012. Web.
Jebb, Richard. “Sophocles: Oedipus Tyrannus.” Perseus Digital Library. Version 1. Perseus Digital Library, 8 May 2012. Web. <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/>.
Kendall, Jennifer. Periclean Athens and Augustan Rome. New York: Academic readers, 2012. Print.
Zimmern, Alfred. The ideal of citizenship: being the speech of Pericles over those fallen in the war. London: Published for the Medici Society by P.L. Warner, 1956. Print.
The Greeks referred to myths for the source of plots of their plays, rather than to invent plots of their own or to dramatize real life events.
Oedipus, born to Laius and Jocasta, the king and queen of Thebes, is destined to “kill his father and mate with his mother.” King Laius, pierces the foot of the baby born to him and leaves him to die on a hill top. Rescued by a herdsman, the baby is given to and brought up by King Polybus of Corinth. Years later, Oedipus learns that the king is not his biological father, and approaches the oracle and hears the curse pronounced on him. Out of fear, he flees Corinth to Thebe, and on his way kills a brave warrior when they shower insults on each other. Before reaching Thebes, he encounters the sphinx who gives him a riddle to answer. Being the only person to solve the riddle and thereby rescuing Thebe from a plague caused by the sphinx, the people crown him their king and give the queen in hand to him.
Years later, a plague befalls the kingdom. At the request of a priest to “Raise up our city, save it and raise it up” as “livestock and women are sterile, unable to have children,” Oedipus promises to seek the truth behind the suffering. (Summary and Analysis of Prologue, Parode and First Episode (1-462)). He sends Creon, Jocasta’s brother to the oracle at Delphi and learns that he has to “drive out pollution….Grown ingrained within the land” – and this pollution is a man: the murderer of Laius. (Summary and Analysis of Prologue, Parode and First Episode (1-462)). Oedipus vows to save his country and approaches Tiresias, who warns him that his quest for truth would land him in trouble as Oedipus is himself responsible for the malady.
Unable to put up with the words of the Seer, Oedipus seeks the truth. He learns that the person whom he had murdered long before was his father. Jocasta realizes the truth and commits suicide by hanging herself. Oedipus blinds himself with the brooches on Jocasta’s dress and leaves the kingdom with his daughter Antigone.
The people of Thebe live accursed lives. Oedipus is Jocasta’s son and husband, by fate. It is definitely not his fault for marrying his mother as he is innocent. Ironically, fearing such a fate he flees the land only to end up killing his father, rather unwittingly. All the characters suffer crisis in their lives as each incident is related to the other in the story. One incident leads to the other which is also the cause for calamity. The people of Thebe have to face one misery after the other which also influences the lives of the royal family. Incidentally, Oedipus who was the cause of bringing prosperity to Thebe after answering the question by the sphinx is himself responsible for incurring a plague on the country for murdering the former king, Laius. On the one hand Oedipus is the savior, on the other he is the cause for the country’s ill fate. Later, his sons fight for the kingdom and perish only to hand it over to their uncle Creon.
Works Cited
Summary and Analysis of Prologue, Parode and First Episode (1-462). Grade Saver. 1999-2008. Web.
An examination of the story of Oedipus reveals a certain degree of hubris among the characters which I believe is an integral theme within the story that lead to the start and culmination of most of the events that occurred.
What you have to understand is that in most of the Greek stories that I have read, such as Hercules, the story of Troy and the Odyssey, those who exult themselves, place themselves above all others or state that they are on the same level as the Gods often meet tragic and ironic ends. As such, it can almost be expected that characters within a Greek tragedy who exhibit such characteristics often end up in adverse circumstances.
In the case of Oedipus his fate resulted in one of the most tragic ends of all wherein he killed his father and married his mother. The concept of pride is crucial within this story and as I elaborate more on this point it will be immediately apparent as to why Oedipus readily believed the drunk who tells him that Polybus and Merope are not his real parents, but will not believe the famous and reliable prophet Teiresias.
The Growth of Pride
First and foremost, when you examine the story of Oedipus it can be seen in certain parts of the Greek play that Oedipus places such distinctions on himself as “the man who all men call great” or “the greatest man in all men’s eyes”. Such titles of course come as a direct result of his defeat of the Sphinx, his marriage to Jocasta and him being crowned king of Thebes. This method of distinction that Oedipus places upon himself is based on a considerable degree of pride as a direct result of his accomplishments.
As such, when presented with the words of the prophet Teiresias stating that he was the murderer of Laius, Oedipus does not readily believe them since his pride in himself would not allow him to do so. He labels the words of Teiresias as falsehoods and even accuses his friend (who is also unknowingly his uncle) Creon of instigating such lies. This particular behavior is in direct contrast to his earlier attitude involving his adoptive parents, Polybus and Merope.
In this earlier instance, he readily believed the words of a drunk (who stated that Polybus and Merope were not his true parents) as well as believed the words of the Oracle of Delphi who repeated the same prophecy given to Laius and Jocasta. This divergence in the acceptance of what is said to them between the younger and older versions of Oedipus is based on the fact that the older version of Oedipus had developed a considerable degree of pride in himself as a direct result of his accomplishments.
This had manifested itself in events early on within the story where he encountered Laius on the road to Thebes and refused to give way due to his pride in being a prince of Corinth. The end result was the murder of Liaus which was inherently based on the concept of pride and how Oedipus refused to be humble.
His hubris escalated even more as a direct result of his accomplishment in saving the people of Thebes from the Sphinx and being crowned king of the city. The younger version of Oedipus did not have significant accomplishments, was merely a prince and as such did not have as much pride as compared to his older self which as a result left him more open to believing in the words of others rather than himself.
Possible Alternative Explanations
It must be noted though that there are possible alternative explanations as to why Oedipus readily believed the drunk but did not believe Teiresias. One of possibilities is based on the fact that Oedipus may have doubted the origins of his birth given that since he was not the natural son of Polybus and Merope then it would be unlikely that he would look anything like them.
On the other hand, the reason why Oedipus did not want to believe the words of Terisias may be due to the fact that they seemed so farfetched that it would have been hard to believe them in the first place.
While these alternative explanations do have a considerable degree of merit, they lack a sufficient enough connection to the concept of hubris that pervades various aspects of the story. An explanation behind one of the focal points of the story that led to Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother should be based on the concept of pride since this is the main theme of the story and all explanations of events that emerge from the story of Oedipus should be based on this particular perspective.
Conclusion
As it can be seen from the various arguments presented within this paper, the concept of pride played a significant role in having Oedipus believe the words of the drunk yet not believe the words of the prophet Teiresias. As the pride of Oedipus increased the more likely he was to believe in his own words and thoughts rather than those coming from other people. In the end, like so many Greek tragedies in the past, the prideful are humbled and in the case of Oedipus he was humbled to an extreme degree.
In the tragedy “Oedipus the King,” Sophocles raises one of the most important questions of his time – is an individual’s fate entirely controlled by gods or can it be shaped by the person’s will? It is possible to say that mythology, which served as the foundation for the ancient classical literature as a whole, was implemented and interpreted by every Greek dramatist in his own way. When speaking of Sophocles, he integrates the myth of Oedipus into the plot of the play in order to demonstrate a deep conflict between the will of gods and the will of human beings. While paying significant attention to the philosophical and theological issues, Sophocles aims to unfold the theme of relationships among individuals, society, and divine forces. Additionally, he tried to discuss the issue of unity between them.
The dramatist lived in times of intense cultural and political changes. New social tendencies were in the progress of development, and they challenged the old-fashioned, archaic worldviews held by the citizens. The ambiguous position of gods is the major concern in Sophocles’ play. The primary controversy in the public consciousness of Athenians was based on the conviction in the patronage of gods and the attempts to gain their support, on the one hand; and the necessity to make responsible decisions, and independently attain their realization, on the other hand. When put in the given context, the main character, Oedipus, is antagonized to the traditional perspectives on religion, society, and the world’s order. It means that the inclusion of the theme of disharmony between the individual and the collective i the play was triggered by the cultural and social trends formed within the Greek community of the 5th century B.C. To understand the significance of Sophocles’ ideas incorporated in “Oedipus the King,” in this paper, we will carry out a cultural and semantic analysis of the tragedy and evaluate how various social contexts had contributed to the creation of the play.
The Ritual and Social Function of Greek Tragedy
“Oedipus the King” was initially composed as a stage actor. Although now readers perceive the preserved text as an independent literary composition, it presents merely a part of the complete audio-visual text of the tragedy as it was performed in front of the spectators in Ancient Greece.
In Athens, theatrical performances had a ritual function. They were staged only during particular five days in the Athenian month of Elaphebolion (Berberović 36). These holidays were devoted to Dionysus, the patron of wine, and the giver of abundance. The coded religious rituals carried out at the festivals, and broad communal participation was the main prerequisites for the creation of theater and the development of spectatorship as such (Berberović 34). It means that the early theatrical performances in Greece had a sacred, religious meaning – they were a form of public worship. However, when analyzing Sophocles’ play in the given historical and cultural context, we may see that the thematic orientation of the tragedy, as well as its stage form, had already nothing in common with the ritual nature of the archaic festive rites, their ecstaticism, billy goat attributes, and so on. The thematic changes point at the cultural shifts that occurred in Athens by the middle of the millennium – the civilization became more mature, and the pure cosmic-divine context of the ritual turned into a divine-civic, polis context.
It is possible to say that, in his play, Sophocles rethinks the festive rituals and endows them with a secondary metaphoric meaning. While celebrations of death and rebirth were first related to the image of Dionysius, in the 5th century B.C. they were perceived in relation to the civil community. In this way, the polis, as a form of social-political organization, gained a ritualistic power and became the semantic center of the Greek tragedy. While, initially, the ritual implied an “imitation of the divine acts of gods” (Berberović 32), during Sophocles’ life, it became a reproduction of an event-precedent symbolizing a deadly threat to the community and sacrifice which ensured its survival. It means that the shift from a purely religious function to the social one was made in Greek tragedy, and these social implications can be traced in Sophocles’ play as well.
The Myth
Based on the historical review of Greek tragedy, it is possible to say that the content of “Oedipus the King” is a dramatic description of the event with a precedential meaning – a sacrificial rescue of the polis. Researchers observe that, in his plays, Sophocles locates the values and attitudes which have importance for the public, communal existence rather than individuals (Dressler 515). The fact that the revelations made by Oedipus during the course of the play cannot be related to the characters individually but were in close associations with the collective served as a psychological basis for the creation of an impersonal, public meaning. The myth of Oedipus is known since the Homeric age (Cybulska par. 1), and Athenian spectators were, undoubtedly, well acquainted with it. The myth was not about a particular character or city but about life itself, and the world order as a whole, i.e., it was related to every single person in Greek society. The misfortunes which happened once to “young sons and daughters of old Cadmus” can occur in the lives of others as well (Sophocles 1). The final lines of the tragedy clearly state this idea:
“Look upon that last day always. Count no mortal happy
till he has passed the final limit of his life secure from pain” (Sophocles 23).
At the same time, although Sophocles derives the major theme of the play from the original myth, he modifies it in a way that strengthens the dramatic effect. “Sophocles builds down and builds up: he builds down from the traditional situation and the mental attitudes which the action implies and he builds up from observation of life in such a way as to create credibility and encourage emotional response” (Raeburn 85). The tragedian makes characters more complex than his precursors and incorporates various moral stances in the narration. Such modifications helped to add psychological, internal conflicts to the text.
The Collective Worldview in the Tragedy
The world in which the characters of “Oedipus the King” live is geographically limited. It covers the territory from Parnassus to Cithaeron and comprises the cities of Thebes and Corinth. Since the rest of the land is not included in the system of action, it is regarded as foreign. For instance, when Teiresias talks about the exile of Laius’ killer, who is not named in the play as yet, he says:
“he shall go journeying to a foreign country
tapping his way before him with a stick” (Sophocles 7).
In the metaphysical dimension, the picture of the world identified in the tragedy includes both terrestrial and belowground forms of being. This structure of the world is mentioned by the characters many times. For example:
“Do you know who your parents are? Unknowing
485 you are an enemy to kith and kin
in death, beneath the earth, and in this life” (Sophocles 7).
Overall, gods do not have any particular localization in the worldview presented in the tragedy. However, the natural sites, such as the mountains Parnassus and Cithaeron are endowed with divine qualities and are frequently addressed to as gods. For instance, the chorus sings:
“If I am a prophet and wise of heart
you shall not fail, Cithaeron,
1245 by the limitless sky, you shall not!—
to know at tomorrow’s full moon
that Oedipus honors you,
as native to him and mother and nurse at once” (Sophocles 17).
At the same time, in certain circumstances, human beings may be equal to gods as well. An old blind prophet, Teiresias, “versed in everything, things teachable and things not to be spoken, things of the heaven and earth-creeping things” is one of the examples of it (Sophocles 5).
Of course, there is no sufficient evidence to substantiate the assumption that Athenian citizens perceived the world in such a simplistic way as it is described in “Oedipus the King.” There were a lot of sailors, traders, craftsmen, warriors, politicians, and other important figures among Athenians. Thus, according to the criteria of the ancient times, they had a relatively spacious mind and well-developed practical grasp. However, we may presume that the imaginary world of the tragedy and the Athenian community shared one common feature. That is the mythological understanding of the world’s order. In other words, although the two societies differed in the content of knowledge and the degree of awareness, they were similar in the way according to which their knowledge was organized.
The Conflict of Views
The dramatic effect in the tragedy derives from the victim’s ability to reflect on the circumstances, as well as and his adverse position. The fixation of these skills of self-reflection was a significant landmark in the literature, and this achievement could not be possible without the contribution by Sophocles and his prominent contemporaries (Raeburn 85).
The conflicts present in the tragedy reveal that the detachment of the individual from the collective worldview was still in progress at those early times. For instance, contrasted to Oedipus, the character of Jocasta serves as an image of the traditional, impersonal position of the human being in the world. According to this point of view, an individual remains unaware of own destiny, has no responsibility, and cannot influence the course of events:
“Do not concern yourself about this matter;
listen to me and learn that human beings
815 have no part in the craft of prophecy” (Sophocles 11).
Oedipus’ acknowledgment of liability for own actions is a new, unconventional way of thinking, and it does not fit in the mythological nature of the ancient world. The given conflict of views constitutes the basis of the tragedy. In the profoundly impersonal archaic society, Oedipus’ persistent aspiration to follow the oracle’s advice looks like an unbridled act of self-will although it is hard to find anything besides the desire for the honest fulfillment of the duty in his motives and actions.
In case Oedipus adhered to the commonly accepted structure of social behavior, there could be no tragedy, and the play would resemble a happy fairytale. However, he violates the taboo and admits the guilt. And when the narration reaches this point, another conflict comes into existence because it is not clear before what forces did Oedipus stand guilty – was it God, cosmos, family, people, society, or something else? The given situation can be evaluated from two sides: internal and external. Oedipus struggles with it internally, while spectators or readers – externally. Two different points of view are connected by the prophecy or gods’ knowledge about everything that truly happens to the human. On the one hand, a traveler kills the king, but he is not aware that the king is his father. Then, this man takes reign, but he does not know that the king’s widow is his mother. There are the gaps in the character’s knowledge, yet the gods have a holistic view of his life. It means that the prophecy announced after Laius’ son was born is nothing but the knowledge of the things which will inevitably happen because it is predestined in the mythological worldview. In this way, the perspective of a well-informed Oracle entirely coincides with the external spectators’ point of view, while Oedipus is left alone with the mystery of his fate.
According to Fosso, the conflict between the mythological-collective and individual perspectives on the human existence reveal the Athenian citizens’ skepticism about oracles and their ministers (36). The play served as a “sly forum for interrogating the era’s structures of certitude and conviction: as an unsettling of myth and even as a timely Socratic drama of perplexed unknowing” (Fosso 36). In this way, over two thousand years ago, two conflicting views on the world and the individual’s place in it converged on the stage at the Dionysia in Athens. One of them was folkloric-mythological and mirrored a centuries-old tradition, in which nature, polis, and gods lived in a continual, undisrupted harmony. Another perspective presented a previously unknown picture of the world to the public and protected individuals’ interests and positions. The first, mythological view implies a well-established order and balance. However, the personal experiences, psychological tensions, and the sense of guilt are excluded from the myth. It does not provide an opportunity to scrutinize the character. The integration of an individual point of view in the tragedy was a creative task completed by Sophocles in the play.
Conclusion
Although Sophocles adhered to the major lines from the original myth of Oedipus, he also incorporated some psychological connotations in the literary work. If the dramatist did not modify the myth, there could be no psychological tragedy privately experienced by the character and the dramatic effect could be based merely on the external evaluation of Oedipus’ fate. Sophocles modified the myth into the human drama where the internal psychological conflicts and social problems are in the forefront.
In the play, Sophocles debates various points of views on developmental tendencies in the society but not in a conclusive way. Overall, the dramatist’s perspective on the discussed issue is complex. The analysis reveals that although Sophocles could have shared the fellow citizens’ skepticism about gods and oracles, he also acknowledged the divine predestination. At the same time, he showed the human being as free in his or her endeavors to influence the fate in a challenging environment associated with disharmony and individuals’ isolation. He emphasized the value of self-responsibility and will. Thus, Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King” is not merely a tragedy of the fate, but the drama of a human’s spiritual liberty, the freedom which a person acquires by showing courage in the midst of multiple blows of fate.
Works Cited
Berberović, Nadja. “Ritual, Myth and Tragedy: Origins of Theatre in Dionysian Rites.” Epiphany, vol. 8, no. 1, 2015, pp. 31-38.
Dressler, Alex. “Oedipus on Oedipus: Sophocles, Seneca, Politics, and Therapy.” A Companion to Sophocles, edited by Kirk Ormand, Wiley-Blackwell, 2015, pp. 507-523.
Fosso, Kurt. “Oedipus Crux: Reasonable Doubt in “Oedipus the King.” College Literature, vol. 39, no. 3, 2012, pp. 26-60.
Raeburn, David. Greek Tragedies as Plays for Performance. Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Kafkas University, 2009. Academic Information System. Web.
“Oedipus is punished not for any fault in himself, but for his ignorance. Not knowing his family history, unable to recognize his parents on sight, he is blameless; and in slaying his father and marrying his mother, he behaves as any sensible person might behave in the same circumstances.” I agree with the above interpretation.
This is because were it not been for his ignorance about his family history, Oedipus would have known his family. As such, he is blameless on account of his ignorance. I would therefore not be so quick as to blame Oedipus because if I were in his shoes, I would probably have acted in the same way. Although the death of his father signifies his own downfall, nonetheless, one could argue that Oedipus acted in self-defense, in that he was attacked unexpectedly while travelling alone and out of fear of losing his life, he kills them all but one.
These were violent times and as such, a man was expected to defend himself in case of an attack, and more so while travelling alone in far off lands. Any sensible man would have done the same, under the circumstances. The punishment that Oedipus receives largely stems from his ignorance.
Oedipus should have been wiser enough to heed the warnings of Teiresias. We can therefore say that Oedipus somehow pursued his own death. For example, he had been warned a couple of times to desist from attacking people who were ready to surrender but he could hear none of it, for his desire to be a man.
Although Oedipus was a brave, wise man who sought the truth relentlessly, of sound judgement and had the capacity to “see beyond the obvious” (Regal 19), nonetheless, all these assets proved worthless as he fell victim to a heinous fate-he killed his own father without his knowledge and later on married his mother.
Despite the many dimensions taken by the play, it has a central moral dilemma in which we are called to question whether we are in a position to shrug off the responsibility bestowed upon us when short-sightedness and avoidable ignorance forces us to do great harm.
For someone who little knowledge about the play, there is the possibility of presuming that Oedipus had improper lust. However, he did not kill his father out of lust for his mother. He was brought up by foster parents, the queen and king of Corinth. He never knew that he was an adopted child, or that his true biological parents were Jocasat and Laius.
A lot of stigma was attached to patricide and incest in the culture where Oedipus lived and when the truth dawned on him, he was extremely distraught. All this time, however, Oedipus was innocent. One might argue that he portrayed unacceptable motives but on the basis of the Judeo-Christian moral standards, he was morally innocent because he was not aware that the men on the road were the king (his biological father) and his aides.
To him, they were nothing more than a band of rude, ordinary men, and he had to defend himself. Even if we assume that Oedipus’ actions were morally innocent, can we also assume that he was also blameless for our practical purposes? One might argue that Oedipus could and should have done better. This is because he had received warning on several occasions. It had been prophesied that Oedipus would kill his own father and that he would later on marry his mother.
Oedipus chose to ignore the prophecy. Instead, he fled to Corinth as a way of escaping the predicted misdeeds. Even while escaping, Corinth thought that the King and queen of Corinth were his birth parents. In a way, he was uprooting his life from the culture he was used to, to that of Corinth.
On his way to Corinth, he encountered with and killed his own father, against his knowledge. If Oedipus had taken the prophecy seriously, he could also have wished to question his own view of reality and this might have prompted him to further interpret the unfolding events. He even ignored the prophecy of Teiresias, the esteemed blind prophet whose revelation had indicated that Oedipus would indeed kill Laius, his real father, and then marry his mother.
Although he acted violently by killing his own father, among the Greeks, the most admired heroes were expected to put on a brave face even when facing death in the eye. According to the description provided regarding the killing, neither party could be accused of being strictly guilty of the brawl that ensured, in which Oedipus murdered his father.
Oedipus is not a damned, stupid, cursed, or afflicted man, and neither did he have a complex. He was nothing more than an ordinary man blessed with an extraordinary passion to know the truth. He was also caught in an inherently deceptive and intricate situation in which an exceptional ability and good intentions to see through riddles were not enough to overcome an increase in misdeeds.
Works Cited
Regal, Philip. The anatomy of judgment. Minnesota, Canada: University of Minnesota Press, 1990, Print.