Oedipus Rex

1. Introduction to drama
2. The Contributions of Greek Theatre to Drama
3. Sophocles; 496-406 B.C
4. The Greek Theatre : Evolution and Influence
5. Oedipus: The Greek Period
6. Oedipus Myth
7. Oedipus Rex : Summary
8. Oedipus Rex : Major Themes
9. Oedipus Rex : Critical Concepts
10. Oedipus Rex as an Aristotelian Tragedy
11. Oedipus : Aristotle’s Tragic Hero
12. Oedipus Rex: Hamartia
13. Oedipus Rex: Catharsis
14. Oedipus Rex: Tragic Irony
15. Oedipus Rex: Character is Destiny
16. Oedipus Rex: Role of Chorus
17. Oedipus Rex : Fate
18. Oedipus Rex : Plot Construction
19. Oedipus Rex : Relationship b/w man and the gods
20. Oedipus Rex : Role of Hubris in the Play
21. Oedipus Rex : Moral Lesson in the Play
22. Blindness in Oedipus Rex
23. Oedipus the King : Reason and Passion
24. The Punishment of Oedipus the King

Introduction to drama

Drama is a literary form involving parts written for actors to perform; it is a Greek word which means action. The origin of Western theatre is supposed to be found in Ancient Greece. Drama probably developed in Ancient Greece from the festivals, honouring Dionysus, the Greek god of fertility and wine. In the Middle Ages, drama in Europe dealt with religious characterizations. The plays were mainly Biblical, thus had substantial relevance to Christian elements. Although the Christian church did much to suppress the performance of plays, it is actually in the church that medieval drama began. Mystery plays, the most famous of which is The Second Shepherd's Play, depicted Biblical episodes from the Creation to Judgment Day. Another important type that developed from church liturgy was the miracle play, based on the lives of saints rather than on Bible. The miracle play reached its peak in France and the mystery play in England. However, both types gradually became secularized. The Second Shepherds' Play, despite its religious seriousness, is most notable for its elements of realism and farce, while the miracle plays in France often emphasize comedy and adventure. A third type of religious drama is the morality play. The morality plays, which were mainly religious allegories, appeared early in the 15th century, the most famous being Everyman. 

Drama has always been a target of the government and society. The reason why drama was criticized in Middle Ages was probably because actors were considered to be persons who were taking on other people's personalities, and were therefore thought either to be insane or possibly possessed by evil spirits. A second reason why drama was so often criticized might have been because theatre was considered immoral, blasphemous or subversive - we must note that theatrical performances were sometimes used as criticism of the government, able to awaken people. A third reason might have been religious since many of the medieval dramas were based on Christian church. Many of the plays were Biblical and were applicable to the Church. 

Drama in England reached its peak during Queen Elizabeth's reign. Elizabethan drama ". . . has been called a great national utterance because in it spoke the spirit of England, despite all its imitations and borrowings from alien sources" and ". . . there has never been an age which so immediately responded to an artistic appeal" (Schelling xiii). We should notice the fact that ". . . [n]o plays closely resembling those of the great Elizabethans appeared before the last quarter of the sixteenth century, before the tragedies of Kyd and Marlowe and the comedies of Lyly and Greene" The public theatres were being built in 1576; and "the first powerful plays appeared about 1587" (Wells 4). 

Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. In 1642 The English Civil War broke out between the Parliamentarians (Puritans) and the Royalists in England and theatres were closed to prevent public disorder. In 1644 The Globe Theatre was demolished by the Puritans. From 1642 onward for eighteen years, the theatres of England remained closed. They probably illegally performed plays but those performances were given in secrecy. Neither actors nor spectators were safe during those days of the Puritan rule. The dramatists were not allowed to be inspired during this time. The Puritans led by Oliver Cromwell opposed theatrical performances. "Puritanism declared [theatre] an ungodly and frivolous thing and decreed that it should be no more" (Schelling 274). In 1649, the English Civil War resulted in the execution of King CharlesI and the establishment of a commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. Finally in 1660 the Stuart dynasty was restored to the throne of England and the theatres were reopened. 

Charles's death marked the beginning of the eleven-year Interregnum in which Oliver Cromwell ruled as Lord Protector. After Cromwell's death, England turned to Charles's son and acknowledged him as Charles II. The exhumed heads of Cromwell, his son-in law, and the High Court's President were placed on public display atop Westminster Hall. The anniversary of Charles's execution became a date of commemoration on the liturgical calendar of the Anglican Church. (Sirico 51) 

Charles II, the king, had been in France and he naturally brought with him some French fashions. That French influence was felt particularly in the theatre since "Charles returned from his exile with a very definite love of the drama and of literature in general (Nicoll 8). The drama of the Restoration, Thorndike states, ". . . was separated from the earlier periods by sixteen years of closed theatres and a virtual cessation of all dramatic composition;" ". . . the Restoration brought not only a revival but also a revolution - new fashions, new models, new foreign influence, a new age, and a changed society" (Thorndike 243). 

Although the Puritans had lost their authority in political power, they had not lost courage in abusing the stage. The most violent attack was made by Jeremy Collier, a clergyman, in 1698, in a pamphlet called A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage, Collier's attack on drama has three points: the so-called obscenity of the plays, the frequent references to the Bible and biblical characters, and the criticism, "slander and abuse flung from the stage upon the clergy". He criticized Shakespeare's Desdemona showing her love and chastity; he was opposed to any reference to anything connected to the Church or religion; and he was against any portrayal of the clergy. Collier even accused playwrights of glorifying all the sins, passions which they portrayed in their characters. 

The Puritan Revolution was fought not only against the King, but also against theatre; but the theatre was never so finally and roundly defeated as the King. The skirmishes and battles were equally protracted and bitter, but the growth of the Elizabethan--Jacobean drama was so hardy and so dear to so many Englishmen that it never completely died. Ordinance after ordinance was passed against stage plays, but there was hardly a year in London from 1842 to 1660 when plays were not being given. The records are full of recurrent raids by the soldiers of Parliament, the seizure of players and their goods, the ransacking of playhouses and their forcible demolition, and the jailing of theatre people. But these very records show that the Puritans had not succeeded in destroying theatrical activity. (Roberts 228) 

With the accession of Queen Anne in 1702, drama was again a target of criticism since Queen Anne "was completely disinterested in the arts, literature, and theatre" (Roberts 250). The beginning of the reign of Queen Anne in 1702 ". . . marked the final withdrawal of court interest in drama" Thus English theatre was no longer for the court but "the property of citizens (Roberts 252). The Age of Reason valued science, logic, and rationality; denied emotionalism and wanted an ordered society. In the area of literature, authors declared their independence of patrons, and writing became a form of earning one's living. Prices for theatres were higher than today, and considerably higher than under Elizabeth I. Since drama became a commercial field, there had been innovations on the theatre buildings as well as stage props and costumes of the actors. 

In the political turmoil of the nineteenth century in Europe, drama was sometimes abused. The ruling classes tended to use theatre as a propaganda instrument during the French Revolution (Roberts 350). In the twentieth century, on the other hand, drama consisted of realist settings true to life. The growing popularity of the motion picture affected drama. Soon radio and television increased in popularity, which foreshadowed the possible end of live theatre; yet it did not end. 

Despite all the attacks and difficulties, theatre has always been alive. It has survived since the fifth century B.C. In its long history, theatre has always had rivals. However it has never been defeated; on the contrary, it has accomplished glorification. Theatre is not only an important part of a particular society that is depicted in plays; it is also the most human form of art that has ever existed. 

The Contributions of Greek Theatre to Drama 

The ancient Greeks are famous for their many contributions to the world. Among these contributions is one that has changed culture and the arts permanently. This contribution is theatre. 

Greek theatre is considered the beginning of theatre as we know it. Theatre began in Athens, circa 600 BC, developing out of rituals at the Dionysia. The Dionysia was a festival for followers of the cult of Dionysus, god of wine and festivities. Greek theatre really began to take shape, however, around 400 BC. The first actor was named Thespis, and it is from his name that the word "thespian" originated. Thespis was born in Attica, in 534 BC. He began performing speeches from epic poems and stories of the day, speaking from that character's point of view. His shows were also interactive, as he often spoke with the audience. Since no theater really existed at the time, he traveled from place to place with a handcart. He used masks, makeup, and costumes to make his monologues more realistic. 

Over time, theatre was changed and developed by forward-thinking playwrights. One such playwright, Aeschylus, introduced the concept of using a second character, so that dialogue and the interaction of the characters could be used as a plot device. Years later, another playwright, Sophocles, added another actor, steadily decreasing the importance of the chorus while increasing character interactions. Around the same time, Euripides gradually made theatre more natural and realistic, rather than the rigid, structured form of acting. 

The theater itself was outdoors and known as an Amphitheater. It was semi-circular in shape, and terraced, allowing for each visitor to have perfect view. These seats were called the theatron, literally meaning the viewing area. On average, the Amphitheater was able to fit 1,500 viewers and was designed to have near perfect acoustics. There was usually a theater in each town, as theaters were also used for religious rituals and processions as well as entertainment. In the center was a circular platform called the orchestra. On the orchestra was an altar where sacrifices to Dionysus were performed. The stage itself was called the Proscenio. It was situated behind the orchestra, and was constructed much like stages today, although most of the acting took place in the orchestra. The back of this stage had painted backgrounds to create the settings for each scene. 

These buildings were most likely brightly painted, although the paint would have faded over time [Phillips]. Behind the stage, machines used for the performances were kept. These machines were advanced technology for their day, and included the Aeorema, the Ekeclema, and the Periactoi. 

The Aeorema was one of the more commonly used. It was a large crane used to pull actors through the air. This was most often employed to create the illusion of gods, which led to the expression, "Deus ex Machina". The Ekeclema was a wheeled platform. This sometimes ferried dead bodies across the stage, as murders and suicides were not shown on stage. This tradition stemmed from the superstition that to kill a person on stage would be foretelling of their actual death. The Periactoi consisted of two pillars, one on each side of the stage, which could turn to change the background setting without need of stagehands [Ancient]. All of these were constructed of simple machines, such as pulleys, levers, and wheels, made from wood, rope, and metal. They were put to use in many famous plays. 

The plays themselves were very similar to the modern musical. They had sing and dancing, sometimes accompanied by music. The cast was comprised of many actors, called "hypocrites", both professional and amateur. The main character, or protagonist, was usually played by a professional and often highly-famed actor specifically chosen by the playwright, although some playwrights would portray this character themselves. Like most present musicals, there was also a chorus. The chorus provided the mood of the play by singing and dancing. Generally the lead chorus member was a professional dancer and singer, and the rest of the chorus was made up of amateurs. All the actors were men, as women were forbidden to appear on stage. The actors wore masks when portraying a woman or animal. These masks were built from wood, cloth, and clay, sometimes covered in animal or even human hair. The holes for the eyes were very small, but the opening for the mouth was large to allow the actor's voice to resonate more easily . The actors were sometimes required to wear wooden platform shoes, or kothomoi, in order to appear taller. Actors would also use optical illusions to seem taller or shorter. Vertical stripes were worn to appear taller and horizontal stripes to appear shorter. 

Greek plays generally fell into one of two categories: comedy or tragedy. Other than in satirical plays, these categories would never mix. The modern symbol of drama, a smiling comedic mask and a weeping tragic mask, stems from these categories. These different types of plays varied greatly, especially in their topic.

Comedy plays included base, vulgar humor. Comedy plays were humorous representations of peasant life and values. They encouraged tradition and criticized what they considered immorality. They were generally far more popular with the lower class, as they joked about topics that the upper class would have been unable to relate to. They were considered by the Greeks to be the easiest to write and perform. Costumes for comedic plays usually depended on the characters of the play. As many of these plays were about animals, so were the costumes. The actors' masks were exaggerated and grotesque, suggesting that the audience should not take them too seriously. The most notable comedic playwright was Aristophanes, and his major plays include The Frogs and Lysistrata. 

Tragedy plays were not sad or depressing, but they were about more serious subjects than the comedic plays. Instead of a chaotic, meandering plot, tragic plays had a set rhythm and pattern to them. They also excluded vulgarity, tending not to offend their viewers. Tragedy plays explored the depth of human emotion and character. They were famous for their ability to cause the audience to relate to each character in a more empathetic way. They were more sophisticated and suited to the upper class than their humorous counterpart. Costumes were generally everyday clothing, if somewhat nicer and more elaborate. Notable playwrights of the genre included Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound, Oedipus the King, and Medea are prime examples of tragic plays. 

Satirical plays emerged as a compromise to the two categories. These plays dealt with the same topics and ideas of a tragic play, but presented them in a comical manner. The actors mocked the clichés and styles of a tragedy, and were often exaggerated in their mannerisms. These were popular with both the upper and lower classes, and were known for being very witty, a trait the Greeks admired greatly. They were generally as amusing as comedic plays, but not as rude and offensive. Cyclops, written by the poet Euripides, and The Scouts by Sophocles are the only known existing satire plays [Ancient]. Historians know of their existence in ancient Greece from other archaeological sources. Satire plays were considered the most difficult, for both the actors and playwrights. In competitions, a playwright would often submit a satire play to prove his worth, as well as their usual comic or tragic plays. They were also mush shorter than the other plays, usually only half as long as a tragedy. 

Greek plays were inextricably tied to the gods. Before each play, a sacrifice would be made to Dionysus, to whom theatre really owes its beginning. Apollo was also important. As the god of music and poetry, Apollo was especially honored by actors and playwrights. Equally important to the theatre were the Muses. The muses were the 9 goddesses of the arts. Terpsichore, Euterpe, Calliope, Thalia, and Melpomene were the most significant to the theatre. Terpsichore and Euterpe personified dance and music respectively, both key elements of Greek theatre. Calliope embodied epic poetry, which was usually the basis of most plays. Thalia and Melpomene represented the two categories of theatre, comedy and tragedy. 

The Greeks have given much to our modern world through theatre. Every actor, of course, owes his or her livelihood to the Greeks' innovative thinking. Many Greek plays still exist today, preserving the culture and traditions of their time. The basics of many modern machines come from the Aeorema, the Ekeclema, and the Periactoi, all machines created specifically for theatre productions. The Greeks have also provided the fundamentals of theatre. We still use stages, costumes, and make-up in acting today. We still have comedy, tragedy, and satire, although often combined, in present movies, television shows, and dramatic performances. Many theaters are modeled after Greek amphitheaters, in order to achieve their nearly flawless acoustics. 

No doubt exists, however, that Greek theatre has affected our society in deeper ways as well. Since the beginning of history, stories have been used to pass on values, such as integrity, bravery, and respect. Theatre continues today to bring life to these stories, forever imprinting itself into the minds and consciences of its audience. Each person can empathize with and relate to the characters, gaining insight to their own plights and personalities. Theatre also probes deep inside the heart of humanity, for the actors as well as the audience, as if through becoming another person, you learn more about yourself. Without theatre, culture as we know it could not exist. It has been changed permanently through theatre. A simple tradition of the Greeks has become a vital part of our identity as human beings. 

Sophocles; 496-406 B.C 

Sophocles, the son of a wealthy arms manufacturer, was born probably in 496 B.C.E. in the deme Colonus near Athens. Of all the ancient playwrights, he scored the most wins in dramatic competitions, and won the most important dramatic festival, the City Dionysia, an unmatched 18 times. He received an education in music, athletics, and dancing, and as a boy of fifteen was chosen to lead the paean (hymn of praise) sung by the chorus of boys after the victory of Salamis. Like most of the ancient playwrights, he acted in the plays he wrote. He showed his musical skill in public, when he played the blind singer Thamyris in his drama of the same name, and played the cithara with such success that he was painted as Thamyris with the cithara in the famous Stoa Poecile ("painted colonnade"), a prominent gathering place in ancient Athens. Sophocles was also involved in Athenian political and military affairs. Owing to his practical gifts with language he was involved in negotiations with the allies of Chios and Samos. During the Peloponnesian War he was one of the generals. In 435 B.C., fulfilling the office of Hellenotamias, he was at the head of the management of the treasure of the allies, which was kept on the Acropolis; and in 413 B.C., when the question arose of giving to the state an oligarchical constitution, he was on the commission of preliminary investigation. He also filled a priestly office. 

The charm and the refinement of his character seem to have won him many friends. Among them was the historian Herodotus. He was also deemed by antiquity as a man especially beloved by the gods, particularly by Asclepius, god of medicine, whose priest he probably was, and who was said to have granted him health and vigor of mind to extreme old age. By the Athenian Nicostrate he had a son, Iophon, who won some repute as a tragic poet, and by Theoris of Sicyon another son, Ariston, father of another Sophocles who gained fame for himself by writing tragedies of his own, and afterwards by the production of his grandfather's dramas. There was a legend that a quarrel arose between Sophocles and his son Iophon, on account of his preference for this grandson, and that, when summoned by Iophon before the court as weak in mind and unable to manage his affairs, he obtained his own absolute acquittal by reading the chorus on his native place in the Oedipus Coloneus. The tales of his death, in 405 B.C., are also mythical. According to one account, he was choked by a grape. According to others, he died either when publicly reciting the Antigone, or from excessive joy at some dramatic victory. The only fact unanimously attested by his contemporaries is that his death was as dignified as his life. We are also told that the god Dionysus, by repeated apparitions in dreams, prompted the general of the Spartans, who were then attacking Athens, to grant a truce in order to bury the poet in the family grave outside the city. On his tomb stood a Siren as a symbol of the charm of poetry. After his death the Athenians worshipped him as a hero and offered an annual sacrifice in his memory. In later times, on the proposal of the orator Lycurgus, a bronze statue was erected to him, together with Aeschylus and Euripides, in the theatre, and an authorized and standard copy of his dramas was made to preserve them. 

Even in his lifetime, and indeed through the whole of antiquity, he was held to be the most perfect of tragedians; one of the ancient writers calls him the "pupil of Homer". If Aeschylus is the creator of Greek tragedy, it was Sophocles who brought it to perfection. He extended the dramatic action (1) by the introduction of a third actor, so that three people could be on stage in addition to the chorus, while in his last pieces he even added a fourth; and (2) by a due subordination of the chorus, to which, however, he gave a more artistic development, while he increased its numbers from twelve to fifteen persons. These moves made dialogue all the more important. He also perfected the costumes and decoration. But Sophocles' great mastery of his art appears, above all, in the clearness with which he portrays his characters, which are developed with a scrupulous attention to details, and in which he is not satisfied, like Aeschylus, with mere outlines, nor, as Euripides often did, with copies from common life. His heroes, too, are ideal figures, like those of Aeschylus. While they lack the superhuman loftiness of Aeschylus' creations, they have a certain ideal truth of their own. In contrast to Euripides, Sophocles, like Aeschylus, is profoundly religious, and the attitude which he adopts towards popular religion is marked by an instinctive reverence. The grace peculiar to Sophocles' nature makes itself felt in his language, the charm of which was universally praised by the ancients. With his noble simplicity he takes in this respect also a middle place between the weightiness and boldness of the language of Aeschylus, and the smoothness and rhetorical embellishment which distinguish that of Euripides. 

Sophocles was a very prolific poet. The number of his plays is given as between 123 and 130, of which above 100 are known to us by their titles and by fragments. Only seven have been preserved complete: The Trachinice (so named from the chorus, and its treating of the death of Heracles), the Ajax, the Philoctetes, the Electra, the Oedipus Tyrannus, the Oedipus at Colonus, and the Antigone. The last-mentioned play was produced in the spring of 440 B.C.; the Philoctetes in 410 B.C.; the Oedipus at Colonus was not put on the stage until 401 B.C., after his death, by his grandson Sophocles. Besides tragedies, Sophocles composed paeans, elegies, epigrams, and a work in prose on the chorus. 

The Greek Theatre : Evolution and Influence 

Without a doubt, the Greek theatre remains one of the most recognized and distinctive buildings in the world. While we associate many features of modern theatres with their Greek counterparts, the ancient theatre was a very different animal. The size, shape, and functions of the various pieces, though analogous to the modern theatre, were quite different in ancient times. The Greek theatre evolved to fit the changing specifications of tragedy, eventually into the form that survives at hundreds of sites around the Mediterranean. At the same time, the overarching simplicity of the Greek theatre, despite the many changes, demanded certain features of the tragedies. As tragedy evolved from choral songs to works such as Oedipus the King, a unique, reciprocal relationship developed with the theatre. 

The earliest Greek theatres recall tragedy's origins in choral songs sung to local heroes and divinities. Choral songs were an early Greek performative art, in which a large group of people, the chorus (in Greek, literally = "dance"), would dance and sing raucous songs in honour of a god. Choral performances in honour of the god Dionysus evolved into what we know as tragedy, an enduring art form that the Greeks invented in the 6th c. B.C.E. These performances took place in a large, circular orchestra, or dancing area, in which the chorus performed. The orchestra was simply a flattened patch of earth, unpaved, and delimited by a rim of large stones. At the centre of the orchestra, stood an altar to Dionysus, the patron god of tragedy. The chorus did not use the altar per se during performance; instead, the altar acted as a focal point around which the chorus danced and sang. A simple, undecorated wooden tent, or skene, stood behind the orchestra and provided a place for the chorus to store instruments or other props needed during the dance. Audiences began to attend these performances, and orchestras started to be built against hillsides. The rising earth formed a natural seating area, a theatre (in Greek = "watching place"), from which spectators could view the performances. 

These choral songs evolved into tragedy with the addition of actors. The actors, naturally, needed some way to physically separate themselves from the chorus and the orchestra. The small tent gave way to larger wooden buildings. These new and improved skene provided a degree of separation for the actors, as well as doors through which the actors could enter and exit. These wooden platforms, though still temporary, were painted with architectural features; though our word "scene" comes from the Greek skene, these paintings were purely decorative and in no way influenced the tragedy or its content. During this time, other areas of the theatre became more defined. First, the orchestra was sunk just below the level of the audience, thus formalizing the stone rim; the orchestra was also paved with large, flat stones. Second, rows of wooden seats were built on the hillside. These benches wrapped more than halfway around the orchestra and began the Greek theatre’s distinctive architectural form. 

Over time, the actors supplanted the chorus as the dominant characters in tragedy, and theatre design reflected this important shift. The skene evolved again, this time into a complex and permanent stone structure. This generation of skene allowed the actors to perform on stage level as well on the roof. The building became large and sturdy to accommodate the various machines that became popular in tragic performances; such skene were also higher and elaborately decorated with sculpture and architectural features. The new tragic pattern also had ramifications for the orchestra. As the prominence of the chorus diminished, the orchestra got smaller and smaller; late Greek and Roman theatres often reduced the orchestra to a semi-circle. Further modifications came to the audience: Stone seating replaced the wooden benches, and large walkways partitioned the seats for easy access. 

Even in its later form, the Greek theatre remained starkly simple, and this heavily influenced the tragedies' performance. First, the Greek theatres were much larger than their modern counterparts, and some theatres held over 14,000 spectators. On these grand scales, actors' tools for communication with the audience were entirely different than modern ones. Body language, facial gestures, and vocal tones, though very effective in a small, modern theatre, would have been lost in the sheer size of an ancient one. Instead, the actor wore a huge tragic mask to roughly depict his state of mind and relied on his speech to do the rest. Lengthy monologues were the only means available for character development. These passages contrast with modern drama, but in ancient times were entirely necessary. Second, the theatre provided no special effects, save a crane in the skene capable of raising and lowering characters onto the stage. Lighting, background changes, curtains, and sounds - the staple special effects in modern dramatic performance - were unavailable to the Greeks. Instead, all "special effects" had to be done through the script. Murder, sex, natural disasters, suicide, and battles all took place offstage; messengers then reported the results. Given the practical constraints, this was the only sensible way of doing business. Modern readers often desire to "see" these important actions, as they are often the critical points in the tragedy. They take place off-stage not because of incompetence, but because of the limitations of the theatre. 

Greek tragedy and the Greek theatre influenced each other in such a way that the discussion of one necessarily involves the other. As Greek tragedy developed from hymns of praise to local gods to the complex works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, the theatre adapted accordingly. All the while, the theatre remained an essentially simple building and affected the way the tragic poets developed their works. In the end, the distinctive features of Greek tragedy and the Greek theatre resulted from the interaction between the two. 

Oedipus: The Greek Period 

The Greek period, in the fourth and fifth centuries of B.C., evolved from a small city called Athens, Europe. In this era, a sweep of talent and creativity placed a historical advance on theatre that will dominate for years to come. This spirit most likely emerged from the defeat of the Persian Empire, along with the sense of freedom and expression from the Athenian democracy. Four great writers derived from this ancient astonishment. Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were three writers of tragedy, whereas Aristophanes was a famous comic dramatist. From these original works came the play festivals using masks and boots to accommodate for the size of the Greek theatre. These tragedies the Athenians went to see consisted of five episodes, and one in particular, Oedipus the King, is made up of five choral odes, featuring the mystery behind the riddle of the sphinx. The dithyrambs were a beginning stage or rough draft of what the plays would soon come to be. Dionysis is the name of a theatre where people like Thespis and other Greek actors performed, using the three unities to keep the audience’s attention alarmed and suspense building. 

Aeschylus was the first of the tragedy writers. He took the theatres origins and focused less on reciting patterns, dealing more with the presentation of action. Born under tyranny, he grew up during the period in which the Persian Empire was attempting to conquer Athens. Aeschylus was born in 525 B.C. His youth was most likely spent in the city of Pallene with his father, Euphorion, and his brother. It was a repressive time, under the rule of Peisistratus. 

The play festivals at which these writers competed were at “City Dionysia” and the Lenaea. The “City Dionysia” was held at the end of March. The people of Athens put on a folk festival at which they would boast of their success, theatrically and politically, to all the prosperous men visiting from outside the state. This festival consumed all of six days, the second day full of dancing and singing, following the previous day of comedies. Then came three days of tragedy performances within the competition of five authors. The second celebration, Lenaea, at the end of January is the older of the two. It started off as a wine festival and gradually included play contests. These contests mainly used comedies to entertain them. 

In these productions, masks and boots were the eye-catching features of their wardrobe. The masks attracted attention to their dramatic expressions. This allowed the emotions to be conveyed to the spectators farthest away. The masks, made of linen cork and wood, could be changed by the three actors whom had speaking parts. Therefore, these actors could play many parts. The hole in the mask, disguised as a mouth, is used as a sounding board to project the voice of the actor. 

The boots had high painted soles, and while accompanied with a tall headdress, created the effect of a change in height. This change could be even more than one and a half feet. Larger than life, the height was proportioned with bright colours, extravagant padded costumes, and lent colour. Although, the unstableness of the boot created a hazard in walking, it gave a great addition to the intensity of the theatre. 

The stage of the open-aired Greek theatre of the fifth century B.C. was surrounded by a seating capacity of fourteen thousand. The marble benches arranged around the circular stage known as the eccyclema, a form of wagon- stage. Behind the dancing floor was the stage building with doors and maybe even columns. This setting would represent a palace or temple which would be the main setting of action. This is also were the actors make their entrance. There was a lack of curtains and lighting and only a few props were used. The gods in the play were sometimes lifted in by cranes while other times they performed on a special platform. 

In the Greek tragedies there is a basic outline that the authors followed consisting of five episodes with choral odes between them. Prologos, was the first scene which was an introduction. Episode, is the second scene which is dramatic one. Parodos, was the third scene, served as an entrance lyric by the chorus. Stasimon is a choral ode, and the fifth Exodos delivers the parting lines by the chorus and leaves the orchestra. 

The choral odes in Oedipus the King is a good example of how the chorus was used to create a reaction from the audience. The first choral ode was a prayer to the gods, which reveals the reality of the plague as seen through the eyes of the people as a whole. The second reflects the reactions from the accusations and counteraccusations of Oedipus and Tiresias. The third deals with the truth or falsity of the divine prophecy. The fourth shows the chorus in a mode of feverish excitement dealing with the secret birth of Oedipus. The last deals with the fate of Oedipus. 

These tragedies started off as Dithyrambs which formed from myths to stories that were translated into words of song in addition to physical movement. They were the first step toward a literary drama with both tragedy and comedy. These plays were demonstrated at the city of Dionysus featuring Greek actors such as Thespis. 

The plays consisted of three unities, the unity of action, time and place. The all united to form a whole with a ‘certain degree of magnitude’ according to Aristotle. They were part of a trilogy. 

The Greek theatre was an extravagant event that allowed the people of the city of Athens to release their magic upon the world. They changed the theatre and that change will last for many years to come. They set a standard for comedy and tragedy that will entertain and influence people forever. 

Oedipus Myth 

The King of Thebes was Laius, a descendant of Cadmus, and an oracle predicted, before the birth of his son that this son would one day be his father’s murderer. When born, Laius (and, in some versions of the myth, Jocasta, Oedipus’ mother and Laius’ wife) gives the child to a herdsman and orders him to take him out beyond the city and kill him. Out of pity for the child, the herdsman gave the baby to another herdsman, tying his feet together and wounding them (in some versions, Laius pierces Oedipus’ feet and exposes him to die, where the herdsman finds him by chance). This herdsman took the baby to Polybus, King of Corinth, who adopted him as his own son. 

Oedipus, now fully grown, is told that he is not the son of Polybus, and seeks help from an oracle, who tells him he is destined to kill his father and sleep with his mother. Oedipus – presumably still thinking that Polybus is his father – flees from Corinth to Thebes in an attempt to escape the fate the oracle has predicted for him. As he is travelling, he gets involved in a dispute at a crossroads with a man in a chariot (Laius, his birth father) – and kills him. 

As he approaches Thebes, Oedipus is approached by the Sphinx, who proposes her famous riddle: ‘What walks on four feet in the morning, two in the afternoon, and three at night?’ – the answer is man, who crawls, walks upright, and in his age, walks with a stick. The Sphinx, who has been plaguing Thebes, is defeated – Oedipus has solved the riddle that no Athenian could solve. In gratitude, the Thebans appoint Oedipus the king of Thebes (in Laius’ place) and reward him with the dead king’s wife, Jocasta, his birth mother. Oedipus and Jocasta have four children: two daughters (Electra and Ismene) and two sons (Polyneices and Eteocles). 

At this point, Sophocles' play begins. Years later, a plague strikes Thebes, and Oedipus as King promises to end it. He sends Creon, Jocasta’s brother, to the Delphic Oracle to seek guidance and is told that the murderer of Laius must be found and either killed or exiled (depending, again, on which version you read). As he begins to search for the killer, he encounters (or sends for) Tiresias, who tells him that he is the killer of Laius and warns him that he will only be seeking out himself. Oedipus ignores this advice. 

A messenger arrives from Corinth giving Oedipus the news that Polybus is dead, and it seems the oracle’s prophecy for Oedipus has failed to come true. The herdsman who delivered him to Corinth then appears and informs Oedipus that he is an adopted baby. Jocasta, hearing this, realizes what has happened and kills herself. Oedipus seeks out the herdsman initially ordered to murder him as a baby, and learns that the infant raised by Polybus and Merope (his wife) was in fact the son of Laius and Jocasta. He finally realizes that, at the crossroads, he killed his father, and is married to his own mother. Notably in Sophocles' play, the Corinthian Messenger is also the first herdsman: a small, but concise tweak. 

Oedipus finds Jocasta dead, and blinds himself. He then (in Sophocles) leaves the city, and with his daughter Antigone as his guide, wanders blindly through the country, dying finally at Colonous. Some versions of the story have Oedipus commit suicide in Thebes, rather than leave or be exiled. 

Oedipus Rex : Summary 

Oedipus Rex unfolds as a murder mystery, a political thriller, and a psychological whodunit. Throughout this mythic story of parricide and incest, Sophocles emphasizes the irony of a man determined to track down, expose, and punish an assassin, who turns out to be himself. 

When the play opens, Thebes is suffering a plague which leaves its fields and women barren. Oedipus, the king of Thebes, has sent his brother-in-law, Creon, to the house of Apollo to ask the oracle how to end the plague. Creon returns, bearing good news: once the killer of the previous king, Laius, is found, Thebes will be cured of the plague (Laius was Jocasta's husband before she married Oedipus). Hearing this, Oedipus swears he will find the murderer and banish him. The Chorus (representing the people of Thebes) suggests that Oedipus consult Tiresias, the blind prophet. Oedipus tells them that he has already sent for Tiresias. 

When Tiresias arrives, he seems reluctant to answer Oedipus's questions, warning him that he does not want to know the answers. Oedipus threatens him with death, and finally Tiresias tells him that Oedipus himself is the killer, and that his marriage is a sinful union. Oedipus takes this as an insult and jumps to the conclusion that Creon paid Tiresias to say these things. Furious, Oedipus dismisses him, and Tiresias goes, repeating as he does, that Laius's killer is right here before him - a man who is his father's killer and his mother's husband, a man who came seeing but will leave in blindness. 

Creon enters, asking the people around him if it is true that Oedipus slanderously accused him. The Chorus tries to mediate, but Oedipus appears and charges Creon with treason. Jocasta and the Chorus beg Oedipus to be open-minded: Oedipus unwillingly relents and allows Creon to go. Jocasta asks Oedipus why he is so upset and he tells her what Tiresias prophesied. Jocasta comforts him by telling him that there is no truth in oracles or prophets, and she has proof. Long ago an oracle told Laius that his own son would kill him, and as a result he and Jocasta gave their infant son to a shepherd to leave out on a hillside to die with a pin through its ankles. Yet Laius was killed by robbers, not by his own son, proof that the oracle was wrong. But something about her story troubles Oedipus; she said that Laius was killed at a place where three roads meet, and this reminds Oedipus of an incident from his past, when he killed a stranger at a place where three roads met. He asks her to describe Laius, and her description matches his memory. Yet Jocasta tells him that the only eyewitness to Laius's death, a herdsman, swore that five robbers killed him. Oedipus summons this witness. 

While they wait for the man to arrive, Jocasta asks Oedipus why he seems so troubled. Oedipus tells her the story of his past. Once when he was young, a man he met told him that he was not his father's son. He asked his parents about it, and they denied it. Still it troubled him, and he eventually went to an oracle to determine his true lineage. The oracle then told him that he would kill his father and marry his mother. This prophecy so frightened Oedipus that he left his hometown and never returned. On his journey, he encountered a haughty man at a crossroads - and killed the man after suffering an insult. Oedipus is afraid that the stranger he killed might have been Laius. If this is the case, Oedipus will be forever banished both from Thebes (the punishment he swore for the killer of Laius) and from Corinth, his hometown. If this eyewitness will swear that robbers killed Laius, then Oedipus is exonerated. He prays for the witness to deliver him from guilt and from banishment. Oedipus and Jocasta enter the palace to wait for him. 

Jocasta comes back out of the palace, on her way to the holy temples to pray for Oedipus. A messenger arrives from Corinth with the news that Oedipus's father Polybus is dead. Overjoyed, Jocasta sends for Oedipus, glad that she has even more proof in the uselessness of oracles. Oedipus rejoices, but then states that he is still afraid of the rest of the oracle's prophecy: that he will marry his mother. The messenger assures him that he need not fear approaching Corinth - since Merope, his mother, is not really his mother, and moreover, Polybus wasn't his father either. Stunned, Oedipus asks him how he came to know this. The messenger replies that years ago a man gave a baby to him and he delivered this baby to the king and queen of Corinth - a baby that would grow up to be Oedipus the King. The injury to Oedipus's ankles is a testament to the truth of his tale, because the baby's feet had been pierced through the ankles. Oedipus asks the messenger who gave the baby to him, and he replies that it was one of Laius's servants. Oedipus sends his men out to find this servant. The messenger suggests that Jocasta should be able to help identify the servant and help unveil the true story of Oedipus's birth. Suddenly understanding the terrible truth, Jocasta begs Oedipus not to carry through with his investigation. Oedipus replies that he swore to unravel this mystery, and he will follow through on his word. Jocasta exits into the palace. 

Oedipus again swears that he will figure out this secret, no matter how vile the answer is. The Chorus senses that something bad is about to happen and join Jocasta's cry in begging the mystery to be left unresolved. Oedipus's men lead in an old shepherd, who is afraid to answer Oedipus's questions. But finally he tells Oedipus the truth. He did in fact give the messenger a baby boy, and that baby boy was Laius's son - the same son that Jocasta and Laius left on a hillside to die because of the oracle's prophecy. 

Finally the truth is clear - devastated, Oedipus exits into the palace. A messenger reveals that he grabbed a sword and searched for Jocasta with the intent to kill her. Upon entering her chamber, however, he finds that she has hanged herself. He takes the gold brooches from her dress and gouges his eyes out. He appears onstage again, blood streaming from his now blind eyes. He cries out that he, who has seen and done such vile things, shall never see again. He begs the Chorus to kill him. Creon enters, having heard the entire story, and begs Oedipus to come inside, where he will not be seen. Oedipus begs him to let him leave the city, and Creon tells him that he must consult Apollo first. Oedipus tells him that banishment was the punishment he declared for Laius's killer, and Creon agrees with him. Before he leaves forever, however, Oedipus asks to see his daughters and begs Creon to take care of them. Oedipus is then led away, while Creon and the girls go back in the palace. The Chorus, alone, laments Oedipus' tragic fate and his doomed lineage. 

Oedipus Rex : Major Themes 

In the play Oedipus Rex , by Sophocles, two themes appear; one that humans have little control of their lives because fate always catches up with them and the theme that when someone makes a mistake, they will have to pay for it. 

The theme that the lives of humans are controlled by the gods, in Oedipus, show that everything humans do are futile and result in no gain but only loss. This theme is mainly shown by the character Oedipus, king of Thebes. In the beginning of his life, Laius the king planned to kill his son by leaving him on Mount Cithaeron to die. "...at the moment I was your savior." 

From the very beginning, Oedipus was destined to fulfill Apollo's prophecy of killing his father. Even though King Lauis tries to kill Oedipus to stop the fulfillment of this shameful prophecy, fate drives the Corinthian messenger to save Oedipus. What the gods fortell will come true and no human can stop it from happening, not even the kings. Oedipus is once again controlled by this power when he leaves the place of his child hood after he hears that he is to kill his father and marry his mother. "I shall shrink from nothing...to find the murderer of Laius...You are the murderer..." Oedipus tried to stop the prophecy from coming true by leaving Corinth and only fate can make Oedipus turn to the road where he kills his true father. Leaving Corinth makes Oedipus lose his childhood by making him worry of such issues young people should not have to worry about and becoming a king of a strange land. Last of all, Oedipus carries the last part of the prophecy out, marrying his mother. “I would... never have been known as my mother's husband. Oedipus has no control over the outcome of his life. Fate causes Oedipus to have known the answer to the Sphinx's riddle and win his marriage to his mother, Jocasta. Had fate not intervened, the chances of marrying Jocasta would have been small since there is an enormous number of people and places to go. Oedipus loses his sense of dignity after he discovers he is not only a murderer, but also that he had committed incest. From his birth to the end of the play, fate intervenes when Oedipus is saved from Laius' wrath as a baby, when Oedipus goes to the fork in the road where he kills his father, and lastly, when he answers the Sphinx's riddle and marries Jocasta. 

The second theme, mistakes and wrongs toward other people will be paid, for is told by Tiresias, the prophet, and carried out by Jocasta, and once again, King Oedipus. Tiresias states, after being accused of being a fool and mocked by Oedipus, "These reproaches you fling at me, all these people here will fling them at you..." Tiresias realizes that mockery and false accusations will not go unpaid forever. This foreshadows the mockery Oedipus will experience after the truth to his marriage is discovered; these people will jeer at him. Jocasta makes a detrimental mistake when she marries Oedipus. She even says, "...he had more or less the same build as you." Jocasta ignores all the obvious features between Laius and Oedipus because she was so in love. If she had taken notice of these things, her pain would be more endurable because Oedipus would not know that the prophecy was being fulfilled. Lastly, King Oedipus made a mistake losing his temper when he meets King Laius. "The driver tried to push me off the road...he aimed at my head with a two-pronged goad, and hit me. I paid him back in full...I killed the whole lot of them." Oedipus wronged Laius here by killing him over a small incident and fit of anger. Had Oedipus not killed Laius, the murderer of would not have to be searched out and ultimately, the truth about his marriage to his mother would not be told and the kingdom would continue to thrive along with the family happiness. The statement by Tiresias and the mistakes of the royal family, show that the mistakes and insults toward others will be returned to that person who has wronged the other. 

Oedipus Rex : Critical Concepts 

Light and darkness: - Darkness and light are tightly wound up with the theme of sight and blindness in Sophocles' play. Oedipus - and all the other characters, save for Tiresias - is 'in the dark' about his own origins and the murder of Laius. Tiresias, of course, is literally 'in the dark' with his own blindness - and yet manages to have sight over everything that is to follow. After Oedipus finds out what has happened, he bemoans the way everything has indeed "come to light". 

Sight and blindness: - Tiresias holds the key to the link between sight and blindness - for even though he is blind, he can still see and predict the future (if not the present). At the end of the play, moreover, Oedipus blinds himself, because what he has metaphorically seen (i.e. realized) leaves him unable to face his family or his parents in the afterlife). As with the previous theme, sight/blindness operate both literally and metaphorically within the play. Indeed, literal sight is juxtaposed with 'insight' or 'foresight'. 

Origins and children: - Oedipus embarks upon a search for his own origins, and - though he does not realize it - for his real parents. As the child of his own wife, and thus father and brother to his children, Sophocles explores various interrelationships between where things began and who fathered who. Similarly, the play itself works backwards towards a revelatory start: the story has, in effect, already happened - and Oedipus is forced to discover his own history. 

The One and the Many (also Doubles/Twos): - Throughout the play, a central inconsistency dominates - namely the herdsman and Jocasta both believe Laius to have been killed by several people at the crossroads. The story, however, reveals that Oedipus himself alone killed Laius. How can Laius have been supposedly killed by one person – and also by many people? 

Oedipus is searching for Laius’ murderer: he is the detective seeking the criminal. Yet in the end, these two roles merge into one person – Oedipus himself. The Oedipus we are left with at the end of the play is similarly both father and brother. Sophocles’ play, in fact, abounds with twos and doubles: there are two herdsmen, two daughters and two sons, two opposed pairs of king and queen (Laius and Jocasta, and Polybus and Merope), and two cities (Thebes and Corinth). In so many of these cases, Oedipus’ realization is that he is either between – or, more confusingly, some combination of – two things. Thus the conflict between “the one and the many” is central to Sophocles’ play. “What is this news of double meaning?” Jocasta asks (939). Throughout Oedipus, then, it remains a pertinent question. 

Plague and health: - Thebes at the start of the play is suffering from terrible blight which renders the fields and the women barren. The oracle tells Oedipus at the start of the play that the source of this plague is Laius' murderer (Oedipus himself). Health then, only comes with the end of the play and Oedipus' blindness. Again, 'plague' is both literal and metaphorical. There is a genuine plague, but also, to quote Hamlet, there might be "something rotten" in the moral state of Thebes. 

Prophecy, oracles, and predestination: - The origins of this play in the Oedipus myth (see 'Oedipus and Myth') create a compelling question about foreknowledge and expectation. The audience who knew the myth would know from the start far more than Oedipus himself - hence a strong example of dramatic irony. Moreover, one of the themes the play considers as a corollary is whether or not you can escape your fate. In trying to murder her son, Jocasta finds him reborn as her husband. Running from Corinth, from his parents, Oedipus murders his father on the way. It seems that running away from one's fate ultimately ensures that one is only running towards it. 

Youth and age: - 'Man' is the answer to the Sphinx's question, and the aging of man is given key significance in the course of the play. Oedipus himself goes from childlike innocence to a blinded man who needs to be led by his children. Oedipus, it might be said, ages with the discovery of his own shortcomings as a man. In learning of his own weaknesses and frailties, he loses his innocence immediately. 

Oedipus Rex as an Aristotelian Tragedy 

The fifth century B is the golden age of Greek dramas. During that period, Sophocles wrote an outstanding tragedy named Oedipus Rex. Over the centuries, Oedipus Rex has been regarded as the Greek tragedy par excellence. In the Poetics, Aristotle listed many requirements of a successful tragedy. Oedipus Rex is Aristotle’s ideal tragedy because it fulfills so many requirements for a successful tragedy. 

To begin with, Aristotle believes that “the first and most important part” of his ideal tragedy is plot. He requires the plot of a tragedy to be single and complex, which means there should be only one plot that includes peripeteia and anagnorsis. Additionally, all plots should have pathos. It is obvious that all those requirements are satisfied in Oedipus Rex. Peripeteia, which means reversal, occurs when Oedipus hears the news of Polybus’s death. The news first sounds good, but reverses to be a disaster in a moment. Anagnorisis means recognition, emerges in the story when Oedipus knows that he kills Laius. Oedipus kills his father in ignorance but learns the true relationship from a Theban people. Pathos means suffering. It is important for a successful tragedy because a destructive or painful act will earn the audience’s sympathy. When Oedipus finally understands the truth, he is so suffering from it that he blinds himself. In all, Oedipus Rex meets all Aristotle’s requirements of the plot of a tragedy. 

The second important part of a successful tragedy, characters are required by Aristotle to be good, appropriate, true to life, and consistent. All characters in Oedipus Rex meet those requirements, and Jocasta is a perfect example. She is the queen of Thebe, and she commits suicide because she cannot bear the shame of the immoral truth. 

Except fulfilling requirements of all characters, Oedipus Rex also meets the specialty of a tragic hero. The most important character in a tragedy is the tragic hero. Aristotle requires that this character should have an elevated status but imperfect, which means the character should be higher than common people but falls below. Oedipus, the king of Thebe, is absolutely high-ranking. However, he falls to the bottom when he recognizes that he kills his father and gets married to his mother. Oedipus might have left the plague to take its course, but pity for the sufferings of his people compelled him to find out the truth. He might have left the murder of Laius uninvestigated, but piety and justice required him to act. Tiresias, Jocasta the Theban people, each in turn tries to stop him, but in vain; he must read the last riddle, the riddle of his own life. What causes his ruin is his own strength and courage, his loyalty to Thebes, and his loyalty to the truth. 

In addition, Aristotle also mentions in the Poetics that the hamartia of a tragic hero is very important for a good tragedy. The Greek term "hamartia" means "tragic flaw." The character's flaw must result from something that is also a central part of their virtue, which goes somewhat twisted. Aristotle indicates that a truly tragic hero must have a failing that is neither idiosyncratic nor arbitrary, but is somehow more deeply imbedded -- a kind of human failing and human weakness. It is obvious that Oedipus is a tragic hero with hamartia. His basic flaw is his lack of knowledge about his own identity. Moreover, no amount of foresight or pre-emptive action could remedy Oedipus' hamartia; unlike other tragic heroes, Oedipus bears no responsibility for his flaw. The audience fears for Oedipus because nothing he does can change the tragedy's outcome. 

Another requirement Aristotle mentions in the Poetics is catharsis. Aristotle uses the term catharsis to refer to the purging of excessive emotions of a person. In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles perfectly evokes catharsis to make the story to its climax. By watching the tragedy and feeling the strong emotions of fear and pity on behalf of the characters on stage, audiences experience a kind of cleansing of the soul. So the catharsis from watching tragedy gave the spectators a shared experience that bound them closer together. The catharsis occurs at the end when Oedipus, driven by the guilt of the impermissibility of incest and the emptiness caused by the loss of his beloved mother, blinds himself. 

Fulfilled so many requirements by Aristotle, it is obvious that Oedipus Rex is a perfect tragedy. It has a proper plot, characters, tragic hero, hamartia, and catharsis. 

Oedipus : Aristotle’s Tragic Hero 

Sophocles’ Oedipus is one of the most well-known and influential fictional figure in the history of literature primarily because of the fact that Oedipus symbolizes many things – as a hero, as a son, as a leader and as an example of the conflicting issues affecting morality. Oedipus is the ideal man to exemplify Aristotle’s idea of the tragic hero based on several characteristics focused on the major flaw of Oedipus as an individual character and based on the actions Oedipus took that shaped his fortune and future. 

There are several characteristics that define the tragic hero, as per Aristotle’s understanding of the concept, and the life and characteristics of Sophocles’ Oedipus fit perfectly in this framework. First, there is the idea of evoking two important emotions: fear and pity. The life of the tragic hero should make us feel fear as well as pity. The role of the hero is to represent the human nature and the innate weakness and futility of the human endeavor to counteract or go against the perceived path that destiny and the universe has set for an individual. These are two of the strongest characteristics of Oedipus and two of the most important facets of the overall story of Oedipus’ life. 

We feel pity over Oedipus because of what Oedipus has to go through, and how he was powerless to fight a prophecy because he feels that it is the moral thing to do. First, Oedipus, as a baby, was cursed to die in the forest because his father believed that if Oedipus lives, it is by his hands that King Laius would receive his end. There is reason to celebrate and be happy because Oedipus somehow managed to get out of the forest alive as he was discovered by chance by some peasant farmers who eventually ended up handing them over to the king and queen of Corinth. However, what was thought to be the start of a better life for Oedipus was actually the opposite. On the contrary, it will be the start of a life that would have a grim ending not only for Oedipus but also for his mother and father. 

The feeling of pity continues as we witness how Oedipus unknowingly slays his father and then marries his mother, and it then becomes the reason for his mother’s intense feeling of guilt and confusion that led her to kill herself. Finally, the feeling of pity ends with Oedipus making himself blind and then throwing himself in exile. He allowed all of these things happen to him in pursuit of saving the lives of those whom he thought were his parents. Despite Oedipus’ moral and righteous goals, he nonetheless ends up doing what is wrong, illustrating the futility of the human being versus the power of destiny which is believed to be out of the control of human beings. 

As we ponder about the life of Oedipus who becomes the symbol of the inability of a human being to run away from his destiny, and for that, we feel fear. He represents every human being. We feel fear because in our everyday lives, we make conscious choices and efforts in order to keep ourselves away from doing bad things or being subjected to bad experiences. We protect ourselves and do everything we can to be morally upright and to guarantee self-preservation. But Oedipus’ life and the lessons from it will become a deeply ingrained realization upon us that we, like Oedipus, are after all helpless versus our destiny, especially once it is revealed to us. 

Another important characteristic of the tragic hero is the shift from a life of prosperity transforming towards the life of adversity. When Oedipus was born, he has in his hands the prospect of a prosperous life being the son of the King and the Queen. But this prosperity turns to adversity as a result of the response of King Laius to the prophecy. When he was growing up in Corinth, again he was presented by a life of prosperity to which he turned his back against because he does not want to murder his own father and marry his own mother, leading to a path that will saw him murder his true father, marry his own mother who would soon take her own life while Oedipus makes himself blind and them puts himself in exile – clearly a life filled with adversity and not prosperity. 

Another important aspect of a tragic hero as presented by Aristotle is the presence of both the flaw and the state of being virtuous. This puts the tragic hero in a balanced human form – there is the presence of innate good enough to inspire moral actions. There is also the tendency of the tragic hero to demonstrate his frailty or weakness which will result in his error. In the story, Oedipus is the epitome of the tragic hero because he is virtuous. 

He was a good son to his surrogate (alternate) parents and his being virtuous was demonstrated in two important events in his life. The first one was during the time he discovered that he was doomed to kill his father. It broke his heart to leave his parents behind but he knew that even though this is a very painful step for him, this was the only way that he could keep the prophecy from becoming true, saving the life of his father and saving his mother from shame that will result in the marriage of a son to his own mother. 

The other event which showed Oedipus innate characteristic of being virtuous is during the time he took it upon to punish his own self for his wrong doings. When he discovered his own crime and accepted his own shame, he was the one who took his very own eye sight, symbolizing how he was blinded and how his punishment means, not allowing him to visually enjoy life because of what he did. He also threw himself in exile as part of the punishment he himself embraced, knowing that this is the right and moral thing to do. 

Despite these moral actions, Oedipus is not perfect. He is also flawed and is a man who is characterized with errors. One of his flaws is his temper. It is because of his anger that has led to his killing his father. Another flaw of Oedipus is his belief that he is more powerful than destiny and fate. He believed that he could change the course of his life based on his own actions. This belief has sent him towards the path which he was trying to avoid. He believed that he can outrun destiny and change it over time, and this sense of overconfidence in what he can do doomed him. Had he been humble enough to allow destiny to reveal itself without any effort to change it, things would have been different. Anyone would risk doing anything and everything hoping that things turn out for the best. 

Lastly, the most important aspect of the tragic hero is death. Tragedy pertains to a sad ending to a story or a life. The tragic hero’s life is a tragedy not because of death. Every human being dies, but the essence of tragedy is seen in the details leading towards the death of the hero, a life characterized by misfortune that the tragic hero has to carry with him to his grave. This is a tragedy because even in his own death, Oedipus knew that there is nothing he can do to redeem himself from his sins. He is a hero because he tried to do the right thing but he only ends up doing the wrong things nonetheless. He was a tragic hero because while we praise him for his values, he is also forever stained by the reality that he can never be redeemed from his errors brought about by his flaws and weaknesses as a man who is powerless against the power of destiny and fate, which is a very significant ideal during the time of Sophocles. 

Oedipus Rex: Hamartia 

According to Aristotle, a tragic hero is a distinguished person occupying a high position or having a high status in life and in very prosperous circumstances falling into misfortune on account of a “hamartia” or some defect of character. He should be good or fine man though not perfect. There is nothing to arouse the feelings of pity or fear in seeing a bad character pass from prosperity into misfortune while the ruin of a man who represents near-perfection in the moral sense is repugnant and horrible. The tragic hero is neither a moral paragon nor a scoundrel. He should be true to type, and consistent or true to himself. Aristotle would attribute disaster or catastrophe in a tragedy to an error rather than a deliberate crime. 

The main requirements of Aristotle in regard to the tragic hero are thus (1) high social standing, (2) moral excellence or goodness, and (3) some fault of character, or error committed by the hero in ignorance. Oedipus answers to all these requirements. Oedipus is a man of royal birth; he is brought up by a King and a Queen and he himself afterwards becomes a King and marries a Queen. He is thus a man of social eminence and possessing excellent qualities of character, though his is by no means perfect. We cannot say that his misfortune is due to any defect in his character, though his defects do produce the impression that such a man must pay for his defects. It would be wrong to say that he is a puppet in the hands of fate. Within certain limits he is a free agent, though it must be recognized that the prophecy of the oracle would yet have been fulfilled. 

Oedipus is a good king, a great well-wisher of his people, a man of integrity, an honest and great administrator and an outstanding intellect. He is a pious man who believes in oracles, respects the bonds of family, and hates impurity. His belief in the prophecies of gods is the very basis of the whole play. The suppliant people approach him almost as a god and he is honoured as a saviour. When Creon reveals the cause of the city’s suffering, Oedipus declares his resolve to track down the criminal and he utters a terrible curse upon him. We can say that Oedipus is almost an ideal King. He also shows himself as a devoted husband and a loving father. He shows due consideration for the opinions and feelings of Jocasta and he lavishes all his affection on his daughters. His relations with the Chorus are also very cordial and he shows all due courtesy to them. In short both as a man and as a king Oedipus is worthy of high respect. 

However, Oedipus has his faults. He is hot-tempered, hasty in his judgment, proud of his intelligence, and random in his decisions. He quickly loses his temper when he finds the prophet reluctant to reveal the things that he knows. He jumps to the conclusion that Tiresias and Creon have hatched a conspiracy against him. This attitude of distrust towards the prophet is in sharp contrast to Oedipus’s genuine piety. Oedipus belongs to the world of politics and human standards rather than to the divine order of the world. His piety fails also later on when, under the influence of Jocasta, he becomes somewhat skeptical regarding the oracle. 

An outstanding feature of Oedipus’s character is an inherent feeling of pride in his own wisdom. Because of this arrogance, Oedipus certainly alienates some of our sympathy. When self-confidence takes the form of pride, haughtiness, arrogance or insolence, it becomes disgusting and obnoxious. His attitude of intolerance towards both Tiresias and Creon and his highly offensive and insulting words to both of them create in us the impression that he is paving the way for his own downfall. Of course, Oedipus has already committed the crimes which make him a sinner in the eyes of the god, in his own eyes, and in the eyes of other people. But the tragedy lay in discovery that he is guilty of them. If the crimes had remained unknown there would hardly have been any tragedy. Tragedy comes with the fact for discovery both for Jocasta and himself. 

It would be a flaw in the logic to say that Oedipus suffers because of his sin of pride, but his pride is not the direct cause of his tragedy. He tried to avoid the fulfillment of the prophecies made by oracle. He killed his father and married his mother. His tragedy is a tragedy of error. If he had been a little more careful, things would have taken a different shape. He might have avoided the quarrel on the road if he had not been so proud or hot-tempered; and he might have refused to marry a woman old enough if he had not been blinded by the pride of his intelligence in solving the riddle of the Sphinx. But, then, the prophecies of the oracle would have been fulfilled in some other way, because nothing could have been prevented their fulfillment. Pride has little to do with Oedipus’s killing his father and marrying his mother. 

If Oedipus had not relentlessly pursued his investigations, he might have been spared the shock of discovery. Something in him drives him forward on the road to discovery. After Tiresias has first refused to tell him anything and then uttered some frightening prophecies. Oedipus is discouraged by Jocasta to continue his investigations. But he pays no heed to her philosophy of living at random. She makes another effort to stop his investigations when she has herself realized the truth, but again she failed. The Theban shepherd too tries, but in vain. It is this insistence on the truth that leads to the discovery in which lies the tragedy. We may interrupt this insistence on the truth as a form of pride, the pride of intellect, or the pride of knowing everything. The link of cause and effect is unmistakable between Oedipus’s pride of intellect and Oedipus’s discovery for his sins. But there is no strong link between his pride and the actual committing of his sins because the sins would have been committed in any case, if the oracle was to be fulfilled. The oracle did say that Oedipus would be guilty of those crimes but no oracle said that Oedipus must discover the truth. 

Oedipus is thus an authentic tragic hero in the Aristotelian sense because his tragedy is as much due to his own initiatives in discovering the truth as to external circumstances. To the modern mind, a high social position is not necessary for the tragic hero nor do they recognize the validity of oracles too. 

In Oedipus we see the helplessness of man in the face of the circumstances and his essential greatness. The manner in which Oedipus blinds himself after realizing his guilt and in which he endures his punishment raise him high in our esteem. The spirit of Oedipus remains unconquered even in his defeat and that is the essential fact about a tragic hero. 

Oedipus Rex: Catharsis 

According to Aristotle tragedy should arouse the feeling of pity and terror – pity for the hero’s tragic fate and terror at the sight of the dreadful suffering befalling particularly the hero. By arousing pity and terror, a tragedy aims at the catharsis of these and similar other emotions and cures these feelings which always exist in our hearts. A tragedy, hence, affords emotional relief and the spectators rise at its end with a feeling of pleasure. This, according to Aristotle, is the aesthetic function of tragedy. Through catharsis the emotions are reduced to a healthy and balanced proportion. Besides pity and fear an audience also experiences contempt, hatred, delight, indignation, and admiration. Still, these emotions are less important or less intense. Pity and fear are the dominant emotions and they are intensely produced. 

Tragedy, by means of pity, fear and other emotions also provides exercise and nourishment for the emotional side of human nature. It also satisfies our love of beauty and of truth, of truth to life and truth about life. Experience, and more experience, is a natural human craving. Tragedy leads to an enrichment of our experience of human life. It may teach us to live more wisely and widen the boundaries of our experience of life. Tragedy shows the eternal contradiction between human weakness and human courage, human stupidity and human greatness, human frailty and human strength. Tragedy gives us pleasure by exhibiting human endurance and perseverance in the face of calamities and disasters. 

Pity and fear are the dominating feelings produced by the play “Oedipus Rex”. Apart from catharsis of these feelings, the play deepens our experience of human life and enhances our understanding of human nature and human psychology. The prologue produces in us pity and fear, pity for the suffering population of Thebes and fear of future misfortunes which might befall the people. The Priest, describing the state of affairs, refers to a tide of death from which there is no escape, death in the fields and pastures, in the wombs of women, death caused by the plague which grips the city. Oedipus gives expression to his feeling of sympathy, telling the Priest that his heart is burdened by the suffering of all the people. The entry-song of the Chorus following the prologue heightens the feelings of pity and fear. The Chorus says: 

“With fear my heart is riven, fear of what shall be told. Fear is upon us.” 

Oedipus’ proclamation of his resolve to track down the murderer of Laius brings some relief to us. But the curse, which Oedipus utters upon the unknown criminal and upon those who may be sheltering him, also terrifies us by its fierceness. The scene in which Oedipus clashes with Tiresias contributes to the feelings of pity and terror, the prophecy of Tiresias is frightening because it relates to Oedipus. Tiresias speaks to Oedipus in alarming tones, describing him in a veiled manner as “husband of the woman who bore him, father-killer and father-supplanter” and accusing him openly of being a murderer.

In the scene with Creon, the feeling of terror is much less, arising mainly from Oedipus’ sentence of death against the innocent Creon which is soon withdrawn. The tension reappears with Oedipus’ suspicion on hearing from Jocasta that Laius was killed where three roads met. Oedipus’ account of his arrival at Thebes arouses the feeling of terror by its reference to the prophecy which he received from the oracle, but both terror and pity subside when Jocasta tries to assure Oedipus that prophecies deserve no attention. The song of the Chorus harshly rebuking the proud tyrant revives some of the terror in our minds, but it again subsides at the arrival of the Corinthian after hearing whom Jocasta mocks at the oracles. The drama now continues at a rather low key till first Jocasta and then Oedipus find themselves confronted with the true facts of the situations. With the discovery of true facts, both the feelings of pity and fear reach their climax, with Oedipus lamenting his sinful acts of killing his father and marrying his mother.

But the feelings of pity and fear do not end here. The song of the Chorus immediately following the discovery arouses our deepest sympathy at Oedipus’ sad fate. The Chorus extends the scope of its observations to include all mankind: 

“All the generations of mortal man add up to nothing.”

Then comes the messenger from the palace and he gives a terrible account of the manner in which Jocasta hanged herself and Oedipus blinded himself. The messenger concluded his account with the remark that the royal household is today overwhelmed by “calamity, death, ruin, tears and shame”. The conversation of the Chorus with Oedipus who is not blind is also extremely moving. Oedipus speaks of his physical and mental agony and the Chorus tries to console him. Oedipus describes himself as: 

“…… shedder of father’s blood, husband of mother, Godless and child of shame, begetter of brother-sons”. 

The feeling of deep grief by Oedipus is experienced by the audience with an equal intensity. The scene of Oedipus’ meeting with his daughters is also very touching. His daughters, laments Oedipus, will have to wander homeless and husbandless. He appeals to Creon in moving words to look after them. 

The feeling of pity and fear has been continuously experienced from the very opening scene of the play. Other feelings aroused in our hearts were irritation with Oedipus at his ill-treatment of Tiresias, anger against Tiresias for his obstinacy and insolence, admiration for Creon for his moderation and loyalty, liking for Jocasta for her devotion to Oedipus, admiration for Oedipus for his relentless pursuits of truth and so on. But the feelings of relief, delight and pleasure have also been aroused in us. These feelings are the result partly of the felicity of the language employed and the music of poetry, but mainly the result of the spectacle of human greatness which we have witnessed side by side with the spectacle of human misery. The sins of Oedipus were committed unknowingly; in fact Oedipus did his utmost to avert the disaster. Oedipus is, therefore, essentially an innocent man, despite his sin of pride and tyranny. Jocasta too is innocent, in spite of her sin of scepticism. There is no villainy to be condemned in the play. The essential goodness of Oedipus, Jocasta and Creon is highly pleasing to us. But even more pleasing though at the same time saddening is the spectacle of human endurance seen in Jocasta and Oedipus inflicting upon themselves a punishment that is awful and terrible. In the closing scene, the blind Oedipus rises truly to heroic heights, displaying an indomitable spirit. Blind and helpless though he now is, and extremely ashamed of his parricide and incestuous experience as he is, he yet shows an invulnerable mind and it is this which has a sustaining, cheering, uplifting and exhilarating effect upon us. 

Jocasta’s fate underlines that of Oedipus. So does the great song of the Chorus on the laws which are “enthroned above”. The song and in particular the denunciation of the tyrant are relevant to Oedipus and Jocasta. The song begins with a prayer for purity and reverence, clearly an answer to Oedipus’ and Jocasta's doubts about the oracles. It ends with an even more emphatic expression of fear of what will happen if the truth of the divine oracles is denied. Between the first and the last stanzas the Chorus describes the man who is born of hybris, such hybris as is displayed by the King and the Queen. The description follows to a large extent the conventional picture of the tyrant, mentioning his pride, greed and irreverence. Not every feature fits the character of Oedipus, nor should we expect that. The Chorus fears that he who behaves with presumption, pride and self-confidence will turn tyrannical and impious, and they foresee that Zeus, the true King of the world will punish the sins of the mortal King. If he does not do so, all religion will become meaningless, and all will be lost. 

Oedipus Rex: Tragic Irony 

Tragic irony was used initially in ancient Greek tragedy and later almost in all tragedies. Irony consists essentially in the contrast of the two aspects of the same remark or situation. A remark made by a character in a play may have one meaning for him and another meaning for other character and the audience or one meaning for the speaker and the other characters and another meaning for the audience. Similarly, a situation may have a double significance in the sense that a disaster may be foreseen by the audience while the characters may be ignorant of it. Irony heightens the tragic effect. Sophocles has used irony with striking effect in his plays. 

“Oedipus Rex” is replete with tragic irony and is found in most of the speeches and situations. There are many occasions on which the audience is aware of the facts while the speaker is ignorant of those facts and some other characters, on the other hand, present a contrast which lends an increased emphasis to a tragic fact or to the ultimate tragic outcome. The proclamation of Oedipus that he will make a determined effort to trace the murderer of Laius and the curse that Oedipus utters upon the killer and upon those sheltering the criminal, possess a tragic irony in view of the audience’s knowledge that Oedipus himself will ultimately prove to be Laius’ murderer. Oedipus proclaims that no house in Thebes is to provide shelter to the guilty man and that the gods will curse those who disobey his command. Thus, without knowing the real meaning of his words, Oedipus announces the sentences of banishment against the murderer and heightens the tragic effect of the discovery which comes towards the end of the play. Oedipus does not know that he himself is to become the victim of the punishment which he is proclaiming but the audience knows it. In this contrast between Oedipus’ ignorance and our knowledge of the true fact lies the tragic irony. 

The scene between Oedipus and Tiresias is fraught with tragic irony throughout. Tiresias is the prophet who knows everything while Oedipus does not know himself as such. Tiresias would not like to disclose the secret but Oedipus quickly loses his temper thus provoking the prophet to say what he never wanted to say. Tiresias tells Oedipus that he himself is the guilty man he is seeking and that he is living in a sinful union with the one he loves. The impact of these words is totally lost upon Oedipus. The charges of Tiresias enrage him and he insults the prophet by calling him a sightless sot showing his own inner blindness. An irony lies in the fact that Tiresias, physically blind, knows the truth while Oedipus, having normal eyesight, is totally blind to that truth. There is irony also in the contrast between what Oedipus truly is and what he thinks himself to be. To Tiresias he boasts of his intelligence citing his past victory over the Sphinx. The terrible predictions that Tiresias makes regarding the fate in store for Oedipus also possess irony in the sense that, while we know their tragic imports, Oedipus treats them as the ravings of a madman. These predictions become more awful when we realize that they will prove to be true and valid. Tiresias warns Oedipus that the killer of Laius will ultimately find himself blind, an exile, a beggar, a brother and a father at a same time to the children he loves, a son and a husband to the woman who bore him, a father-killer and father-supplenter. Even the Chorus, ignorant of the facts, refuses to believe what Tiresias has said about Oedipus. Thus both Oedipus and the Chorus are unaware of the truth while Tiresias and the audience is fully aware of it. 

Tragic irony is also found in the scene with Creon. Creon begs Oedipus not to think him a traitor and not to pass the sentence of death or exile against him. But Oedipus blinded by his authority and his anger shows himself relentless. This situation is ironical of the final scene where the roles are reversed. There Oedipus begs Creon to look after his daughters, and entreats him to pass the order of banishment against him. Creon, being a moderate man, does not show himself unrelenting in that scene. The pathos of the final scene is intensified. 

Then there is the scene with Jocasta. Oedipus and Jocasta are ignorant of the true facts. The audience, aware of the facts, experiences a deep sorrow at the fate which is going to overtake these characters. Jocasta is sceptical of oracles. She thinks no man possesses the secret of divination and as a proof she tells what she and her husband did to the child, who, according to the oracle, was to kill his father. There is palpable irony in Jocasta’s unbelief in oracles and her citing as proof the very case which is to prove the truth of one oracle received by her and the late Laius. This irony deepens Jocasta's tragedy.

There is irony also in the account of his life which Oedipus gives to Jocasta. Oedipus thinks himself to be the son of Polybus and Merope: he fled from Corinth after the oracle had told him of the crimes he would commit: he has all along been under the impression that he has avoided committing the crimes foretold by the oracles. But all the time Oedipus has been unknowingly performing certain actions leading to the fulfillment of those very prophecies which he had been striving to belie, just as King Laius had earlier taken desperate but futile measures to prevent the fulfillment of the prophecy which has been communicated to him by the oracle. 

When the Corinthian messenger brings the news of Polybus’ death, Jocasta gets another chance to mock at the oracles without realizing that her mockery will turn against herself. 

“Where are you now, divine prognostication?” 

Jocasta tells Oedipus that this news proves the hollowness of oracles because Polybus whom Oedipus believed to be his father has died a natural death. There is irony also in the simple remark of the messenger that Jocasta is the “true consort” of a man like Oedipus. Neither the messenger nor Jocasta knows the awful meaning of these words. Jocasta makes an exultant speech on the desirability of living at random and on mother marrying as merely a figment of the imagination. Jocasta makes this speech only a few moments before the truth dawns upon her. The Corinthian, who wanted to free Oedipus of his fear of marrying his mother, ends by revealing, unknowingly, the fact that Jocasta's husband, Oedipus, is really her son, although this revelation is at this stage confined to Jocasta. The tragic irony of this situation and in what is said by the Corinthian and Jocasta in this scene is evident. 

The song of the Chorus, after Jocasta has left in a fit of grief and sorrow, is full of tragic irony. The Chorus thereby pays a tribute to what it thinks to be the divine parentage of Oedipus. There is a big contrast between this supposition of the Chorus and the actual reality. The arrival of the Theban shepherd is the point at which the climax of the tragedy is reached. 

After the discovery there is hardly any room for tragic irony. The concluding part consists of a long account of the self-murder and the self-blinding, a dialogue between Oedipus and the Chorus, and a scene between Oedipus and Creon including the brief lament by Oedipus on the wretched condition of his daughters. The concluding portion of the play is deeply moving and poignant, but contains little or no tragic irony. 

Oedipus Rex bristles with tragic irony. It opposes Oedipus against those who know i.e. Tiresias. Where characters themselves are not omniscient, the audience is. The audience knows the gist of the story and can be surprised only in the means by which the necessary ends are achieved. They know that Oedipus is, in all sincerity, telling a falsehood when he says: 

“I shall speak, as a stranger to the whole question and stranger to the action.” 

The falsehood is, however, qualified in the term stranger: the stranger who met and killed King Laius, who met and married Queen Jocasta, the stranger who was no true stranger at all. At the outset, he says: 

“For I know well that all of you are sick, but though you are sick, there’s none of you who is so sick as I.” 

Here he is, indeed, speaking the truth, but more truth, than he knows, because he is using sickness only in a symbolic sense while actually it is true of him in a literal tense.

In addition to this irony of detail, there is a larger irony in the inversion of the whole action. The homeless wanderer by delivering the city of Thebes from the sphinx and marrying Jocasta became a King in fact, but this revelation turned him once more into a homeless wanderer, who had once gone bright eyed with his strong traveller’s staff, now uses the staff to feel the way before him. 

The reversed pattern is seen again in the fact that the cruel oracles have their darkest moment just before they come clear. Jocasta’s words mocking the prophecy of the gods are echoed and amplified in Oedipus’ typical tyrant-speech of unbelief. The role of the helpers is another example. Sophocles provides at least one helper, or rescuer, for every act. The appeal in the prologue is to Oedipus, himself a rescuer in the past. Oedipus appeals to Creon who comes from and represents Apollo and Delphi. It is as a rescuer that Tiresias is called. Jocasta intervenes to help. So does the Corinthian messenger, and the last helper, the Theban shepherd, is the true and original rescuer. Those who do not know the reality are eager to help; those who know are reluctant. But all helper alike push Oedipus over the edge into disaster. 

Oedipus Rex: Character is Destiny 

“Oedipus Rex” is a tragedy of fate. The crucial events in the play have been pre-determined by fate or the gods. Man seems helpless facing the circumstances which mould his destiny. King Laius was told that his own son by Jocasta would kill him. Laius did everything possible to prevent such a disaster. Once Jocasta gave birth to a son, Laius had him chained and handed him over to a trustworthy servant with strict orders that the child be exposed on. Mt. Cithaeron and allowed to perish. But the servant, out of compassion, handed over the child to a Corinthian shepherd who passed him on to the Corinthian King. The child grew up as the son of the King and Queen of Corinth and later killed his true father, Laius, in complete ignorance. Apollo’s oracle was fulfilled even though Laius and Jocasta took the extreme step to escape the fate foretold by the oracle.

Oedipus had also to submit to the destiny which Apollo's oracle pronounced for him. He learnt from the oracle that he would kill his own father and marry his own mother. He, too, tried his utmost to avert a terrible fate and fled from Corinth. His wanderings took him to Thebes, where people were facing a great misfortune. King Laius had been killed and the city was in the grip of the Sphinx, who was causing a lot of destruction because nobody was able to solve her riddle. Oedipus solved the riddle and put an end to the monster. Oedipus was joyfully received by Theban people as their King and was given Laius’s widow as his wife. Thus, in complete ignorance of the identity of his parents, he killed his father and married his mother. He performed these disastrous acts not only unknowingly, but as a result of his efforts to escape the cruel fate which the oracle at had communicated to him. 

It is evident that the occurrences which bring about the tragedy in the life of Laius, Oedipus, and Jocasta are the work of that mysterious supernatural power called fate or destiny or be given the name of Apollo. This supernatural power had pre-determined certain tragic events and even informed the human beings in advance. These human beings take whatever measures, to avert those events; and yet things turn out exactly as they had been foretold by the oracles. Oedipus has done nothing at all to deserve the fate which overtakes him. Nor do Laius and Jocasta deserve the fate they meet, 

According to Aristotle the tragic hero is a prosperous man who falls into misfortune due to some serious defect or hamartia. No doubt that Oedipus is an able ruler, a father of his people, a great administrator and an outstanding intellect. His chief care is not for himself but for the people of the State. The people look upon him as their savior and worshipped him. He is also a religious man in the orthodox sense. That such a man should meet the sad fate is unbearably painful to us. 

Oedipus is not, however, a perfect man or a perfect King. He does suffer from a hamartia or a defect of character. He is hot-tempered, rash, hasty in judgments, easily provoked and somewhat arbitrary. Though in the beginning his attitude towards Tiresias is one of reverence, he quickly loses his temper and speaks to the prophet in an insulting manner accusing both him and Creon of treason and showing a blind suspicion towards friends. His position and authority seem to be leading him to become a tyrant. Creon has to remind him that the city does not belong to him alone. Even when blinded he draws the reproach: 

“Do not crave to be master in everything always.” 

All this shows that Oedipus is not a man of a flawless character, not completely free from faults, not an embodiment of all the virtues. His pride in his own wisdom is one of his glaring faults. His success in solving the riddle of the Sphinx further developed his inherent feeling of pride. There is in him a failure of piety even. Under the influence of Jocasta, he grows sceptical of the oracles. Thus there is in him a lack of true wisdom which took him on the verge of becoming an impious tyrant.

If Oedipus had not been hot-tempered, he might not have got entangled in a fight on the road and might have not been guilty of murdering his father. Similarly, if he had been a little more cautious, he might have hesitated to marry a woman old enough to be his mother. After all there was no compulsion either in the fight or in his marriage. Both his acts may thus be attributed to his own defects of character. All at once it has to be accepted that the decree of the oracles were inescapable. Even if Oedipus had taken the precautions, the prophecy was to be fulfilled. The oracle’s prediction was unconditional; it did not say that if Oedipus did such and such a thing he would kill his father and marry his mother. The oracle simply said that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. What the oracle said, was bound to happen.

If Oedipus is the innocent victim of inescapable doom, he would be a mere puppet and the play becomes a tragedy of destiny which denies human freedom. Sophocles does not want to regard Oedipus as a puppet; there is reason to believe that Oedipus has been portrayed largely as a free agent. The attendant in the play insistently describes Oedipus’ self-blinding as voluntary and distinguishes it from his involuntary murder of his father and marriage with his mother. Oedipus’ actions were fate-bound, but everything that he does, he does as a free agent – his condemnation of Tiresias and Creon, his conversation with Jocasta to reveal the facts, his pursuing his investigation despite the efforts of Jocasta and the Theban shepherd to stop him, and so on. Oedipus, freely choosing a series of actions, led to his own ruin. Oedipus could have left the plague to take its course but his pity over the sufferings of his people forced him to consult the oracle. He could have left the murder of Laius uninvestigated, but his love of justice obliged him to inquire. He need not have forced the truth from the reluctant Theban shepherd but he could not rest content with a lie. Tiresias, Jocasta, the Theban shepherd each tried to stop Oedipus, but he was determined to solve the problem of his own parentage. The direct cause of his ruin is not fate; no oracle said that he must discover the truth. The cause of his ruin lies in his own weakness. His own strength and courage, his loyalty to Thebes and his love of truth causes his ruin. All this shows him a free agent. 

In spite of the facts that Oedipus is a free agent in most of his actions, still the most tragic events of his life – his murder of his father and his marriage with his mother – had inevitably to happen. Here the responsibility of fate cannot be denied. The real tragedy lies in the discovery of truth, which is due to his own traits. If he had not discovered the truth, he would have continued to live in a state of blissful ignorance and there would have been no tragedy and no suffering. But the parricide and the incest were pre-ordained and for these fate is responsible. 

Oedipus Rex: Role of Chorus 

Greek tragedy is said to develop itself from the group of dancers and singers who used to partake in the worship of various gods. According to Aristotle the Chorus should be like one of the characters. Gradually the role of the Chorus became less and less important in classical tragedy, until in Roman tragedy the speeches of the Chorus were supposed to be made in between the acts. 

Chorus discharges some broad functions in all classical tragedies. The structure of a Greek tragedy is determined by the Chorus. After the prologue, it is with the entry of the Chorus that a Greek tragedy begins. Various episodes are also marked off by choric odes. The conclusion of a Greek tragedy occurs with the exode or the exit song of the Chorus. It is the function of the Chorus to comment on actions and events. It also sometimes questions the characters. Its standard role is that of the moderator. At times it represents the view-point of the common spectator and in some cases it represents the view-point of the dramatist himself. 

The functions of the Chorus are very well performed in Oedipus Rex. In the very first ode the Chorus depicts the horror of the plague and expresses an apprehension about the message from the oracle of Delphi. Other odes comment on the action that has taken place after the last ode and build an atmosphere appropriate to that stage of the play. It plays the role of a peace-maker between the king and Creon and succeeds in getting the king’s pardon for the latter. After the exit of Tiresias it comments on the terrible predictions which Tiresias has made but shows determination to support the king. Its most significant response is when Oedipus and Jocasta have expressed irreverent thoughts against the oracles. At many other times also they reflect the dominant mood and help to deepen it. When Oedipus imagines that he is the son of the goodness of luck, the Chorus, immediately sing that their master, Oedipus, might be the son of Apollo. 

In the fifth or last choric ode in Oedipus Rex, the Chorus reflects the dejection of Oedipus and says that all the generations of moral man add up to nothing. This ode must not be regarded as reflecting the final mood and impression of the play, for the impression is as much of the greatness of the human spirit as of the insignificance of man and the transitoriness of his happiness. This ode must, therefore, be looked upon only as reflecting a final judgment of it. Oedipus remains forceful even in his downfall; in a sense he is still heroic. 

The Chorus takes part in the dialogues also. When Oedipus consults them about ending the plague in the city, they express disappointment that the oracle had not guided them about the identity of Laius’ murderer. They also tell him what they know about the murder of their previous king and its circumstances. When Creon, learning that the king has accused him of treason, comes on the stage he talks to the Chorus, who tell him that the king’s accusation was probably made in the heat of anger. Creon asked if the king looked absolutely serious while making the charge and they rightly say that it is not for them to look into the eyes of his master when he speaks. When Oedipus has almost passed a sentence upon Creon, Jocasta arrives on the scene and first talks to the Chorus. They request her to settle the difference between the two men. They are worried when they see Jocasta going into the palace in a very dejected mood, and they give expression to their apprehension. Oedipus asks them about the shepherd who gave the infant to the Corinthian, they answer that his queen would be able to answer the question better. They sympathize with Oedipus when they see him after he has blinded himself. It is clear, thus, that the Chorus never takes a direct hand in the action. It does not consist only of spectators but influences the action in various subtle ways.

The contribution of the Chorus in Oedipus Rex is considerable. They link the play with common humanity. In some sense they are often in the position of the ideal spectator. They fill in the gaps in the action when no other character is there on the stage. They add to it the element of melody which must have been one of the attractions of Greek tragedy. They provide an appropriate shift between the titanic, heroic figure of Oedipus and the mass of common humanity represented by the two shepherds in Oedipus Res. The tragedy of Oedipus and its relevance to common life is very well stressed by the Chorus in its exit ode or exode. 

Oedipus Rex : Fate 

In the Greek tragedy Oedipus the King written by Sophocles, the antagonist is fate. The theme of fate is deeply intertwined in the plot. In this play, all meet their fate despite attempting to escape it. Two characters bring about a fate worse than their original fate as punishment for trying to cheat fate. 

The first instance-involving fate occurs when Oedipus sends Creon, Jocasta’s brother, to the temple of Apollo, the god of prophecy and healing, to find the fate of Thebes and how to rid Thebes of the plague the people are suffering from. Oedipus says, 

I acted at once. I sent Creon, 

My wife’s own brother, to Delphi— 

Apollo the Prophet’s oracle7—to learn 

What I might do or say to save our city. (Sophocles, 81-84) 

It is important to note that Apollo made the prophecy to King Laius, Jocasta’s former husband, and Jocasta, Oedipus’s wife, that they would bear a son who would kill King Laius, and Apollo made the prophecy to Oedipus that he would kill his biological father and sleep with his biological mother. 

Fate is next brought into the play when Creon is sent in search of the blind prophet of Apollo, Tiresias. Against his will, Tiresias reveals Oedipus' fate. Oedipus is so anxious to find the murderer of King Laius that he will not give up until the murderer is found. Oedipus relentlessly pursues the truth, unwilling to give up until the truth is found. 

After Oedipus repeatedly provokes Tiresias, he reveals what Oedipus is and who Oedipus really is. Tiresias says to Oedipus, 

You cannot imagine…I tell you,

you and your loved ones live together in infamy, 

you cannot see how far you’ve gone in guilt. (Sophocles, 417-419) 

Tiresias is alluding to the fact that Oedipus unknowingly is married to his mother and has produced offspring through her. Oedipus is too blind to comprehend what Tiresias is saying. Tiresias goes on to say, "I pity you, flinging at me the very insults / each man here will fling at you so soon" (Sophocles, 423-424). Tiresias is warning Oedipus that everything he thinks he has is not really his. People will turn against Oedipus and he will lose everything. Oedipus blasphemes against the gods when he tells Tiresias that he does not have the gift of prophecy. This is blasphemy because Tiresias is the messenger between gods and humans, and when Oedipus calls him a liar he is denying the words of the gods. 

Upon further provocations, Tiresias tells Oedipus that Oedipus does not know where he is living or who his parents are. Tiresias insinuates that Oedipus is both father and sibling to his children when he says, "And a crowd of other horrors you’d never dream / will level you with yourself and all your children" (Sophocles, lines 485-486). Next Tiresias predicts, "This day will bring your birth and your destruction" (Sophocles, 499). 

In his final speech towards Oedipus, Tiresias tells Oedipus that he is the murderer. Tiresias further tells Oedipus that though he is a stranger to Thebes, he will soon discover that he is a native Theban. Oedipus will also discover that he is both father and brother to his children, and both son and husband to his wife. Tiresias aptly foretells that Oedipus will lose everything; that Oedipus will be blind and exiled (Sophocles, 510-525). 

After first arguing with Tiresias and then Creon, Oedipus talks to Jocasta, bringing about our third example of fate as an antagonist. Upon learning what the argument was about Jocasta relays that an oracle had come to King Laius and told him that he would "die a victim at the hands of his own son" (Sophocles, 786-787). The king had pierced the infant's ankles and sent him to die, and besides King Laius was killed by highwayman. Jocasta argues that Oedipus should not fear prophecy because of the following,Apollo brought neither thing to pass. My baby, 

no more murdered his father than Laius suffered, 

his wildest fear—death at his own son’s hands. 

That’s how the seers and all their revelations. (Sophocles, 794-797) 

Jocasta should have known that she could not outwit the gods, or fate. Fate next comes into play when Oedipus, who has begun to think he is King Laius' killer, recounts the dinner where the drunken man accused Oedipus of being a bastard. Oedipus goes to the oracle at Delphi to find his destiny. The oracle tells Oedipus as follows: 

You are fated to couple with your mother, you will bring, 

A breed of children into the light no man can bear to see— 

You will kill your father, the one who gave your life!. (Sophocles, 873-875) 

After hearing the oracle's prediction, Oedipus flees Corinth to protect Merope and Polybus and to escape his destiny, which gives us our fifth instance of fate. 

The change in the curse was brought about by Jocasta, who feared the oracle's prophecy. Jocasta sent the infant, Oedipus, to his death. In doing this Jocasta was attempting to cheat fate. Jocasta thought that if she killed the baby, she could change her husband's destiny. The added prophecy that Oedipus would lie with his mother and produce cursed offspring is a result of Jocasta's attempt to cheat fate. Oedipus is really an innocent victim of fate. 

Again fate is seen when the messenger brings news that Polybus has died a natural death. Both Oedipus and Jocasta rejoice briefly in this news for it further proves that oracles are wrong Yet, Oedipus still has fear of prophecy for he will not return to Corinth as long as Merope is alive, for fear that he will lay with her. The messenger tells Oedipus that Merope is not Oedipus' true mother, as he himself gave Oedipus to her and to Pelops as a gift (Sophocles, 1113-1119). It is a strange twist of fate this messenger both took Oedipus to Corinth, but also is one of the final puzzle pieces in Oedipus' true identity. 

When the shepherd arrives on the scene he is forced by Oedipus to verify that Oedipus is the child of Jocasta and King Laius. Oedipus' is now forced to realize that he has not escaped his fate. The entire prophecy has been fulfilled. After finding Jocasta's body, "And there we saw the woman hanging by the neck" (Sophocles, 1396), Oedipus does the following: 

He rips off her brooches, the long gold pins 

holding her ropes—and lifting them high, 

looking straight up into the points, 

he digs them down the sockets of his eyes, crying. (Sophocles, 1403-1406) 

In the end of the play Oedipus is blind, ruined, and exiled just as Tiresias foretold when he said, 

You are the scourge of your own flesh and blood, 

And the double lash of your mother and your father’s curse 

Will whip you from this land one day, their football 

Treading you down in terror, darkness shrouding 

Your eyes that now can see the light. (Sophocles, 474-479) 

Fate came out victorious in the end. In the Greek vision Fate cannot be altered or cheated. Even the gods cannot change Fate. Instead of claiming one victim, many were ruined. If Jocasta had not tried to cheat fate, perhaps King Laius would be the only death. Instead King Laius and Jocasta are both dead, Oedipus is ruined and his children are cursed by this incestuous pollution. Fate is a force not to be reckoned with. 

Considering all the facts ,we can say that Oedipus is neither a free agent nor a mere victim of fate. The major events of his life are determined by fate, but his own acts such as fleeing from Corinth, killing an old man, marrying an aged woman, without knowing his whole identity, showing over-confidence and milking the shepherd for information all have contributed in precipitating the disaster. 

Oedipus Rex : Plot Construction 

Plot is the “first principle,” the most important feature of tragedy. Aristotle defines plot as “the arrangement of the incidents”. According to him ;“The plot must be “a single whole,” with a beginning, middle, and end. It must be “complete,” having “unity of action.” 

By this Aristotle means that the plot must be structurally self-contained, with the incidents bound together by internal necessity, each action leading inevitably to the next without any intervention. 

“The worst kinds of plots are “‘episodic,’ in which the episodes or acts succeed one another without probable or necessary sequence” The plot must be “of a certain magnitude,” both quantitatively (length, complexity) and qualitatively (“seriousness” and universal significance). It should not be too brief; it may be either simple or complex, although complex is better. Simple plots have only a “change of fortune”. Complex plots have both “reversal of intention” and “recognition “connected with the catastrophe (disaster).” 

Oedipus Rex is the finest example from plot construction point of view and it has been envied by many of the writers. According to Aristotle, the plot of Oedipus Rex satisfies all the requirement of a good plot in a very nice way and he, in his book “the poetic”, presents Oedipus Rex as a model tragedy from all dramatic convictions’ point of view. When we analyse critically Oedipus Rex from plot construction point of view we can say that the first thing which strikes us is its unusual plot. 

Oedipus Rex has an extremely unusual plot. It is the story of a King who is brought down by the unforeseen consequences of his own oath. From beginning to end it is concerned with the investigation of some past events. The play unites two parallel problems. One is the detection of murderer of Laius and the second is the identity of Oedipus himself. The two problems are one in a way and solving of either of them is like solving the both. 

The general pattern of the story is that of finding of a lost one. The theme can be applied at several levels. We can say that Oedipus finds his parents or Thebes and Corinth discover their lost prince. This is very old theme. The foundling story has certain set features. For example, the child is generally believed to be dead, though it often escapes miraculously or by some kind human beings. The child grows up in the house-hold of a poor man but at the appropriated time, his identity is discovered by some physical signs or tokens. The Oedipus story is an exception in the sense that here the prince is brought up still as a prince, though in the family of another king. The token are not used by Sophocles towards the solution – he has another use for them, but they are there in the form of pins stuck through the baby’s ankles. Often this theme is used in many comical stories but Oedipus is a true tragedy. 

Unity of Action: - Each of the incidents in this play is part of a tightly constructed cause-and-effect chain. The plague in Thebes prompts Oedipus to send Creon to consult the oracle of Delphi; the oracle’s reply that the murderer of Laius must be banished from Thebes prompts Oedipus pronounce a solemn curse on the murderer and to send for Tiresias. Tiresias states that Oedipus is the murderer, but since the king knows himself to be innocent (or thinks he knows), he accuses Creon of plotting with Tiresias against him. The quarrel of Oedipus and Creon brings Jocasta from the house; seeking to calm down her husband and prove that oracles cannot be trusted, she tells again of how Laius died. When she mentions that he was killed “at a place where three roads meet,” Oedipus suddenly begins to suspect that he may indeed have killed the king without knowing who he was. To settle the matter, they send for the Herdsman who is the only survivor of that attack. Meanwhile a messenger arrives from Corinth to inform Oedipus that his supposed father, King Polybus of Corinth, has died. Oedipus rejoices that he did not kill his father as the oracle had prophesied but is still worried that he may marry his mother, the Messenger, seeking to relieve him of this fear, innocently tells him that Polybus and Merope were not his real parents. 

The arrival of the Messenger is the only action in the play that is not directly caused by a previous action. However, this is a perfect example of Aristotle's contention that if coincidences cannot be avoided, they should have “an air of design,” for this messenger seems brought by fate, since he is the missing link in Oedipus’ story, the very man who received Oedipus as a baby from the Herdsman. Thus, when the Herdsman arrives and they tell their respective stories, the whole truth emerges. This is the climax, or turning point, of the plot—the truth about Oedipus leads directly to the suicide of Jocasta and Oedipus’ self-blinding and request to be exiled. The departure of Oedipus from Thebes will lift the plague, thus resolving the problem that started off the chain of events and concluding the plot. 

This plot is also a perfect example of the exclusion of the irrational and the skillful handling of traditional elements of the myth on which the play is based. Sophocles does not dramatize any of the admittedly irrational parts of the myth (e.g., why did Laius and Jocasta not kill the baby outright? If Oedipus was afraid of marrying his mother, why did he marry a woman old enough to be his mother? etc). Instead, in a brilliant move, he constructs the play as an investigation of the past. The tremendous sense of inevitability and fate in this play stems from the fact that all the irrational things have already been done; they are unalterable. Once Oedipus begins to investigate the murder of Laius, the whole truth about the past is bound to emerge; as he himself says, 

“O, O, O, they will all come, 

All come out clearly!” 

Complex Plot: The peripeteia of the play is the Messenger's reversal of intention; in seeking to help Oedipus by telling him that Polybus and Merope were not his real parents, he instead creates the opposite effect, providing the crucial piece of information that will reveal that Oedipus has indeed killed his father and married his mother. As Aristotle recommends, this is directly connected to the anagnorisis, for the Messenger and Herdsman piece together the whole story of Oedipus, enabling him to “recognize” his true identity, to gain the essential knowledge he has lacked. The peripeteia and anagnorisis directly cause Oedipus’ catastrophe, or change of fortune from good to bad, and lead to the emotional “scenes of suffering” with Creon and his children. In a sense, each of Oedipus’ actions can be considered a reversal of intention, and each gives him a little more knowledge of the dreadful truth that will lead to his downfall. 

Role of the Hamartia: The play offers a perfect illustration of the nature of the hamartia as “mistake” or error rather than flaw. Oedipus directly causes his own downfall not because he is evil, or proud, or weak, but simply because he does not know who he is. If he really wanted to avoid the oracle, leaving Corinth was a mistake, killing an unknown older aristocrat was a mistake, and marrying an older queen was a mistake. Seeking to uncover the past, cursing the murderer of Laius, sending for the Herdsman—each of the actions that he pursued so vigorously and for such good reasons led to his doom. Oedipus is not morally guilty, but he is radically ignorant, and Sophocles does not present him as a unique case but rather as a paradigm of the human condition, as “a man like ourselves.” In the words of the Chorus: 

What man, what man on earth wins more of happiness than a seeming and after that turning away? 

Oedipus, you are my pattern of this, 

Oedipus, you and your fate! (stasimon 5)

Oedipus Rex : Relationship b/w man and the gods 

Crucial Events Pre-determined:- Oedipus Rex is, to a large extent, a tragedy of fate. The crucial events in the play have been pre-determined by fate or the gods. Human beings seem rather helpless in the face of the circumstances which mould their destiny. 

King Laius was told that his own son by Jocasta would kill him. Laius did everything possible to avoid such a disaster. As soon as Jocasta gave birth to a son, Laius had him chained and handed him over to a trustworthy servant with strict and precise instructions to the effect that the child be exposed on. Mt. Cithaeron and allowed to perish. No child could have survived under the circumstances. But the servant, out of compassion, handed over the child to a Corinthian shepherd who passed him on to the Corinthian King. The child grew up as the son of Polybus and Merope, the King and Queen of Corinth, and subsequently killed his true father, Laius. Of course, the son killed his father unknowingly and in complete ignorance of the real identity of his victim. But Apollo’s oracle was fulfilled in the case of Laius even though he and his wife Jocasta took the extreme step of ordering the death of their own child, in order to escape the fate which had been foretold by the oracle. 

Oedipus’s Efforts to Avert His Fate Thwarted: - Oedipus, the son whom Laius had begotten, had likewise to submit to the destiny which Apollo’s oracle pronounced for him. Oedipus learnt from the oracle that he would kill his own father and marry his own mother. Like his parents, Oedipus tried his utmost to avert a terrible fate. He fled from Corinth, determined never again to set eyes on his supposed father and mother as long as they lived. His wanderings took him to Thebes the people of which were facing a great misfortune. King Laius had been killed by an unknown traveller (who was none other than Oedipus himself) at a spot where three roads met; the city was in the grip of a frightful monster, the Sphinx, who was causing a lot of destruction because nobody was able to solve the riddle which she had propounded. Oedipus was able to solve the riddle and thus put an end to the monster. As a reward for the service he had rendered to the city, Oedipus was joyfully received by the people as their King and was given Laius’s widow as his wife. Thus, in complete ignorance of the identity of both his parents, he killed his father and married his mother. He performed these disastrous acts not only unknowingly and unintentionally, but as a direct result of his efforts to escape the cruel fate which the oracle at Delphi had communicated to him. 

Characters Not Responsible for their Fate: - It is evident, then, that the occurrences which bring about the tragedy in the life of Laius, Oedipus, and Jocasta are the work of that mysterious supernatural power which may be called fate or destiny or be given the name of Apollo. This supernatural power had pre-determined certain catastrophic events in the life of these human beings. These human beings are even informed in advance that they will become the victims of certain shocking events; these human beings take whatever measures they can think of, to avert those events; and yet things turn out exactly as they had been foretold by the oracles. How can we attribute any responsibility for the tragic happenings to characters? Oedipus, the greatest sufferer in the play, has done nothing at all to deserve the fate which overtakes him. Nor do Laius and Jocasta deserve the fate they meet. 

The Goodness and Intelligence of Oedipus: - Let us, however, take a closer look at the character of Oedipus, the tragic hero of the play. Aristotle expressed the view that the tragic hero is a man, esteemed and prosperous, who falls into misfortune because of some hamartia or defect. Now, there can be no doubt at all about the essential goodness of Oedipus. He is an able ruler, a father of his people, an honest and great administrator, and an outstanding intellect. His chief care is not for himself but for the people of the State. The people look upon him as their saviour. He is adored and worshipped by them. He is also a religious man in the orthodox sense; he believes in oracles; he respects the bonds of family; and he hates impurity. Indeed, in the prologue of the play we get the feeling that Oedipus is an ideal King. That such a man should meet the sad fate which he does meet is, indeed, unbearably painful to us. 

Oedipus’s Defects of Character: - Oedipus is not, however, a perfect man or even a perfect King. He does suffer from a hamartia or a defect of character which makes him liable to incur the wrath of the gods. He is hot-tempered, rash, hasty in forming judgments, easily provoked, and even somewhat arbitrary. Even though in the beginning his attitude towards Tiresias is one of reverence, he quickly loses his temper and speaks to the prophet in a highly insulting manner accusing both him and Creon of treason. His sentencing Creon to death even though subsequently he withdraws the punishment shows his rashness and arbitrariness. Indeed, in the two scenes with Tiresias and Creon, Oedipus shows a blind suspicion towards friends, an inclination to hasty inference, and a strange vindictiveness. When he meets opposition, or thinks he does, he easily loses all self-control. His position and authority seem to be leading him to become a tyrant. (That is the reason why this play is also called Oedipus Tyrannus). Creon has to remind him that the city does not belong to him alone. Even when blinded he draws the reproach; “Do not crave to be master in everything always.” All this shows that Oedipus is not a man of a flawless character, not a man completely free from faults, not an embodiment of all the virtues. His pride in his own wisdom is one of his glaring faults. His success in solving the riddle of the Sphinx seems to have further developed his inherent feeling of pride. No seer or prophet found the solution: this is Oedipus’s boast, pride and self-confidence that induce him to feel almost superior to the gods. There is in him a failure of piety even. Under the influence of Jocasta, he grows sceptical of the oracles. Thus there is in him a lack of true wisdom and this lack is an essential feature of the man who is on the verge of becoming an impious tyrant. 

The Oracle’s Predictions Inescapable: - But the question that arises is: what is the connection between these defects of character in Oedipus and the sad fate that he meets. It may be said that if he had not been hot-tempered, he might not have got entangled in a fight on the road and might thus have not been guilty of murdering his father. Similarly, if he had been a little more cautious, he might have hesitated to marry a woman old enough to be his mother. After all there was no compulsion either in the fight that he picked up during his journey or in the act of his marriage with Jocasta. Both his killing his father and his marrying his mother may thus be attributed to his own defects of character. At the same time it has to be recognised that the pronouncements of the oracles were inescapable. What was foretold by the oracle must inevitably happen. Even if Oedipus had taken the precautions above hinted at, the prophecy was to be fulfilled. The oracle’s prediction was unconditional; it did not say that if Oedipus did such and such a thing he would kill his father and marry his mother. The oracle simply said that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. What the oracle said was bound to happen. 

Oedipus Not a Puppet, But a Free Agent in His Actions on the Stage: - If Oedipus is the innocent victim of a doom which he cannot avoid, he would appear to be a mere puppet. The whole play in that case becomes a tragedy of destiny which denies human freedom. But such a view would also be unsound. Sophocles does not want to regard Oedipus as a puppet; there is reason to believe that Oedipus has been portrayed largely as a free agent. Neither in Homer nor in Sophocles does divine fore-knowledge of certain events imply that all human actions are pre-determined. The attendant in the present play emphatically describes Oedipus’s self-blinding as voluntary and self-chosen and distinguishes it from his involuntary murder of his father and marriage with his mother. Some of Oedipus’s actions were fate-bound, but everything that he does on the stage, from first to last, he does as a free agent—his condemnation of Tiresias and Creon, his conversation with Jocasta leading him to reveal the facts of his life to her and to his learning from her the circumstances of the death of Laius, his pursuing his investigation despite the efforts of Jocasta and the Theban shepherd to stop him, and so on. What fascinates us in this play is the spectacle of a man freely choosing, from the highest motives, a series of actions which lead to his own ruin. Oedipus could have left the plague to take its course but his pity over the sufferings of his people compelled him to consult the oracle. When Apollo’s word came, he could still have left the murder of Laius un-investigated, but his piety and his love of justice compelled him to start an inquiry. He need not have forced the truth from a reluctant Theban shepherd, but he could not rest content with a lie and, therefore, wanted to prove the matter fully. Tiresias, Jocasta, the Theban shepherd, each in turn tried to stop Oedipus, but in vain; he was determined to solve the problem of his own parentage. The immediate cause of his ruin is not fate or the gods; no oracle said that he must discover the truth. Still less does the cause of his ruin lie in his own weakness. What causes his ruin is his own strength and courage, his loyalty to Thebes, and his love of truth. In all this we are to see him as a free agent. And his self-blinding and self-banishment are equally free acts of choice. 

The Responsibility of fate and the Responsibility of Character: - What is our conclusion, then? In spite of the evidence to prove Oedipus a free agent in most of his actions as depicted in the play, we cannot forget that the most tragic events of his life—his murder of his father and his marriage with his mother—had inevitably to happen. Here the responsibility of fate cannot be denied. But the discovery by Oedipus of his crimes or sins is the result of the compulsions of his own nature. The real tragedy lies in this discovery, which is due to the traits of his own character. If he had not discovered the truth, he would have continued to live in a state of blissful ignorance and there would have been no tragedy—no shock, no self-blinding, and no suffering (assuming, of course, that Jocasta too did not discover the truth). But the parricide and the incest—these were pre-ordained and for these fate is responsible. 

Oedipus Rex : Role of Hubris in the Play 

Hubris means great and unreasonable pride. On the surface there are ample evidences that Oedipus falls because of his excessive and unreasonable pride. His pride starts when he runs from Corinth. He runs from Corinth when he is told by an oracle that he is doomed to kill his father and he marry his mother. He runs because he is proud of his intelligence and think that he can avoid his fate through intelligence Had he not been proud, he would have asked the oracle to avoid this fate. The oracles might have told him some way to avoid the immoral situation but he runs away and leaves the city trusting his intelligence. 

He kills his father, though he does not know the real identity at that time, in a fit of pride. From the details of the encounter we come to know that Oedipus refused give way to the king because of his pride and when the king tried to force his will he killed him and all his company except one person who escaped. 

Again when he embarks to investigate the murder of the king, he is motivated by pride. The following lines bear testimony to this statement: “then once more I must bring what is dark to light.” 

Each and every word spoken by Oedipus to Tiresias shows his pride. The following speech is noteworthy in this respect: when that hellcat the Sphinx was performing here, what help were you to the people? …. Your birds what good were they? Or the gods, for the matter of that? But I came by, Oedipus the simple man who knows nothing— I thought it out for myself, no birds helped me! And this the man you think you can destroy.” 

He thinks himself solver of riddles; therefore, he becomes crazed with zeal to unveil the murder of Liaus. It is his pride that leads him to think that Creon was hatching a conspiracy against him. This pride blinds him to all other consideration and he blames Creon in open. He also does not spare the blind soothsayer and charges him of treason against his throne and life. He does not even stop to think why the blind soothsayer would be in league with Creon. 

When Oedipus hears the news of Polybos’ death , he is overjoyed. The following speech of Oedipus also shows his excessive pride: “ why should a man respect the Pythian heart, or give heed to the birds that jangle above his head? They prophesied that I should kill Polybos, kill my own father— he packed the oracle off with him underground. They are empty words.” 

All these detail may delude the readers to think that Oedipus was punished for the pride that he professes in his talents. It is true that Greeks thought any disrespect and blasphemy towards gods as great sin and believed that those who committed these sins cannot avoid sins. But things are not as simple in the case of Oedipus. We must bear in mind that the playwright wants to show something more involved than this. Therefore before we decide the cause of Oedipus’ fall, we will have to keep a lot of things in mind. 

We must be clear in our mind that Oedipus was doomed to kill his father and marry his mother. Oedipus falls not because of his pride but because he kills his father and marries his mother. No doubt he commits both these acts without knowledge but as soon as he comes to know his crime, he blind himself. All this has nothing to do with his pride. He does not blind himself out humiliation or disgrace rather he punishes himself for not being able to see the difference. This points to the fact that the playwright wants to show that man has but little freedom to choose what he likes and he is fated to get what is written in his fate in spite of this he tries to fight all forces that annihilate his significance. At the end of the play the writer seems suggesting that man is not “like butterflies to the wanton boys to the gods” but he is responsible what happens to him. 

In short we can say that Oedipus falls because he was doomed to fall even before his birth. His pride has nothing to do with his fall. It is true that his pride hastens his fall but it is his pride makes him the real tragic hero. The reader may feel temporary dissatisfaction with Oedipus for his pride but his pride leads him to discover the greatest truth of his life and once he succeeds in discovering this truth he punishes himself adequately. At the end we feel that all who were advising Oedipus not to probe into the murder of Liaus were wrong and Oedipus was right. 

Oedipus Rex : Moral Lesson in the Play 

Oedipus Rex is a play of inexhaustible interest. Literary critics and students of Greek religion in our times continue to turn to it. Anthropologists and Psychologists find it useful as a reflection of an ancient myth and man’s unconscious mind. In short, the play continues to be a subject of intensive discussion. 

Certain things about it are clearer than others. For instance, it can easily be analysed as a piece of stagecraft; the methods used to arouse the interest and excite the emotions of the audience are evident to the analytical reader. But the meaning or significance of the play has aroused a lot of controversy. Briefly speaking, there are two major considerations regarding this play i. e Sophocles’ dramatic craftsmanship, and Sophoclean thought—the former presenting no problem and the latter giving rise to considerable differences of opinion. Most critics have found a profound meaning in the play and they have offered a variety of interpretations ranging from the didacticism of Plutarch to the more complex explanations of the 20th century (such as Freudian, post-Freudian, Marxist, and existentialist). 

Matching Wits with the gods: - The plot of this play is a search for knowledge, and its climax is recognition of truth. The hero here is a man whose self-esteem is rooted in his pride of intellect. The gods here manifest themselves not by means of any miracle but by a prediction which is proved true after a long delay. Various formulas have been imposed on this play. For instance, the play has been interpreted to mean that a wicked man is punished, or that an imprudent man pays the price, or that a family curse returns, or that an innocent man is victimised by fate. However, a more appropriate formula would be to say that in this play a man matches wits with the gods. We might even lend universality to this formula by saying that here man (and not a man) matches wits with the gods. 

The gods always Win: - The play appears to dramatize the conventional Greek wisdom that, when mortal man vies with the immortal gods, the gods always win. The theme is as old as Homer, who tells this story to illustrate it in the sixth book of the Iliad. In this particular play the specific point of contention is knowledge. This is Sophocles’ way of translating the old theme into a form suited to the age of enlightenment and it creates a fine contrast or opposition between knowledge as power and self-knowledge. In short, the awareness that man is less than the gods is undoubtedly an element in the play. 

Victory in Defeat: - “Oedipus Tyrannous of Sophocles combines two apparently irreconcilable themes, the greatness of the gods and the greatness of man, and the combination of these themes is inevitably tragic, for the greatness of the gods is most clearly and powerfully demonstrated by man’s defeat. The god is great in his laws and he does not grow old. But man does grow old, and not only does he grow old, he also dies. Unlike the gods, he exists in time. The beauty and power of his physical frame is subject to sickness, death, and corruption, the beauty and power of his intellectual, artistic, and social achievement to decline, overthrow, and oblivion. His greatness and beauty arouse in us a pride in their magnificence which is inseparable from and increased by our sorrow over their imminent death. Oedipus is symbolic of all human achievement, his hard-won magnificence, unlike the everlasting magnificence of the divine, cannot last and, while it lives, shines all the more brilliant against the sombre background of its impermanency. Sophocles’ tragedy presents us with a terrible affirmation of man’s subordinate position in the universe, and at the same time with a heroic vision of man’s victory in defeat. Man is not equated to the gods but man at his greatest, as in Oedipus, is capable of something which the gods cannot experience; the proud tragic view of Sophocles sees in the fragility and inevitable defeat of human greatness the possibility of a purely human heroism to which the gods can never attain, for the condition of their existence is everlasting victory.” 

The Lesson of Modesty or Self-Restraint: - It might be held that the play teaches us the precept: “know thyself”. If we agree, we shall have to support the view that the play is didactic and that Sophocles is a teacher; for what the Delphic maxim just quoted amounts to is a warning to cultivate sophrosyne, a word best translated as modesty or self-restraint. It may be asserted that the play teaches the reader to cultivate the virtue of modesty, or self-restraint, or self-control, or caution. According to a strong supporter of this view, the touchstone by which Oedipus is to be judged is Creon. Creon’s “pious moderation” and “modest loyalty” are the ideals against which the arrogance of Oedipus is measured and found to be wrong. If the play teaches the lesson of self-control and self-restraint, then we have to admit that Creon’s personality illustrates this virtue. Creon explicitly claims this virtue in one of his speeches. He is at all-time respectful, cautious, and reverent. Even at the end, he insists that he will not exile Oedipus until he is absolutely sure that this is what the gods desire. It is he who points the obvious moral in the last scene, that now perhaps Oedipus will put his faith in the gods. His last, minor dispute with Oedipus is over a question of caution. Oedipus wants to be exiled immediately but Creon will not promise this until the will of the gods is made quite clear. Twice in the course of the play Creon makes a statement that may be taken as his motto. The statement is to the effect that Creon will not do or say anything unless he possesses definite knowledge to justify his doing or saying it. 

The Contrast with Creon: - This trait in Creon contrasts him sharply with Oedipus who suffers from the pride of knowledge. Creon shows a desire to avoid the responsibilities of kingship because they are dangerous and painful. Creon would be content instead with public approval and with honours that bring gain. Creon is a just man; he is even a kind man who brings the children in the last scene to meet Oedipus. He is also an innocent man unjustly accused who reacts mildly and seems not to bear any grudge at the end. But he is humdrum and poor spirited and self-satisfied. He is thoroughly decent in his way, but Oedipus with his boldness and intelligence and ease of command is a much greater personality. 

The Contrast between Oedipus & Other Main Characters: - The contrast between Oedipus and the other two principal characters is also noteworthy. Tiresias represents and defends the wisdom of the gods in his opposition to human folly. But Tiresias, as a person, stands no comparison with Oedipus. His first words in the play show that Tiresias finds his knowledge unbearable, and he is quite prepared to go back home until Oedipus provokes him to anger. As for Jocasta, she has raised irresponsibility to the status of a principle. Besides, neither Jocasta nor Tiresias is willing to face the truth, while Oedipus is not only willing but determined. Neither Tiresias nor Creon desires the responsibility that comes with office and power, but Oedipus does. Tiresias and Creon are both wiser men than Oedipus and at the end of the play Creon is still giving to Oedipus a lesson in sophrosyne or self-restraint. But the brilliance and the courage of Oedipus make him a greater man than both Tiresias and Creon. 

The True Greatness of Man: - Oedipus may be taken to represent all mankind. He represents also the city which is man’s greatest creation. His resurgence in the last scene of the play is a prophetic vision of a defeated Athens which will rise to greatness beyond anything she had attained in victory. In the last scene, we witness a vision of a man superior to the tragic reversal of his action and the terrible success of his search for truth, reasserting his greatness not this time in defiance of the powers which shape human life but in harmony with those powers. In the last scene we see beyond the defeat of man’s ambition the true greatness of which only the defeated are capable. 

No Moral Lesson: - There is no moral lesson here. No moralist would present human folly in such bright colours and depict wisdom and temperance as dull. The kind of play Sophocles was writing in Oedipus Rex was intrinsically unsuited to be a lesson. The play does not persuade that Creon is a nobler man; it only shows him to be a wiser man. It does offer some comfort to the pious reader, but only a little, though it creates a difficulty for a philosopher like Plato who believed in the unity of human virtues. Nor could this play have pleased humanists of the fifth century, who attached great importance to the human intellect. Here we have a play showing man at his noblest and greatest when he is most foolish and in the very actions which exhibit his folly. We may accept that gratefully as a great artistic triumph, but we should not expect a moral lesson from it. 

Blindness in Oedipus Rex 

People can be “blinded” to the truth. The answer to their question or solution to their problem may have been obvious. Yet, they could not "see" the answer. They were blinded to the truth. Associations have been made between being blind and enlightened. A blind person is said to have powers to see invisible things. They "see" into the future. The blind may not have physical sight, but they have another kind of vision. In Sophocles' King Oedipus, Tiresias, the blind prophet, presents the truth to King Oedipus and Jocasta. Oedipus has been blinded to the truth his whole life. When he does find the truth, he loses his physical vision. Because of the truth, Oedipus blinds himself. Jocasta was blind to the true identity of Oedipus. Even when she found out the truth, she refused to accept it. In this case, those who are blind ultimately do have a higher vision - the truth. 

Kind Oedipus started life with a prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. In an attempt to avoid this fate, his parents, Laius and Jocasta, sent him into the mountains to die. However, a shepherd saved Oedipus. This shepherd gave Oedipus to Polybus and Merope. When Oedipus learned of his prophecy, he fled his home, thinking these people were his real parents. On his flight, he met Laius. He ended up killing Laius. He continued on, answered a riddle of the evil Sphinx, and ended up king of Thebes. With this kingdom, Oedipus married Jocasta. He had lived out the prophecy without even knowing he had. Thebes fell onto bad times, and a prophet put the blame on a polluter of the lands. Oedipus called on Tiresias, and Tiresias informed him that the polluter was the King. As Oedipus searched further and further, he discovered that he was the polluter and that the prophecy had come true. When Oedipus finally discovered the truth, he was so distressed that he ran pins into his eyes, blinding himself. He had been blinded to the truth for so long. 

Oedipus was blind in more than one way. He was blind to the truth about his own life. Oedipus had no idea that his real parents were Laius and Jocasta. He was so blind that he got mad at anyone who was foolish enough to suggest such an idea. As more and more of the story started to fall into place, Oedipus was forced to open his eyes to the truth. Oedipus did kill his father and marry his mother. Oedipus was the person causing the bad times in Thebes. As soon as Oedipus knew and accepted the truth, he blinded himself. Just as Tiresias was blind and open to the truth, so was Oedipus. 

Oedipus was also physically blind. Oedipus' physical blindness played into the whole role of the Greek tragedy. The blindness completed the tragedy for Oedipus. Every Greek tragedy was supposed to end with the main characters experiencing their own, personal tragedy. For Oedipus, this tragedy was discovering the truth and becoming blind. It completed the prophecies that Oedipus received from the blind prophet, Tiresias. Tiresias told Oedipus that he had come into Thebes with his sight, but he would leave Thebes without it. Oedipus' physical blindness also left Oedipus to the wrongs of his life. With nothing to look at, Oedipus was forced to think about his life and what had happened. He was forced to deal with it. He had the blackness and the physical pain he had inflicted on himself as reminders and as punishment. Oedipus' physical blindness was just as painful as his blindness to the truth. Both were intertwined in each other. 

Jocasta's blindness was different then Oedipus'. She knew about the prophecy, but she thought Oedipus was dead. She had no idea that she had married her son. As pieces of information came to point to the whole truth of the matter, Jocasta refused to accept what had really happened. She realized what had happened, and she knew that she had played a role in them. Her way of dealing with the whole deal was to kill herself. Jocasta's blindness ultimately led to her downfall. 

Tiresias' blindness was of the physical nature. Tiresias played the role of the typical prophet in the Greek tragedy. He was physically blind, but he had vision into the future. When he presented the truth to Oedipus, Oedipus attacked his blindness. He told Tiresias that the only reason he was not blaming him for the whole situation was that Tiresias could not see. Oedipus used his blindness to prophesize that Oedipus would leave Thebes blind, poor, and shamed. This statement irritated Oedipus even more. Oedipus began to turn away from the idea of a prophet and seeing into the future. Teiresias' physical blindness led to Oedipus' physical blindness. 

Figurative blindness can be harder to deal with then literal blindness. A person who is physically blind knows that he will probably be blind the rest of his life. That person will learn to deal with the blindness. However, if a person is blind to the truth, there is nothing that person can do until they learn the truth. The person may not even know that he is wrong. When the person does learn the truth, he tends to feel ignorant. The person wonders if things could have been avoided had the truth only been known. For Oedipus and Jocasta in Sophocles' King Oedipus, this scenario was just the case. When Oedipus learned the truth, his way of dealing with his figurative blindness was to blind himself. When Jocasta learned the truth, her way of dealing with her figurative blindness was to kill herself. In this play, blindness led to the truth, and the truth led to blindness. Oedipus, Tiresias, and Jocasta were all blind, yet all found the truth. 

Oedipus the King : Reason and Passion 

In the play, Oedipus the King, there are dual parts of reason and passion. Oedipus primarily acts with both reason and passion at different stages in the play. There are several points in the play where Oedipus acts with reason. The first such point occurs when he is asked by his followers to help save Thebes. He acts with reason when he immediately decides to heed to their demands and find help for them. However, he may also have been deciding to do this through passion. His need for his land to be perfectly normal might have prompted this immediate decision. 

Reason also occurs through the character of Oedipus himself. He has a heroic confidence in his own abilities, and he has good reason for such confidence, both from his own sense of past achievements and from the very high regard everyone has of those achievements. He is conscious of himself as a great man. He feels that he can achieve anything. 

The central metaphor in this play is blindness. For the tragic hero is, in a sense, blind from the start, at least in the sense that he is not alert to the fact that the way he sees his situation may not be true, may be only a partial take on the reality of things. Oedipus is not prepared to admit that he might be wrong. Why should he? He has always been right in the past; no one else in Thebes is acting resolutely to meet the crisis, any more than they were when the city was threatened before. His vision may well include a certain narrowness, and yet because he sees the world that way, he is also the one with the most confidence in his own sight and the one most ready to act in accordance with what he sees. The way he sees the world lies at the very source of what makes him a great man now and in the past. Those around him rely upon that confidence in order for the crisis to be dealt with. 

It is ironic that the only way that the curse will be lifted from Thebes is by finding the murderer of Laius. Oedipus starts on a powerful trip to find the murderer, and this ends up throwing him into a passionate search within himself to find the truth. Because Oedipus will not compromise, and will only go after the answer to Apollo's requests in one way, this sets him up for a horrific downfall. When Oedipus's reason ends up meeting his passion for finding the murderer, he finds that he is in a whirlpool of bad things that are going to bring him down. 

Even when the full truth of what he has done strikes home, he will not abandon his faith in himself but will see himself out to the end. To the very end of this play, Oedipus is still insisting that he is the one who has blinded himself that he will accept his exile that he is fully prepared to accept the self-destructive consequences of what he has done. 

Jocasta's attempt to put his mind at rest about killing his father - "don't believe seers, e.g. they were wrong about Laius being killed by his son" - the very thing that starts Oedipus on the suspicion that he is guilty. 

Where did Oedipus go wrong? Leaving Corinth? Killing Laius? Marrying Jocasta? Pursuing his identity-search in the play? Certainly the latter, but this not the first, or major mistake.is ill temper, jumping to conclusions as distinctive of Emotion = Dionysus. Oedipus has characteristics both Apollonian and Dionysian. 

We have observed that one key to Oedipus's character is that he will not compromise. He must see life through on his own terms, no matter what the cost. He is prepared to acknowledge no authority outside his own will. Hence, if he is to be satisfied the world must answer to him. 

As his situation gets more complicated and things do not work out as he has imagined they might, Oedipus does not adapt, change, and learn. He becomes more and more determined to see the problem through on his own terms; he becomes increasingly inflexible. 

Having accepted the responsibility for saving Thebes, he will on his own see the matter through, without compromise, without lies, without deceit. Anyone who suggests that he proceed differently is simply an obstacle who must be overcome. That attitude, as we know, leads to the most horrific conclusions. 

Oedipus is prepared only to do things in the way he sees fit. Whatever stands in his way he sees as an obstacle that he must overcome publicly, directly, and without compromise. He is anything but a flexible character. His sense of his own worth is so strong that he will not admit of any departure from his characteristic way of doing things. In fact, he is probably incapable of imagining acting in any other manner. He has no ability for the sort of delayed emotional response. Whatever he feels, Oedipus immediately reacts to, usually in public. 

What makes Oedipus so compelling is not that he suffers horribly and endures at the end an almost living death. The force of the play comes from the connection between Oedipus's sufferings and his own actions, that is, from the awareness of how he himself is bringing upon his own head the dreadful outcome. 

We can say Oedipus is capable of doing what he does because he is uniquely brave, excellent, and intelligent. But the tragedy reminds us, even the best and the bravest, those famous throughout the world for their knowledge, are doomed if they set themselves up against the mystery of life itself and if they try to force life to answer to them, they are going to self-destruct. Oedipus and his reasoning were correct in the way he followed them, but his passion and his ignorance of viewing the world properly led to his horrific downfall. 

The Punishment of Oedipus the King 

At the end of Oedipus Rex, Oedipus, king of Thebes, ends up banished forever from his kingdom. Additionally, Oedipus physically puts out his own eyes, for several reasons. The question is: Did Oedipus deserve his punishments? There are many factors that must be considered in answering this, including how Oedipus himself felt about his situation. His blinding was as much symbolic as it was physical pain. 

It is important to keep in mind the whole basic reasoning for Oedipus' search for Laius' killers: he wished to put an end to a deadly plague, and that plague would only be stopped when said murderer is killed, or driven from the land. Thus, when it is revealed that Oedipus himself murdered Laius, then banishment seems to be the only option. Death, in my mind, is not valid simply because of what it might do to the kingdom's people. Even though it seems that Oedipus has not been a particularly good monarch, in fact his only major accomplishment seems to be killing the Sphinx all those years ago; having a king put to death could have serious repercussions on the rest of the kingdom. So in the end, the only way to cure the plague and keep the kingdom stable seems to be the banishment of Oedipus. In this case, the question of whether or not he deserved to be punished seems irrelevant; Oedipus' only goal was to stop the plague and by leaving, he has accomplished that goal. Banishment was the only choice. 

But what exactly was Oedipus being punished for? Even after re- reading the play, this still seems to be a grey area. Incest? Immoral, to be sure, but Oedipus was obviously ignorant to his actions, and to my knowledge, in Sophoclean times, there was no written law against it and therefore no punishment for it. Oedipus' punishment may have been for 

killing Laius, but how could you punish someone for being a victim of fate? Greeks believed at the time of the play's writing that a man's life was “woven" by the 3 fates and that he was irrevocably bound to that destiny. Knowing this and knowing that Oedipus became king of Thebes only because it was his destiny to murder Laius and kill the Sphinx, how could he rightfully be punished? Even Oedipus himself knows that his actions are not by choice, but by acts of the gods, he mentions this twice in the play: "Some savage power has brought this down upon my head." As well as "My god, my god -- what have you planned to do to me?" Such quotes clearly show that Oedipus knew that he had no choice in his actions. In this manner and in this manner alone, Oedipus is undeserving of said punishment. Oedipus may not have been a particularly good man, but in the end he knew what was best for his kingdom: "Out of this kingdom cast me with all speed" ...for only that would save his former subjects. 

Were that Oedipus' only punishment, the play might have been quite a bit simpler (and this essay quite a bit shorter), but Oedipus, in a fit of rage, stabs his own eyes with Jocasta's dress pins. This was Oedipus' way of trying to punish himself, as well as an escape. Oedipus would no longer gaze upon the faces of his subjects, his brother (uncle?) Creon or even those of his children. He is plunged into a world of darkness. It must be noted that this was more than simply a punishment, though I'm sure that it was one of the ways Oedipus intended it. The physical pain alone seems to prove that. There are much easier ways of becoming blind to the world than stabbing one's eyes out. As we have stated before though, Oedipus was blinded by his foolish pride long before the beginning of the novel. He only realized the truth behind Laius' murder when it was right in front of his nose. He was by no means stupid, in fact he came off as quite a clever man, but his was a world of blindness because of pride and power. 

We have been concentrating on the two most obvious of Oedipus' punishments, but there is another one that may not seem so clear. Keeping in mind that Sophocles made it very clear that Oedipus was a man of so much pride that he may have thought himself to be akin to a god, was not Oedipus basically stripped of that pride at the end of the play? The true punishment has been revealed. 

Oedipus' life was based on pride. It was what led to the murder of Laius, which in turn led to the killing of the Sphinx, which led to his becoming king. As he continues on his particular thread of life, Oedipus becomes more and more powerful, and as such, his pride also increases proportionately. He threatens both Tiresias and Creon, and single-handedly tries to unravel the mystery of Laius' death. What must go on inside his mind when he finds out that not only did he murder his father, the king, but he also slept with his mother? Knowing full well that his kingdom would eventually find out his acts, how could he hold his head up when walking through the city streets? How could his subjects respect and revere a king who was a murderer and committer of incest? Oedipus is thusly stripped of his pride, the driving force behind his whole personality. He has been crushed, and that which he had so much of before has been denied him. Where he was once at one extreme (hubris), he is now at the other. To take away the very thing that drives a man is worse than any physical pain or even death itself. That is truly, as Sophocles intended it, Oedipus' ultimate punishment. 

When the curtain falls and the lights go out on Oedipus Rex, the king's punishments total three. Though in my mind at least, one far outweighs the other two, they are all important and they all contribute to the total experience of the Greek tragedy. In the end, I do not feel that Oedipus truly deserves the punishments he is handed, but that is only because of the fact that I place myself in the time period that this was written in, using the beliefs of that time for my own. Were this story to have taken place in modern times, Oedipus certainly would have deserved his punishment, but this idea is irrelevant because, quite simply, this did not take place in our "advanced" civilization. Oedipus was a victim of fate, incapable of free will, and as such he should have not been punished, save banishment only to cure the plague.