The Greek Tragedy Oedipus by Sophocles - Essay Example

Ancient Greece Q 2 Might Oedipus be more than one man? This question asks you to consider the plays central inconsistency as potentially one of its themes. The Thebans have heard that Laius was killed by more than one man; in fact, Oedipus alone committed the murder. Think of Oedipus various roles in the play - king/brother/father/son - and consider whether the conflict of the play might be a conflict between the one and the many. In the Greed tragedy Oedipus, written by Sophocles, the main protagonist King Oedipus is beset by a plagued Thebes, a condition which can only be reversed by the prosecution of an unknown criminal who took the life of its previous king. The unraveling of the unknown criminal’s identity forms the crux of the story. The plot is muddled by conflicting accounts and double images. In the end, Oedipus finds out the sad truth about himself: that he has killed his own father; that he is both husband and son to Jocasta, and; that he has sired not only his sons and daughters but also his brothers and sisters. The unraveling of the true identity of Oedipus, an identity that turns out to be multiple, viz. father, son, husband, and brother, is a conflict of “the one and the many” that characterizes this Sophocles’ tragedy. The “one and the many” conflict is initially established when the death of King Laius, the first husband of Queen Jocasta and the previous king of Thebes, is introduced into the play. The discovery of Laius’ murder becomes essential to lift the plague that beset the city of Thebes. The seeds of suspicion, on both the part of the reader and Oedipus, begin to grow at the entrance of the blind prophet Tiresias whom Oedipus badgers to reveal the identity of the murderer. Tiresias’ hesitation to reveal the murderer’s identity leads the reader to think that something is afoot. This suspicion is given reality when the blind prophet is finally forced to reveal that Oedipus is the curse who caused Thebes’ plague because he is the murderer of the king. This is compounded by Tiresias’ additional allegation, told in riddles, that the murderer of Laius was his own son. Moreover, the same murderer has married his own mother and sired his own brothers and sisters. At this stage, however, the suspicion against Oedipus does not carry much weight because the play begins in the present time and the reader has not yet been apprised of the history of Oedipus and his family. Oedipus himself was furious at the accusations against him and firmly suspects them to be a plot against him. The next sequence of events may really be the turning point in Oedipus mind as Jocasta, the queen, recounts to him how Laius was murdered, as recounted to her earlier by a herdsman who survived the attack. Jocasta’s account of how Laius and his group was attacked by a group of marauders in a crossroad just outside of Thebes strikes a discordant note in Oedipus’ mind because he had underwent a similar experience just before he entered Thebes. He killed a group of people coming out from city because they almost overran him. It was an act of self-defense for him. The seed of suspicions begins to animate anew by this tale, yet, the presence of contradictory details of how King Laius was murdered nips that suspicion in the bud. The fact, for example, that the herdsman (as told to Jocasta) claimed a group of marauders made the attack and killed Laius and his group while Oedipus claims that he was alone when he killed a group outside Thebes is one conflicting detail. The account that the road was described by the herdsman as a three-road junction but in Oedipus experience was a crossroad is another. At this stage, Oedipus’ role, to the reader and even to Oedipus, in all this is not yet clear. The suspicion, by both Oedipus and the reader that Oedipus might figure in all this is largely founded by the similarity of the prophecy that was told to Laius and Jocasta and that told to Oedipus. In the first case, it was prophesied that Laius will be killed by his own son and Jocasta married by the same son while Oedipus for his part, had been told by an oracle that he will kill his own father and marry his own mother. In both cases, the parties attempted to escape from that fate: for Laius and Jocasta by having their son thrown into the mountain, and; for Oedipus, by escaping from Corinth and his father Polybus and his wife. At this point, Oedipus only firmly suspects that he was the man who killed Laius but does not yet suspect the rest of the truth. In the conflict between knowing the real identity of the murderer and finally discovering his role in it, Oedipus’ curiosity and pride got the better of him. He next sends for the shepherd who survived the attack against Laius. Another shepherd, however, enters the play to tell him that his father in Corinth died. Oedipus is relieved despite of himself, knowing that it was not him who killed his father. This was short-lived however as the same shepherd told him that the King of Corinth was not his real father as he himself recovered Oedipus as a baby from a mountain near Thebes after another shepherd freed his ankles from being pinned together. Oedipus summons the shepherd to the horror of Jocasta, who is beginning to sense something horrible at this point. At this stage, the reader can understand Jocasta’s horror and foreboding and starts to sense the tragedy that is about to befell the stubborn Oedipus. At this point, the reader is starting to get some certainty of Oedipus’ real identity and his multifarious roles in this tragedy. Not surprisingly, the entrance of the second shepherd, who also happened to be the same shepherd who survived the attack against Laius’ group, clinched the story for Oedipus and the readers. As expected, he reveals that the baby was Laius and Jocasta’s son whom they had the shepherd thrown and left for good in the mountain, its feet bound together because it was prophesied to kill the king and marry its mother. He, however, took pity on the baby, set its feet free and gave it to the other shepherd who then brought it to Corinth and gave it to King Polybus and his wife who were childless. At the end of the story, the conflict of “the one and many” is finally resolved by the character of Oedipus himself. He is the common identity that is shared by the many other roles in the play: the father, the son, the husband, and the brother. The contention that the person who killed Laius may not be actually Oedipus and the group that Oedipus killed may not be actually that of Laius’ group is not likely. Despite the inconsistencies of the accounts, all other elements of the play point to an Oedipal tragedy which centers on Oedipus as a tragic hero, both as a victim of fate and pride. The conflicting accounts relative to the death of Laius is merely a Greek tragedy device to emphasize the “one and many” conflict. The Greek tragedy Oedipus by Sophocles has always been known for its free will and fate conflict in which its primary protagonist’s tragic ending has both been debated as a consequence of fate or as a consequence of free will. The play, however, reveals that another conflict-generating device, the “one and many” is at work in the play. Duality in meaning and implications, images and roles are all over the play, the most evident of which is the manner in which Laius was killed. The conflicting accounts in how Laius was killed could be easily made a subject of debate and some may want to say that Laius was not killed by Oedipus but by another man. To accept this contention will take out the sense of the tragedy of the story. Rather, this conflicting accounts were used deliberately to point to the fact that the “one and many” conflict is an underpinning device being used in the play. Works Cited Sophocles & Fagles, Robert & Macgregor, Bernard & Knox, Walter. The Three Theban Plays. Penguin Classics, 1984. Read More