The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles: Oedipus the King - Book Report/Review Example

Running Head: OEDIPUS Oedipus of the of the Oedipus Oedipus Tyrannus, chronologically the first play of the Oedipus trilogy, which includes Oedipus at Colonus (about 407 B.C.) and Antigone (about 441 B.C.), was actually written after Antigone and is generally considered the best of Greek tragedies. Oedipus Rex illustrates the Greek concept that trying to circumvent prophet's predictions is futile. This play also addresses the concept of free will and determinism, despite the fact that Oedipus did not become the victim of fate. Although he kills the ex-king, but this action was totally based on his intentions to get the throne. He has been criticised for his act, but his determination and will to have access to the throne is highlighted solidly in this play. (Kirkwood, 1967) The play includes three main prophecies: the one made to Laius concerning his death by the hands of his son, a similar one directed to Oedipus, and one made by Tiresias foretelling Oedipus discovery of the murderers identity. Both recipients of these oracles attempt to avoid their destinies, but both wind up following the paths which the Fates have prescribed. Laius had received a prophecy which declares that doom would strike him at the hands of [his] son.... Jocasta, in an attempt to ease Oedipus worries, endeavours to defame prophesy in general by describing Laius apparent circumvention of the augury. When Laius son was not yet three days old, the king had the infants ankles fastened together, and then gave the boy to a henchman to be flung onto a barren, trackless mountain; Jocasta believes her son dead. Laius had believed that by killing his only son, he would be able to avoid the oracles prediction. (Scodel, 1984) However, the shepherd entrusted with the terrible task of infanticide pitied the baby and gave him to another shepherd, who, in turn, donated the child to the King and Queen of Corinth. This story was well known to Sophocles' Athenian audience. In the literary tradition, however, the fate of Oedipus after this marriage was handled variously. How much time passed before he discovered his crimes, how he reacted to the discovery, whether he remained in Thebes or went into exile, what his relations were to his children, all these questions were treated in at least some texts in a manner different from that of Sophocles. The reading "soon" has been disputed, but what cannot be disputed is that Homer goes on to tell how Oedipus continued to rule over Thebes after the death of Jocasta (or Epicaste, as she is known in the Odyssey). So we read of the tomb of Oedipus at Thebes (Segal, 1993). In his trilogy, of which the last play, against Thebes, survives, Aeschylus keeps the ruined king in his city where he continues the curse of the Labdacids by condemning his sons to mutual slaughter. It seems likely that more than one reason for the quarrel between his sons Polyneices and Eteocles may have been offered, suggests their fratricidal struggle resulted from the curse of their incestuous begetting, while alludes to a curse Oedipus pronounced on the sons because of their "cruel tendance of him." Turning from uncertainties and problems to Sophocles, we may say he had a good deal of freedom to develop the particulars of the Theban plays as he wished and that he made significant changes and additions. In the first place, in the Oedipus the King Oedipus' curse on himself and probable exile are hardly demanded by the tradition, nor need Sophocles have postponed the discovery so long as he did. Since in earlier versions Oedipus did not go into exile, it is clear that Creon, both in the OK and the OC, is, if not a new character, one whose importance as a dramatic figure is greatly increased by the motif of exile. In the Antigone, Creon's regency elevates him to the status of a worthy antagonist, but more important for this play is the question of burial, which, so far as we know, Sophocles added whole-cloth to the tradition. If we recall that for Homer Oedipus is buried at Thebes, we can hardly doubt that such a liberal tradition would have tolerated the burial of Polyneices as well (we cannot use the argument of the last scene of Aeschylus' Seven as evidence on this question because many scholars believe it was added to that play sometime after the first production of the Antigone). Apparently, Sophocles added both the prohibition of burial and Antigone's violation of the prohibition. Thus in a matrix of traditional myth the central crisis turns on the dramatist's innovation. (Bagg, 2004) A plague has swept Thebes. Apollo's oracle reveals that plague will continue until the murderer of King Laius is apprehended. Oedipus, the present king, orders a relentless search for the murderer of his predecessor. Teiresias, a blind seer, hesitates to tell Oedipus what he knows, that Oedipus' true parents are not Polybus and Merope. Oedipus soon realises that a man whom he killed in his youth was Laius. Going to Thebes after killing Laius, Oedipus had answered the riddle of the Sphinx, and upon doing so was declared king. He married Jocasta, the former king's widow. Jocasta had borne Laius one child. Because a seer predicted that Laius would be killed by his child, a shepherd was told to take Laius' offspring to an isolated mountain and leave it to die. But the shepherd disobeyed his orders and gave the child, Oedipus, to a messenger, who in turn gave him to Polybus. On learning this news, Jocasta hangs herself. Oedipus discovers her body, pulls the gold brooches from her dress, and puts his eyes out with them. Blind and bloodied, he appears before the Thebans to declare himself the murderer of their former king. He flees into exile at Colonus, a broken man. Aristotle considered Oedipus Tyrannus the supreme example of tragic drama and modelled his theory of tragedy on it. He mentions the play no less than eleven times in his Poetics (334-323b.c.e.). Sigmund Freud in the twentieth century used the story to name the rivalry of male children with their fathers for the affection of their mothers, and Jean Cocteau adapted the tale to the modern stage in The Infernal Machine (1934). Yet no matter what changes the Oedipus myth has undergone in two and a half millennia, the finest expression of it remains this tragedy by Sophocles. Brilliantly conceived and written, Oedipus Tyrannus is a drama of self-discovery. Sophocles achieves an amazing compression and force by limiting the dramatic action to the day on which Oedipus learns the true nature of his birth and destiny. The fact that the audience knows the dark secret that Oedipus has unwittingly slain his true father and married his mother, does nothing to destroy the suspense. Oedipus' search for the truth has all the tautness of a detective tale, and yet because audiences already know the truth they are aware of all the ironies in which Oedipus is enmeshed. That knowledge enables them to fear the final revelation at the same time that they pity the man whose past is gradually and relentlessly uncovered to him. The plot is thoroughly integrated with the characterisation of Oedipus, for it is he who impels the action forward in his concern for Thebes, his personal rashness, and his ignorance of his past. His flaws are a hot temper and impulsiveness, but without those traits his heroic course of self-discovery would never have occurred. Fate for Sophocles is not something essentially external to human beings but something at once inherent in them and transcendent. Oracles and prophets in this play may show the will of the gods and indicate future events, but it is the individual who gives substance to the prophecies. Moreover, there is an element of freedom granted to human beings, an ability to choose, where the compulsions of character and the compulsions of the gods are powerless. It is in the way individuals meet the necessities of their destiny that freedom lies. They can succumb to fate, pleading extenuating circumstances, or they can shoulder the full responsibility for what they do. In the first case they are merely pitiful, but in the second they are tragic and take on a greatness of soul that nothing can conquer. (Jones, 1991) A crucial point in the play is that Oedipus is entirely unaware that he has killed his father and wedded his mother. He himself is the cause of the plague on Thebes, and in vowing to find the murderer of Laius and exile him he unconsciously pronounces judgment on himself. Oedipus, the king and the hero who saved Thebes from the Sphinx, believes in his own innocence. He is angry and incredulous when the provoked Teiresias accuses him of the crime, so he naturally jumps to the conclusion that Teiresias and Creon are conspirators against him. As plausible as that explanation may be, Oedipus maintains it with irrational vehemence, not even bothering to investigate it before he decides to have Creon put to death. Every act of his is performed rashly: his hot-tempered killing of Laius, his investigation of the murder, his violent blinding of himself, and his insistence on being exiled. He is a man of great pride and passion who is intent on serving Thebes, but he does not have tragic stature until the evidence of his guilt begins to accumulate. (Woodard, 1966) Ironically, his past is revealed to him by people who wish him well and who want to reassure him. Each time a character tries to comfort him with information; the information serves to damn him more thoroughly. Jocasta, in proving how false oracles can be, first suggests to him that he unknowingly really did kill Laius, thus corroborating the oracles. The messenger from Corinth in reassuring Oedipus about his parentage brings his true parentage into question, but he says enough to convince Jocasta that Oedipus is her son. It is at this point, when he determines to complete the search for the truth, knowing that he killed Laius and knowing that the result of his investigation may be utterly damnable, that Oedipus' true heroism starts to emerge. His rashness at this point is no longer a liability but becomes part of his integrity. (Moddlemog, 1993) Having learned the full truth of his dark destiny, his last act as king is to blind himself over the dead body of Jocasta, his wife and mother. It is a terrible, agonising moment, even in description, but in the depths of his pain Oedipus is magnificent. He does not submit passively to his woe or plead that he committed his foul acts in ignorance, though he could be justified in doing so. He blinds himself in a rage of penitence, accepting total responsibility for what he did and determined to take the punishment of exile as well. As piteous as he appears in the final scene with Creon, there is more public spirit and more strength in his fierce grief and his resolution of exile than in any other tragic hero in the history of the theatre. Oedipus has unravelled his life to its utmost limits of agony and found there an unsurpassed grandeur of soul. (Britton, 1989) I strongly believe that Oedipus is a victim of fate. By trying to avoid the oracle that foretold his life he was at the same time fulfilling his fate. It was fate that led his father to Delphi to find out the destiny of his Oedipus. Also, it was fate, which made Laius and Jocasta to make the decision to kill their son. It was Oedipus's fate that the shepherd didn't kill him. Fate also made him leave Corinth, when he was trying to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother. Fate that had him meet Laius at a narrow path. (How did Laius leave the city, when the sphinx would let none enter or leave) Oedipus and Laius never would've fought if they didn't meet at the narrow pass. It was fate that Oedipus was able to solve the Sphinx riddle. (Murray, 1911) His rationalised and intuitive sense of his own innocence cannot deny the social and religious opprobrium. What is dramatised is more than a personal odyssey; it is as much the edge of cultural change, where irrevocable sin meets rational introspection and personal accountability. The fundamental mystery of his fate so carefully charted in the Oedipus the King will be, for some, resolved by the final heroisation, and Theseus' ready hospitality may seem to vouch for a socially acceptable purification. Yet he has not convinced himself. No confession of sin, no rationalisation of circumstance, any years in the desert, have washed away the sense of guilt and shame. Perhaps his terrible and vindictive curse on his sons confirms, at least psychologically, the necessity of his personal alienation. We may think of Lear. Unlike Lear, Oedipus never achieves peace, is never fully reconciled, and must die alone amid thunder and lightning, closer to the daemons of the earth than to humanity. (Berg, 1988) References Bagg, Robert. (2004) The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles: Oedipus the King: University of Glasgow Press. Glasgow. Berg, Stephen. (1988). Oedipus the King: Oxford University Press: Oxford. Britton, Ronald. (1989). The Oedipus Complex Today: Karnack Press: London. Jones, Anthony. (1991) Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation of Sophocles Plays: Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirkwood, Gordon MacDonald. (1967) A Study of Sophoclean Drama: Reprint. London: McGraw Hill Publishers Moddlemog, Debra. (1993). Oedipus' Myth in Twentieth Century: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Murray, Gilbert. (1911) Oedipus: The King: Oxford University Press: Oxford. Scodel, Ruth. (1984) Sophocles: Cambridge: Routledge. Segal, Charles. (1993) Oedipus Tyrannus: Tragic Heroism and the Limits of Knowledge: Glasgow University of Glasgow Press. Woodard, Thomas. (1966) Sophocles: A Collection of Critical Essays: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Read More