Category: Oedipus the King

Introduction

There are several eternal questions, the answers to which have not been found yet. Every person has his/her own opinion on the point. One of such questions is the following: What rules our life: fate or our actions, which are inspired by the major traits of our characters? Though it is hard to answer this philosophic question, it is possible to prove a certain point of view, using some authoritative example. Such a highly authoritative source may be the play “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles, which has been considered one of the most well-known and respected dramatic masterpieces of imaginative literature for centuries. It is known that the plot of the drama is built around an awful tragedy in the life of the protagonist and his surrounding. The tragedy involves the two greatest sins and crimes: murder and incest. The finale of the play shows death and misfortune, which were caused by awful tricks of fate and concurrence of circumstances.

The role of prophets in the play

The great importance in the play, and the life of our forefathers, on the whole, was given to priests, who were recognized as mediators between common people and Gods, they were “chosen” people who could interpret the signs of fate, and they were greatly respected for that. In the play, the protagonist, Oedipus, frequently resorts to advice and instructions of prophets, oracles, and priests. They determine and rule the action of the characters. For instance, Tiresias, the blind prophet of Thebes, opens Oedipus the truth about the murderer of King Laius. Without this information, the action could have unfolded differently. Besides, it was a coincidence, that the prophet was blind, and Oedipus mentioned his blindness, provoking the prophet’s wrath: “This crime was planned and carried out by you, All but the killing; and were you not blind I’d say your hand alone had done the murder” (Hall 60). Fate determined the final punishment of the king; he became as blind as the prophet had been.

The concurrence of circumstances in Oedipus’s life

The action of the play omits the first part of the myth about king Oedipus, but later Jokasta tells the story to Oedipus, her husband, and son. It becomes evident, that his life was ruled by fate from the very beginning. It was his father, Laius, who obeyed the prophecy of the oracle and decided to kill his son, in order not to be killed by him. However, Laius failed in deceiving destiny, thus, proving, that no matter what you decide to do, the final result will be determined by destiny. Laius made a desperate step, deciding to kill his offspring. Still, the chain of coincidences led to his death: Jokasta proved to be too weak to kill her son, the servant was too kind as well, the shepherd found new parents for the boy. Besides, again it happens because of the terrible prophecy, that Oedipus abandons his step-parents, fearing to bring harm to them. Instead, he makes the prophecy come true, he kills his real father, Laius. Their encounter at a crossroads is also an accidental circumstance, causing the terrible murder.

Oedipus’s character

At the same time, it must be mentioned, that Oedipus’s character also contributed to the development of action. His resoluteness has constantly made him act; for instance, when he decided to abandon his parents, Polybus and Merope. His desire to be honest, fair, and avenging eventually led to the revelation of his crime against his real father. Sophocles wanted to show that even strong people could not deceive fate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it may be stated, that “Oedipus the King” is a marvelous example proving the ancient Greek idea that life is ruled by fate alone. According to Sophocles’ view, a person should humbly obey destiny, as he is a mere puppet in the hands of fate, and all attempts to disobey it are sure to be doomed to failure.

Works Cited

Hall, Edith, ed. Antigone; Oedipus the King; Electra. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

People’s destiny is predetermined by the actions

People have always been interested in their destinies, and this interest was supported either by fear or by relief. People’s actions are the main signs of what people will get in the future, what they deserve. Providing some actions people do not always think about the consequences, but it usually appears so that they get what they deserve and the play of the ancient Greek author Sophocles “Oedipus the King” is one of the literary examples that people’s destiny is usually predetermined by the actions, which person provides through his/her life.

Oedipus as a victim and person who deserves punishment

Reading the play it seems that Oedipus is the victim, whose life was not so exciting, but analyzing it the conclusion comes out that people overvalue him. Being a king, powerful and rich, does not always mean being a happy person. Without knowing a father and mother, being without parental love may make the reader feel sorry for Oedipus. His hubris character, inability to see the real estate of things may make people think about his hard childhood and way to power. The closer consideration of Oedipus’s life makes people understand that he is not such a victim, how wants to appear to others. Being blind not physically but mentally, Oedipus created his fate as it was. Being wiser a little, he could change his life and avoid that punishment which he deserved for his actions.

Oedipus knew his fate

So, what is the reason for punishing a person who had just entrusted himself to fate? The question contains the answer. Oedipus knew his fate, he knew that would have killed his father and get married to his mother, but such knowledge did not make him think before killing Laius and getting married to Jocasta. The blindness to trust is the main reason why Oedipus was punished as the reaction to the oracle’s words could have changed the life and the destiny of Oedipus.

People always get what they deserve

People always get what they deserve, and this hundred years of experience is always supported by millions of examples. Oedipus is not the exception, being blind in his heart, he was punished by real physical blindness. Understandings of his actions lead him to the understanding that he had to be punished. The awareness of his actions (the murder of his father and marriage to his mother) made him feel sorry for his action and had nothing to do but punish himself. The disability to see was a real punishment, not physical pain. Oedipus received his punishment for his actions and this punishment is argumentative. The realization of it is the main relief for him as we all are mortal and the question of the further condition is not solved.

So, people’s actions now predetermine the punishment or gift in the future. Disability for Oedipus to consider his actions, to analyze them reduced him to blindness. Providing some actions people should always think about consequences and make them think twice before providing this or that action. Oedipus had the chance to avoid his punishment, but he did not want to, he just was brought under the consequences and had to pay for that. The murder of the person is the main sin, and the cost for the murder is very high. The double pain is that he had killed his father that is the punishment in itself.

Works Cited

Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Minneapolis: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC., 2006.

Introduction

Over the years, there has been a raging debate on who really caused the downfall and subsequent destruction of King Oedipus. Some scholars believe that Oedipus’ pride and arrogance brought his destruction while on the other hand others claim that Jocasta was responsible for destroying everyone and everything.

Despite the different approaches taken by scholars on the matter, one thing that emerges clearly throughout the play is that Oedipus brought about his own downfall. His arrogance and high headedness clearly emerges as the genesis of all his woes. (Sophocles)

Right from the start, there is rumor that Polybus the Corinthian king is not Oedipus father. When this rumor gets to Oedipus, he confronts his parents who do not appropriately answer his question. Oedipus then decides to approach the Delphic Oracle to seek an answer to his question.

Even the Oracle does not answer Oedipus’ question but instead tells him that he will marry his own mother and cause the death of his father. Instead of heeding the oracle, Oedipus’ pride leads him to think that he can avert this tragic fate. While trying to flee from his destined fate, he ends up killing King Laius who is his own father.

His journey ends in the Thebes Kingdom where Oedipus eliminates the beastly Sphinx and consequently solves the complex riddle of a form that walks on all fours early in the day, on two’s by midday and on threes by sunset.

In recognition of this achievement, the Theban’s appoint him to take over the vacant throne left behind by the demise of King Laius. By accepting this offer, Oedipus agrees to marry the widowed queen who in reality is her mother, Jocasta. It is clear that Jocasta does not play any role in any of these events but in reality, they are Oedipus’ own makings.

Soon after this, a plague rages throughout the Theban land leaving everyone in distress. This causes Oedipus to send his brother-in-law, Creon to seek why the city is experiencing the plague. The Oracle at Delphi reveals that the plague in the land is caused by the unavenged death of King Laius.

Against the people’s wishes to first consult prophet Tiresius, Oedipus goes ahead to pronounce a harsh punishment against the responsible person. Even after Tiresius is consulted, he advises that the matter should be left to rest. However, Oedipus keeps pressurizing him to a point where Tiresius gives an ominous prophecy for Oedipus.

By this time, Oedipus has already declared that Creon is a traitor who has to die. Queen Jocasta intervenes to bring calm between her brother and husband. Upon learning of the feud between them, Jocasta assures Oedipus that he has nothing to worry about since her son was killed in infancy and there is no way he could have been the cause of the Kings death.

At this point, Oedipus learns that the king had indeed been killed at exactly the same spot where years earlier he had killed a man who had blocked his way. As the events unfold and Jocasta senses that Oedipus is indeed her son, she begs him to drop the matter but he decides to have none of this. This leads to the death of Jocasta and subsequent banishment of Oedipus from the kingdom.

Conclusion

From the account of events, it is clear that Oedipus woes began way before Jocasta came on the scene. Most of the things that Oedipus went through were actually caused by his pride and arrogance something that led him to disregard the oracles and the people’s advice. It is therefore only fair to conclude that Jocasta was nothing but a bystander who tried to control things from getting out of hand.

Works Cited

Sophocles. Oedipus the King: The Play in Focus, 2010. Web. <https://www.answers.com/search?q=oedipus-the-king-the-play-in-focus>

Introduction

Sophocles’ Oedipus the King or Oedipus Rex is a tragic ancient Greek play featuring a man who has unknowingly killed his father and married his mother. As the story progresses, the protagonist, Oedipus, evolves from his position as the egocentric king of Thebes and rapidly disintegrates into a victim of his own fate. He begins literally and metaphorically retreating into darkness as he gains insight. This comparison manifests throughout the play as Sophocles utilizes the popular Greek theme of light vs. dark, or sight vs. blindness, to emphasize themes of ignorance, truth, and inevitable punishment where fate or destiny plays the supreme controller of events.

Discussion

Oedipus Rex conveys an “ignorance is bliss” message not unlike that found in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave where the background or canvas of events is fate itself. Prior to the delivery of his prophecy, Oedipus was well-known in Thebes for his clear-sightedness and quick wit in solving the riddle of the Sphinx, which provides a reason for his excessive confidence and admiration from his kingdom. The play begins with the establishment of Oedipus’s hubris as he announces to his people, “Here I am myself— / you all know me, the world knows my fame: / I am Oedipus” (MacGregor & Knox, 159, 7–9). He supports his ignorance further by also declaring, “I would be blind to misery / not to pity my people kneeling at my feet” (MacGregor & Knox, 159, 14-15). This statement adds dramatic irony because, despite the blind prophet Tiresias’s warning about the misery that Oedipus will face if he discovers the truth, Oedipus continues to become more persistent in his search. The prophet is obviously aware of the consequences of knowledge; this is affirmed when he comments, “How terrible—to see the truth / when the truth is only pain to him who sees!” (MacGregor & Knox, 176, 359-360). As Oedipus hears the prophecy and emerges from his ignorance, his pride and vanity disappear. Ultimately, he gouges his eyes out with broaches that belonged to Jacosta, his wife and biological mother. Although he is willing to acknowledge his mistakes completely, his transition to wisdom only causes pain and suffering as he emerges from metaphorical darkness to literal blindness.

The contrast between light and dark is also used to represent truth under the parameters of fate where truth represents an alternate image of the fate of destiny. In Oedipus the King, light embodies truth, but the light is only externally perceived by the eyes, whereas wisdom lies in the darkness of a character’s soul. As Oedipus and Jacosta gain knowledge about the murder of Oedipus’s father, Laius, they arrive at two separate truths: Jacosta recalls that the servant told her that he was killed by strangers, and Oedipus knows that he, himself, was alone when he killed a man in the same location. Though their stories are otherwise strikingly similar, they seem to be choosing to stay in the darkness by accepting the servant’s story as an indisputable account of the event.

Oedipus, however, appears to be more receiving of the truth: “…if he refers to one man, one alone, / clearly the scales come down to me: / I am guilty.” (MacGregor & Knox, 208, 935-937). The chorus also notes the manifestation of truth and light together: “…all-seeing Time has dragged you to the light…” (MacGregor & Knox, 234, 1341). The strongest correlation between the two themes, however, is actually found with the blind prophet and his extensive knowledge from the Gods. Tiresias, despite being physically blind, is much further into the light and can see deeper into the truth than others in the play. Oedipus later approaches a similar status when he discovers the facts of his prophecy and contrasts his inner enlightenment by inflicting physical blindness upon himself. He behaves as if to bring his outer state to a reflection of his prior mental and emotional state of awareness, or as an attempt to return to the darkness in which he was once comfortable. Oedipus’s sight abilities or lack thereof, existed to confirm or deny his acceptance of truth under the guidance of fate.

Conclusion

Sophocles leaves the audience with two choices at the end of the play. They can choose to believe that “ignorance is bliss,” or they can see light in the darkness, discover truth and wisdom, and suffer from knowledge, and in both cases, the author indicates that fate or destiny is the supreme ruler of a human being. Oedipus reveals his knowledge of human suffering and strife and thus, despite surviving the play, becomes a truly traditional Greek tragic hero where fate directs the conclusion of the existence of the characters.

Works Cited

MacGregor, Bernard, & Walker Knox. The three Theban plays. NY: Penguin Classics, 1984.

Introduction

Oedipus the king is a play written by Sophocles explaining the Greek culture in the ancient days. The play outlines the conflict between gods and the humans, in determining their destinies. At the beginning of the story it is well shown that there were sufferings of all kinds in Thebes. This was the result of a famine which contributed to weakness, starvation or death to the people. Because of starvation, there was a low birth rate; which could not cover the death rate leading to the death of flocks and herds. The Delphic Oracle informed that this famine served as a punishment from the gods for not having reattributed the murderer of the Oedipus royal predecessor (king Lauis); therefore, Oedipus ironically vowed to find the murderer. “Just as if Laius was my own father,” he claims that he would save Thebans from the plague as the Oracle had stated that the murderer must be identified and justice found.

Main text

In search of the murderer the blind foreseer Teiresias, revealed in a meeting with his sovereign Oedipus that he was the murderer. He points a finger to the murderer after reluctantly being asked to share what he knew. Even though he was insulted, threatened and bullied by the king; he ends up disclosing the information about the killer of king Lauis. The Theban king could not believe that he was the murderer even though he admitted committing a murder on his way to Thebes; since he thought he knew his life very well. He couldn’t believe that a king could behave aggressively and unintelligently regarding the correct way at a crossroad that made him kill him (Kennedy et al. p. 278 lines 413-430).

As the play continues, Oedipus starts suspecting himself as the murderer especially when Chorus told him about the supposed killing of Lauis by robbers. By his taking king Lauis’ throne and wife, means he took over his life. Jocasta told Oedipus that the oracle had informed Laius that he would be killed by his own child, “Laius and I were told that our baby would kill him and marry me”, as was said by Jocasta.

In the play, there are episodes of conflict, for example Oedipus conflicting with Creon and Tiresias because he believed he was not the murderer (Kennedy et al. p. 286 lines 607-614). But the central conflict is the Oedipus inner struggle with arrogance and self-centeredness, since he wanted to be praised for outwitting the plague by finding the murderer. In scene 4 page 1412, we see him struggling with prophesies of killing his father and marrying his own mother. He had thought that he was too smart to outwit the gods. It is the main conflict because; it’s a struggle between human freedom and the gods.

After Oedipus recognized his guilt he decided to blind himself. He was blind metaphorically at the beginning since he never knew the truth about his origin; but when he knew the truth, he blinded himself physically for him to see the truth as it was prophesied. He couldn’t stand to see the mother who he had slept with; the father he had killed and the children he bore with his mother. He used Jocasta’s golden brooches to pierce his eyes because his wife also had hanged herself, and he didn’t want to witness that.

Conclusion

Oedipus wanted to end the Thebans’ suffering by looking for the murderer as it had been prophesied. On knowing he was the murderer as was informed by the oracle, he ceased searching for the killer and blinded himself. The object of his search changed because he knew he was the son of Laius who he had killed; and that Polybos was not his father as he thought. He was advised by the leader to have enough evidences before concluding that he was the killer (Kennedy et al. p. 288 lines 691-698).

Work cited

Kennedy, X. & Gioia, Dana. Literature: “An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing”, Compact Edition (5th Edition). Longman. (Dec 10, 2006): 278- 1412

Introduction

Oedipus can be described as a Greek mythical personality in the Greek culture. He is described as a person who came to fulfill a certain prophecy. The prophecy itself involves this third king of Thebes killing his biological father. Later on, he unknowingly marries his biological mother.

All of this began with a prophesized oracle after the birth of Oedipus. Therefore, Laius orders his death to avert this prophesies. Unfortunately, while he was left out there in the wilderness to die, a shepherd picks him up and hands him over to a friend. Through the shepherd’s friend, he ends up in Corinth in the Kings house. The King and Queen take him as their own son. They see him as a blessing as they did not have a child.

Initially, Oedipus was not aware of the fact that the King and Queen were not his true parents. Therefore, when one day a drunk mentioned that he was adopted, it troubled him. He became even more troubled on visiting several oracles.

Even though the oracles told him the truth, it was more troubling because at that time, he could not make sense of it all. One day, while Oedipus was on his way, he had a dispute with the King of Thebes and unknown to him he killed him after having the argument. He did not even know that he was the king of Thebes when he was killing him.

Later on in the town of Thebes, his wits enabled him to answer a riddle and thus saved the people of Thebes. He thus went on to fulfill the prophecy by marrying King Laius’s widow. However, when mother and child came to learn later on their true relation to each other, the mother decided to commit suicide. Oedipus on the other hand decide to blind himself.

Strength of character by Oedipus

Oedipus has an outstanding central strength. This strength is his curiosity or in other words his truth seeking zeal. This strength can be termed as being part of him. This is first witnessed after he gets a tip of his true Identify. Since he wanted to really know the truth behind it all, he is seen visiting various oracles just to find out the truth.

Even though it took quite a while for him to know the truth about his parents, he finally did find out the truth, though a bit late. His truth seeking nature can also be thanked for enabling him to earn the throne of Thebes. This riddle of Sphinx enables him become a ruler and gets a ready wife.

The truth seeking nature of Oedipus can almost be described as being hard-coded in him. This is evident as he ignored all warnings to keep away from the truth. An example is a warning by the prophet who was blind, i.e. Tiresias. Terisias points out to him “You don’t’ want to know the truth” It is in fact disappointing to him when he finally learns the truth. In fact it is the truth itself that brings Oedipus down and not even his defiance of the gods.

The desire to know the truth thus forms the strongest motivating factor in Oedipus. His period of reigning as king comes down to being characterized as a truth seeking mission. It is no wonder that despite the big title that he held, his life had many uncertainties that formed a riddle around him (Simon, 201).

It can be put down that in the whole play; the truth is vividly guarded from Oedipus. When it however finally dawns to him, the same truth shocks him. He however embraces this truth with open arms. Therefore one can say that his ability to move from being in pain and confused about the truth is a strength in character. It actually shows just how Oedipus has finally become wise.

Throughout the play of Sophocles, Oedipus seems extremely careless on his quest for the truth irrespective of the consequences that are ever so painful. Even though one can say that his quest for the truth was accompanied by lots of despair, this same quest is the one that is attributed towards having changed Oedipus.

Due to his many tribulations, Oedipus is forced to come to terms with new responsibilities. These were to affect not only his family and kingdom, but also himself. He is thus seen to have come out stronger. This strength of character also shows that he indeed has become mature.

Conclusion

Come to think of it, there was only one way through which Oedipus could have attained his strength of character. Therefore, Sophocles just puts out a simple fact through this strength of Oedipus. This simple fact is that every single person is always in a quest to find the truth about something. It is not a must for the quest to set you free. The fact however is that the journey on your quest will shape you

Works Cited

Simon, Peter. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. 1(2). USA: W. W. Norton & Company. 2009.

Family and tragedy are two concepts that characterized almost every work of Geek drama. Most of such works focus on family relationships, adultery, incest, and the like issues. Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Sophocles’ Oedipus the King are the Greek tragedies that are the most successful in expressing the subjects of family and tragedy. The stories which they present strike the reader with unexpected turns of events and intricate plots. Oresteia consists of three main parts, Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Eumenides which are interrelated. These parts present the tragedy in the family of Agamemnon who once sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia; the story and the subsequent parts of it depict the revenge which Agamemnon faced for his actions. Oedipus the King deals more with the issue of fate and its inevitability; however, it closely touches upon the problems of family relations as well for Oedipus killed his father (though unaware that it was him) and married his mother (without knowing that she was his biological mother). Like all the Greek dramas, the two stories under consideration have tragic endings. Each of three parts of Oresteia reveals the subjects of family and tragedy with Agamemnon presenting the story of a Clytaemestra killing her husband, The Libation Bearers telling about Orestes and Electra killing their mother, Clytaemestra, in revenge for her murdering their father, and The Eumenides depicting how the ghost of Clytaemestra revenges her son for killing her; similarly, the interrelation between family and tragedy in Oedipus the King is exhibited through Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother.

What should be mentioned above all is that in Oresteia the tragedy starts developing with Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter, which further serves as a ground for his wife, Clytaemestra, killing him in revenge. The first part of the drama, Agamemnon, presents the revenge of a mother who grieves the death of her child. It is not a secret that women have more affection for their children than men, which is why a woman can hardly be able to murder her own child; instead, she will readily give away her life to save him/her. Agamemnon, however, chose to sacrifice his daughter, Iphigenia, to appease Artemis in whose temple Agamemnon killed an animal without permission. In this way, Agamemnon sacrificed the life of his daughter for gaining favorable winds during the Trojan expedition in which he participated (Morford and Lenardon 322); in revenge, his wife Clytaemestra murdered him as soon as she found out how her daughter died. This is only a part of Agamemnon’s family drama. Another part is presented through his wife committing adultery while he was absent from home. In this way, Agamemnon presents imperfections in the family under consideration with the tragedy of this family rooting in the wife’s unfaithfulness to her husband and the father’s sacrificing his daughter in exchange for the god’s favor.

In addition, Agamemnon’s children continue ruining the family basing on their father’s sins in The Libation Bearers. Electra and Orestes, Clytaemestra’s children, seem to be guided only by the hatred for their mother who killed their father. As Orestes says, “not without justice did I kill my mother, / stained as she was with murdering my father” (Aeschylus, Shapiro, and Burian 145: 1163). The most interesting fact about this is that neither Electra who instigates her brother to kill Clytaemestra, nor Orestes, who is furious with his desire to revenge for the death of his father, cares about the fate of their sister, Iphigenia whose death bred the tragedy in the family. This means that Orestes considers women less important for the family than men, which is typical for the Greek drama where the men are presented as warriors and the heads of the families. Despite this, however, it is still Agamemnon who should be blamed for the tragedy which further developed in his family, for it was namely his action (killing the animal in Artemis’ temple) that led to the death of Iphigenia, the murder of Agamemnon by Clytaemestra, and the murder of Clytaemestra by Orestes.

Finally, The Eumenides presents the closure of the drama which developed within Agamemnon’s family over the years. This part of Oresteia reveals that Agamemnon’s family has never striven for mutual understanding; all members have lived their lives in revenge. Thus, Clytaemestra sought revenge for the death of her daughter, whereas Agamemnon, being a ghost, incited his son to kill Clytaemestra for being unfaithful to him (McDonald 35); eventually, Clytaemestra, even as a ghost, wishes to revenge her son for killing her. This shows that Agamemnon’s family was never united because even when the members of his family died, they continued taking vengeance on each other. It is remarkable, however, that neither of them admitted his/her fault, as well as neither, was remorseful of his/her sins even after death. This family lacked forgiveness, mutual understanding, and desire to improve relations between its members. Each of them was driven by their own goals, the goals which eventually ruined the family. Thus, the tragedy of Agamemnon’s family consisted in the selfishness of each of its members and their unwillingness to forgive each other or at least meet somebody halfway.

While the tragedy in Agamemnon’s family develops from its members’ attitude towards each other, the tragedy of the Oedipus family is rooted in a prophecy. Oedipus’ father was prophesied that he would be killed by his own son who would afterward marry his own mother; this being the reason, he ordered to murder the infant as soon as the latter was born. This proves once again that the man’s place in a family was more important than that of a woman, at least in Greek drama. Oedipus’ mother, naturally, attempted to save her child, which consequently led to the fulfillment of the prophecy. This means that the prophecy was the root of the tragedy of this family; however, was it not for the cowardice of Oedipus’ father and his fear to die from the hand of his own son, the prophecy could have failed to realize. Therefore, fear and cowardice served as a ground for the tragedy which developed in Oedipus’ family.

In sum, numerous families experience tragedies due to different reasons. In a case with the works under consideration, these reasons were selfishness, revengefulness, and cowardice. In Oresteia, the members of Agamemnon’s family pursued their own goals, while, to maintain the welfare of the family, they had to pursue the common ones. In the case of Oedipus’ family, the cowardice of his father who feared the fulfillment of the prophecy was the reason for the tragedy which started unfolding after Oedipus was born.

Works Cited

Aeschylus, Shapiro, Alan, and Burian, Peter. The Oresteia. Oxford: Oxford University Press US, 2004.

McDonald, Marianne. The Living Art of Greek Tragedy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2003.

Morford, Mark P.O. and Lenardon, Robert J. Classical Mythology. Oxford: Oxford University Press US, 1999.

Introduction

The play by Sophocles Oedipus Rex is an eminent example of the ancient Greek tragedy. The plot of the play describes the tragedy of Oedipus who does not feel his identity for his family and the society in which he lives. The tragedy of the play is in the fact that the king realizes that he killed his father and that he slept with his mother. The theme of unwritten laws which go apart from rational reasoning is highlighted in the play. The research paper promotes the scope of investigation in terms of the main features of the play and its performance. In this respect, the idea of Greek tragedy and classical Greek literature is imposed into the paper with a mere extent of subtlety. The points of play production, its features, and implementation are included in the discussion. The features of the stage, actors, their costumes, chorus direction, and music provide the whole understanding of Sophocles’ main idea of the play. Also, the analysis of outlined aspects gives a background for an observer about how to estimate the conceptuality of the play.

Evaluation

Stage Setting

In the tradition of classical dramaturgy of ancient Greeks, the concept of the pay and its representation was driven in terms of the natural play of actors and without decorations. The thing is that the play itself should represent the reflection in actors of the main feelings of their characters. This standpoint was at a core in ancient Greece. The production of the play according to its original performance should include, first of all, a particular place. In Greece for performing dramaturgy theatres were built in a circle form with an open-air place. The hollow of the theater represents conditions for the acoustic effects so that to hear actors well. The amphitheater with its particular stair-step structure made of wild polished-up stone would surely place a viewer into the atmosphere of ancient theater.

Another step concerns the stage setting. In this respect, the play should be provided in an empty place of circle form without a folding screen. Such a setting makes it possible for the observers to get involved with the whole representation of the play. Every character in Oedipus Rex becomes then the object of great concentration of viewers’ attention. The critical observers of the ancient epoch in drama admit the following idea about scene-setting throughout the pay:

Throughout the play, the scene with at least one door represents the facade of the royal palace of Thebes. Even when the action takes place inside the palace, such as Jocasta’s suicide and Oedipus’s self-blinding, there is no shift of scene (Dunkle para. 1).

Thus, the stage setting and the whole preparatory outlook on the play should consider the traditional constituents of Greek plays. The role of the place for actors and viewers should contemplate the formation of acoustic effects so that the main idea of the play could be identified.

Costumes

Costumes in play form a special attitudinal framework of a viewer as of particular intentions toward a character. In this respect, the costumes of an original play should include stunning patterns in the Greek cultural tradition of dressing. Moreover, the whole representation of characters is possible with changing of their initial costumes in different scenes. For instance, when Oedipus does not recognize the roots of the plague, he stays in a merely stable state of his soul. Here the actor should be in a glorious dressing. On the other hand, when the truth becomes apparent to him and Oedipus follows the example of Tiresias, his dress is better to change into red grave clothes. This is why the features of each stage of the development of pay are colored especially according to the scenes and episodes. Moreover, Aristotle in his Poetics outlines: “Sophocles is supposed to have been the first playwright to use painted scenery, and contemporary vase-paintings can offer faint clues as to the appearance of the costumes and masks” (Cited in Sophocles 1). Thus, the coloring of the costumes presupposes the innovative implementation of stunning dressing of actors along with masks and paintings on actors. Such a method of face paintings is applicable in the scene when Oedipus pokes out his eyes.

Chorus

The choral parties are inalienable features of the play. Using their implementation in the play particular atmosphere can be made. The background of Oedipus’s reasoning is shaped by the chorus. The scene when Jocasta hangs herself is also supported with a trembling signing of choral artists. The role of the chorus is to put a viewer into the picture of what happening on some emotional level. The words of the chorus serve as the direction to Oedipus in his passions. Chorus represents the ideas of rationale. In terms of Greek mythology, it is similar to gods’ revelations. Thus its extraordinary role cannot be simply exaggerated. The difference between Oedipus and chorus is in the fact that chorus can see and Oedipus cannot (Travis 46). Hence, the members of the chorus should be apt in emotional feelings, so that to project the features of excitement and trouble of plague in Thebes. The chorus should be trained in making more attention to the distinctiveness and brilliance of the singing. In this respect, musical support is of great significance.

Music

The music in the play is similarly important as the destination of the chorus. Music is the source of the inner representation of the scenes. In other words, the components of play should be designated using music. First, one should remind that it is a tragedy. Greek tragedy contemplates that the music helps a viewer determine the reception of the play. It serves as the way to perceive the details and the meaning of words by actors in terms of choral parties. The thing is that the music leads the chorus in singing. It outlines possible drops and splashes of characters’ attitudes or actions. The main instruments for the original sounding of the play are: “double flute, drums, tambourine, and sometimes the kithara” (Introduction to Oedipus the King para. 10).

Conclusion

The play by Sophocles Oedipus the King is the representation of genre peculiarities of dramaturgy in ancient Greece. This tragedy inspires with the main ideas and intentions imposed by the author to illustrate the truth of Oedipus. Furthermore, the setting should illuminate the features of original Greek theater with particular framing of the stage. Actors and instrumentation of the play do not need additional decorations. Every definite scene or episode is commented on by a messenger. The role of chorus and music indicate the sensual background of the play. They serve as the supporting tools for Oedipus in his reasoning and evaluation of actions done.

Works cited

Dunkle, Roger. Oedipus the King. Brooklyn College Core Curriculum Series. Web.

Introduction to Oedipus the King. Web.

Sophocles. Antigone, Oedipus the King, Electra. Translated by Kitto, Humphrey Davy Findley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Travis, Roger. Allegory and the tragic chorus in Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

There is a variety of elements of drama that writers can choose from, when writing their works. These elements include theme, plot, characters, and language among others. In Oedipus the King, Sophocles uses the element of theme to produce a thrilling composition. The three important themes here include the power of conventional law, disposition to disregard the truth and confines of free will.

Themes

Sophocles uses the theme of power of conventional law. The need to bury the dead surpasses any law regardless of how the dead person was evil or unpopular. This comes out clearly for Creon after assuming power in Thebes. After losing his power to Creon, Polynices dies. Unfortunately, Creon being the king commands that Polynices corpse be left unburied for dogs and birds to feed on him and everyone; who had been wronged by this wicked man, see him. (Sophocles 98). Because Polynices was a wicked man, Creon assumes this fact justifies his acts.

It is true that Polynices had insulted everything and everyone including religion and power. However, as the play unfolds, the audience realizes that burying the dead is not tied to state rules and it has nothing to do with citizenship and loyalty, but has everything to do with humanity.

Creon comes to learn, though late; that, the rotting body of Polynices was more of lewdness than punishment. Even though there was no written law in Greece customs to bury the dead, the conventional laws, tied to humanity had power over the state.

Again, Sophocles shows how people have the disposition to disregard the truth. Even though Oedipus knows the truth concerning Laius’s murder, he does all he can to exculpate himself. Oedipus knows very clearly that he killed Laius single-handedly; however, he is clinging to the side of the story that claims that Laius died in the hands of strangers. On the same basis, Oedipus chooses to ignore the oracle while Jocasta overlooks the fact that her son was to kill her husband.

Oedipus knows this very well but in an attempt to feel good they deliberately choose to ignore the truth. The ironical part of this part notwithstanding; the audience cannot fail to see the vehement denial of truth. People have eyes; they see but choose not to acknowledge and accept the truth.

Finally, freewill has limits and this comes out clearly in this story. Prophecy and oracles were respected amongst Greek people during this era. This same oracle had predicted that Oedipus was going to murder his own father and take his mother to bed. On the other hand, prophecy had let Jocasta know that her son would kill her husband and sleep with her.

As events unravel, it is clear to Oedipus that he is that boy talked of in Jocasta’s story; however, he cannot use his freewill to change things. Things have gone out of hand such that, they cannot be restored; not even by freewill.

Conclusion

Sophocles employs the element of theme to communicate with the audience. The theme of this story was to address issues that were affecting the people of Thebes during this time and even in times to come. The audience can easily know what Sophocles meant by writing this script.

This is because even as the audience looks back in real life, the issues addressed here are easy to identify with in the society today. These are not foreign events happening to Oedipus only; no, they are happening in real life, right under the watch of the audience. This element of drama comes out strongly and makes the play compelling.

Works Cited

Sophocles. “Oedipus the King.” Berg, Stephen & Clay, Diskin. Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Introduction

‘Oedipus the King’ is a play written by Sophocles in Ancient Greek at around 430 B.C. set in a fabulous past of the ancient Greek. Throughout the play, the king is determined to understand several issues about the community and himself.

As a result, he seeks help from the Theban chorus; Tiresias, the blind prophet; Creon, his brother in-law; Jocasta, the Oedipus wife and the shepherd. Throughout the play, conflict stands out as the main theme as exposited by exploring the three elements of conflict from the play viz. man versus man, man versus himself and man versus nature.

Man versus man conflict

A conflict exists between the king and the prophet Tiresias. The play begins by investigation into the cause of death of Laius, the former Theban king. When the Oedipus King seeks advice from the prophet Tiresias, to his surprise, the prophet tells him that Oedipus was responsible for the murderer of Laius.

In disbelief, the King becomes annoyed with Tiresias and they end up into a heated argument. The king blames the prophet for accusing him for the murder (Sophocles 306). While the King maintains his innocence, Tiresias holds that the murderer of Laius is a Theban citizen whom they have a blood relationship. The manner in which Tiresias leaves the palace evidences unhidden conflict between him and the Oedipus King.

In addition, the king is in conflict with his brother in-law, Creon. When the prophet accuses Oedipus for the murder, the king blames Creon for masterminding the accusations. The king believes that Creon is determined to undermine him. As a result, the king calls for Creon’s execution.

Another conflict exists between Jocasta and the prophets. Jocasta believes that prophets are liars and the king should take none of their advice. “Listen and I’ll convince thee that no truth in these prophets” (Sophocles 316). This quote reveals that Jocasta does not believe in prophets any more. There is also conflict between the king and the shepherd. When the shepherd refuses to give information on murder, the king threatens to execute him.

Man versus nature

Theban community is in conflict with nature. Oedipus king is determined to fight the plague, which has affected the community. As Sophocles indicates in the Creon’s conversation with the king, the leadership of Theban community is investigating the cause of the plague: “Let me report then all what god declared.

King Phoebus bids us straightly extirpate Fell pollution that infests the land, and no more harbor an inveterate sore” (Sophocles 315). From this quotation, it is clear that the people of Theban are determined to fight to the end the plague that runs through the community.

As illustrated on the first scene, the priest and the Theban choir have also visited the palace to seek aid for the plague. The king gives them hope by noting that “but I grieve at once both for the general, myself and you” (Sophocles 267). To grieve in ancient Greek meant cooperation with the suffering. Plague is a natural disease and therefore fighting it evidences this kind of conflict.

Man versus himself

The king is in conflict with himself. The community expects exemplary behavior from their king, especially in such ancient setting. As the play illustrates, the king killed his father and slept with his mother. The king’s behavior is in conflict with the character of Oedipus king. It is therefore vivid that the king is in conflict with himself.

The shepherd is also in conflict with himself. Once requested to come and testify on the murder of Laius, he agrees and in fact provides some information to the king; however, after sometime, he begs to leave without further questions (Sophocles 300). This illustrates the shepherd’s conflict with himself.

Conclusion

The major conflict arises when the prophet accuses the Oedipus for the murder of the former king. Since the entire play revolves about the murder, it is therefore justifiable that conflict is the major theme in the play ‘Oedipus the King’. King’s conflict with the prophet and Creon illustrates man versus man conflict while the community’s battle with the plague evidences the man versus nature conflict. The king’s behavior is in conflict with what is expected of him thus underscoring the man versus man conflict.

Works Cited

Sophocles. “Oedipus the King.” The Collection. Trans. Francis Storr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912.