Introduction
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