Sophocles - Oedipus the King

The protagonist of Sophocles' Oedipus the King, an Attic tragedy, is Oedipus, who was raised in Corinth after being exiled as a baby from his home Thebes. Oedipus leaves Corinth after learning of his impending fate. On the way, he unintentionally kills his father, King Laius, and finds the solution to the Sphinx's renowned riddle, all before marrying his mother, Queen Jocasta. The book essentially captures the social and cultural context, as well as the philosophies and ideologies of ancient Greece. Oedipus Tyrannus and Oedipus Rex are additional names for the work in Greek and French, respectively. (Sophocles). This essay aims to critically analyze interesting issues related to the viewpoints that different scholars have offered on the writing. The overlooked concepts of the junction, power, the motif of blindness, and human beings’ unwillingness to accept the truth are some of the issues the paper dwells on.

Junction

Scholars hardly handle the three-way crossroad concept. However, as brought out in Oedipus the King, it cannot to be overlooked. Jocasta reports to Oedipus that her former husband, King Laius, was murdered at a three-road convergence. From the time it is first mentioned, the reader quickly realizes that it will turn into a focal point in the events in the play. It is at the crossroad that Oedipus fulfills the prophecy of the oracles by murdering his father. Halliwell (187) quotes R.D. Dawe who, in underscoring the significance of the forking road in the text, gives it a sexual importance. He likens it to the image of the human trunk and the forking of the legs from the crotch (Halliwell 188). Halliwell underlines Dawe’s inability to point out whether it is appropriate to attribute Freud’s symbolism of the phallus and Oedipus complex, and in citing only one aspect that the imagery of forking roads is enough to signify a place where a severe verdict has to germinate. Halliwell (189) comes up with a different interpretation of the concept of the cross-road. He contends that while it is about the tough decision that one has to make, the choice is not exclusively sexual (Halliwell 189). Effectively, road junction is a place where one has to choose. I agree with Halliwell’s argument, and I am inclined to believe that a crossroad symbolizes the moment or situation when or where to make a critical choice that may be feasible is necessary.

As such, the cross-road is a symbol of the moments when decisions are consequential. By attacking and effectively killing the old man, Oedipus does not realize that he is making a wrong, fateful decision. After murdering his true father, Laius, and halfway through the fulfillment of the oracle’s prophecy, Oedipus has to choose the road to follow, either to his redemption or doom. He deludedly takes the way that leads him to Thebes, which is, ironically, the land he is supposed to be fleeing. His determination to choose a better future should well be seen to bear fruits at the cross-road. The junction represents an opportunity for him to correct things after he messes at the same intersection by committing patricide, and therefore, cannot avert the oracle (Halliwell 190). Paradoxically, however, his efforts squarely come to the knowledge of the gods and are thwarted. They blind him to take the route towards the fulfillment of the oracle. I must, however, partly contest Halliwell’s reading and the dismissal of Dawe’s argument. Bearing in mind that it is after the crossroad murder that Oedipus must proceed to Thebes and enter into sexual coitus with his mother Queen Jocasta, I find Dawe’s reading intriguing. The road junction in Oedipus the King is, therefore, not symbolic of choice for freedom, but fate and the power of gods-backed prophecy.

Blindness

Sophocles carefully uses the motif of blindness and sight to lay emphasis on an individual struggle with his ability and wish against the powerful will of the gods (Decreus 4). He begins the text in medias res and narrates to the reader on Oedipus’ childhood, how King Polybus adopted him and Queen Merope of Corinth, and proceeds to how Oedipus received news of the Oracle and decided to escape from his fate. I find Decreus’ analysis reasonable, because Oedipus is blind to the extent that he cannot steer his schemes correctly. They neatly run into the hands of the gods, and his destiny is fulfilled and the doom enacted. Oedipus is ushered in Thebes as a conqueror after he saves the plagued city from the metaphorical grip by the unforgiving Sphinx. The jubilant town confers kingship upon him and bequeaths him with the slain king’s wife. They think none can be like Oedipus, which is the epitome of wisdom.

It is the ironically blind but metaphorically visionary Prophet Teiresias who questions Oedipus’ wisdom (sight) and intones that so long as a wise man’s wisdom yields no profit to him, that wisdom is terrible (lines 346-349). In fact, in the last bit of the book, the Chorus summarizes the envy with which every man in Thebes looked at Oedipus. It says, “You that live in my / ancestral Thebes, behold this Oedipus, — / Him who knew the famous riddles and was a man most /masterful; / not a citizen who did not look with envy on his lot— …” (lines 1723-1728). Oedipus loses himself in the entanglement of his great desire to understand himself and his opposing desire to earth up the truth that the blind Prophet Teiresias ushers him to. As Critchley (27) puts it, the protagonist vulnerably exposes himself to strange yet familiar parentage. He has no understanding of who his parents are, despite living with Jocasta and even siring children by her. While this assertion seems summarily beneficial on the surface, Critchley seems not to realize that Oedipus is not driven to the throne in Thebes by vulnerability, but by ‘sheer luck’ (although it is known fate sets it to be so) after chagrining the Sphinx. He has to grope through the dreariness trying to understand himself metaphorically. The fact that he has to fumble in darkness into exile having gouged his eyes is mirrored by the inability to discover who he is. Seemingly, any attempts at seeking to understand oneself are ill-advised and self-destroying to any mortal.

Oedipus finally gauges his eyes to free his sight from the sins he had committed, namely killing his father and taking in and siring children with his mother. Significantly, the presence of the children worsens an already horrible situation, as he is not certain how to call them – his siblings or children. Jemison (21) observes that Oedipus’ blindness is a kind of self-punishment. The truth in Jemison’s argument is that while he possesses his eyes, he is metaphorically blind to the fact that Polybus and Merope are not his biological parents. Oedipus is, therefore, not aware of his origin (Baum 45). I find Baum’s proposition commensurate with the fact that Oedipus is equally blind to the fact that he is King Laius’ killer. In fact, Oedipus is so sightless that he severely shoots himself in the foot by cursing and proclaiming punishments from the gods against whoever killed the king. Once he gauges his eyes, he gives himself to grappling. Like Teiresias, losing the eyes that had so far misled him vision wise connotes that Oedipus acquires the prophetic sight. He can thus come to terms with his future.

Power

Power is an issue candidly brought out in the text. Sophocles carefully handles the control of subjugation and mental strength. Thebes, the more magnificent setting of the book, is an ancient Greek city-state. Others were Athens, Sparta, and Corinth. The Greeks are considered the founders of democracy. They valued the input of every member of society in politics and the general life. Voting in the Greek settlements was deemed to be essential. Notwithstanding, women and slaves were disadvantaged. Sophocles grapples with democracy in Greece at the mercy of Gods. The society was heavily patriarchal. Free women were not allowed to participate in specific activities. Pereira (2) contends that just like in other cities, men were unquestionably at the helm of the social ladder. They owned the property, held public office, and voted (Pereira 3). They were the undisputed custodians of power. Female roles were marital life and childbearing. Pereira (3) adds that the women who sought intellectual life were not welcomed for marriage. Pereira’s position is in line with in my view, because ideally, women roles were tied to household and making their husbands comfortable. They were considered second-class citizens, and their options were restricted (Pereira 4).

Jocasta, the play’s female antagonist, can be seen as Oedipus’ deliberately created counterpart. Having lost her husband by the sword of her son-turned spouse, she cannot resist when given a second chance. She has to resign to ‘fate’ by being modest. She cannot make any independent decision. When prophecy that her only son will kill the father and marry her comes, Jocasta leaves the baby to die without even questioning or objecting to avoid the prophecy (Pereira 7). I agree with Pereira's assertion because instinctively, a woman will easily do anything to save her child. In fact, finding out about the story from the Herdsman, Oedipus wonders in a question, “She was so hard- its mother?”(Line 1349). Jocasta chooses to protect the husband regardless of anything else. Although not a wish of hers, her relenting, easily-resigned spirit makes the reader wonder. As Pereira (8) notes, she is deployed by Sophocles to show how frail and vulnerable women are. Jocasta’s actions characterize her as the stereotypical female. She ends up taking her own life, thereby, bringing to the show the frailty of women. When news arrived that Polybus is dead, Jocasta is quick to conclude that the oracles of Apollo and the gods are liars. Immediately after she learns of the irreversibly glaring reality that he whom she calls husband and begets children with is a product of her womb, she prays to the same gods. Therefore, a clear demonstration of her confusion is seen. Through Jocasta, the playwright depicts women as not only fragile, but also very compliant with the requirements of the hegemonic men. By so doing, Sophocles indicates that females are an object of self-assertion.

Tackling tragedy in Tragedy’s Philosophy, Critchley (31) indicates that adversity has a way of challenging people with the things they have no knowledge of. He sees it as a super force that the individuals have little or no comprehension of what keeps hitting violently, sometimes even bringing one to a halt. Oedipus sees tragedy as the trap from the past put in a character’s way of constant fumbling forward (Critchley 35). I consider the above argument is congenial. Looking at Oedipus’ actions, it is complicated to give a verdict on his flaws. His perceived ‘blindness’ despite his actual eyes may, therefore, come to the reader as a clarion warning that while being human, error and disaster can confront mortal. Human beings have no power over the fate that is destined by the gods. A reader will readily identify with Oedipus. As the Chorus concludes, no individual can be pleased until he takes his happiness to the grave in peace (Sophocles). Humility is, therefore, a virtue in life.

The other dimension of power that the playwright handles is the power of the mind. Oedipus was banished from Thebes while being an infant. He coincidentally survives without the knowledge of Laius and Jocasta. The Herdsman fails to execute the orders of the King – to throw the infant in the mountains, to have it devoured by the animals of the wild, or just have it killed (Sophocles). By no means was giving the baby away in safe hands an option. While in Corinth, where Oedipus considers home, he learns of his fate and tries to avert it. Unknown to him, by fleeing the city, he initiates the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Although Oedipus makes the irreversible errors by killing his father and marrying his mother, the readers are highly likely to admire the way he handles the shameful situation at the closure of the book. Realizing his hubris, he resolutely suffers the consequence of his curses. As such, the protagonist proves his straightforwardness. In fact, he inflicts pain upon himself after Creon refuses to mete punishment on him (Sophocles). Having realized how dark his sins are, for the respect of his body, eyes, and gods, Oedipus pierces his eyes to lock himself from the abomination of ages. Before he leaves Thebes for his exile, he gnashes his teeth in a painful repentance.

Unwillingness to Accept the Truth

Oedipus’ and Jocasta’s unwillingness to accept the truth is stunning. After receiving the news of Polybus’ death, ironically, both of them are delighted (Sophocles). The former firmly holds hope in the detail that Polybus has died in his absence and without him rising against the deceased king. Oedipus, therefore, enacts his happiness, because the oracles’ prophecy that had driven him out of Corinth has failed miserably. He even mocks the gods by saying that the oracles are dead, gone, and useless. Jocasta is happy, because her husband can now have the peace to attend to her. They, however, fear that not everything is safe yet, as Merope still lives. The two ironically hide behind an air of innocence and are unwilling to come out and face their true nakedness. They are desperate not to see the bitter truth, but they soon realize that the truth is not just going to stay back. Jocasta dreads telling Oedipus of the prophecy of the oracle of Apollo that her son would kill his father. She already knows that he carries the same fate. On the other hand, Oedipus cannot tell her that he killed a man in circumstances similar to those said of King Laius. Much as the truth is so glaring, the two resolutely hide their heads in the sand and pretend not to see anything.

When the Messenger finally confirms Oedipus’ and Jocasta’s worst terrors beyond any doubt, the fronds that cover their nakedness have grown too thin to hide them any longer. By this time, the woman has slipped away to escape the crude reality that has befallen her house (Sophocles). This moment is very exciting, because the reader has the chance to question Oedipus’ truth-seeking. Despite Jocasta’s warnings, he insists on looking for what would kill him.

Oedipus’ swollen feet are symbolic. He gains his name after King Laius and Queen Jocasta ordered to have them pinioned together and for the infant to be thrown away (Sophocles). They had to make sure that even as a baby, he did not run away from the wild. The painful tying of Oedipus’ feet may easily give the impression of an imprisoned soul consigned to death. It is a symbol of the confinement and constraints of his movement by the prophecy of Apollo. As one can learn from the text, he was not only freed by the Corinthian Messenger by having the strings that pinioned his feet together removed, but also taken to the childless royal couple of Corinth to only haunt Laius and Jocasta back.

The trapping of the feet leaves visible marks on them for the rest of Oedipus’ life. These injuries are symbolic of how fate has marked and presented him as an individual different from the rest. Baum (46) interprets this symbolism of the swollen feet as the wearisome ‘stumps’ that are carrying his fleeing body from safe Corinth to the sinister junction and ultimately to horrendous Thebes. The concept of feet signifies freedom, mobility, support, and origin. Oedipus’ feet, as Baum (47) agreeably puts it, evoke infantile pain, a scar of parentage and bounds in him. Further in the reading, Baum posits that the protagonist solved the Sphinx riddle by pointing to man – he moves on four as a baby, on two as a grown upright man, and finally, on three as an old weak individual (51). I find Baum’s affirmation agreeable. The interesting fact in such position is that as a child, Oedipus himself had his crawling sabotaged by the cords on his ankles (53). He briefly enjoyed walking on two as a man. I consider that it signifies the period of great independence when Oedipus was King of Thebes. Even in this brief state, he was floating in a sin, living with his mother as his wife. Interestingly, his final stage did not require him to have a walking stick as was suggestive of the riddle’s answer. He needed prophetic eyes to flee into the exile.

Conclusion

In summary, I deem Oedipus the King is an insightful, evergreen, and scintillating tragedy. It opens the reader to the social and emotional issues that s/he can quickly identify with easily. A reading of the text opens up the individual’s introspection into the weak state of humanity placed against powerful supernatural forces beyond human comprehension. The response one receives may not be far from empathetically identifying with Oedipus. The text continues to attract critical examination of the various issues contained in it as handled by Sophocles.

Works Cited

Baum, Rob. “Oedipus’ Body and the Riddle of the Sphinx.” Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, vol. 21, no. 1, 2006, pp. 45-56.

Critchley, Simon. “Tragedy’s Philosophy.” In Tony Fisher and Eve Katsouraki, eds., Performing Antagonism (pp. 25-42). Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2017.

Decreus, Freddy. “Some Aspects of Methodological Blindness in Interpreting Sophocles’ Oedipus.” Journal Phasis, vol. 7, no. 14, 2004, pp. 1-6.

Halliwell, Stephen. “Where Three Roads Meet: A Neglected Detail in the Oedipus Tyrannus.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 106, 1986, pp. 187-190.

Jemison, Kaley. Punishment and Prophecy: Blindness in Oedipus Rex, King Lear, and Jane Eyre. Bachelor’s Thesis, Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University, 2016.

Pereira, Isabel C. Athenian Women through the Eyes of Sophocles (But not Oedipus). Young Historians Conference, 2017,

Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Translated by and David Grene, University Of Chicago Press, 2010.