Classics and the Western Canon discussion

[Reveals plot details:]

One comment on OR that I read noted that the play starts after all the action is over. By the time we get to the opening of the play, Oedipus has already fulfilled the prophecy by killing his father and marrying his mother, though he doesn't realize that.

Why does Sophocles do this? As I was shellacking a jewelry chest I'm making for my daughters one though occurred to me. (Shellacking is good thinking time for me, maybe because being a non-drinker the fumes from the alcohol one dissolves the shellac flakes in goes to my head more than it otherwise might?)

I'm sure there are multiple reasons Sophocles did this -- the practice of beginning works "in media res" -- in the middle of things -- was a traditional Greek practice; Homer does it for both the Iliad and the Odyssey, for instance. But this is one thought that came to me.

Perhaps Sophocles is saying that it isn't the act so much as the knowledge of the act that matters. When we see Oedipus we know that he's already committed two heinous acts, but he is ignorant of that, and happily so. He's got a good life: the honored and respected king of an important Greek city-state, blessed with a good wife and four fine children. Other than a plague in his city, which is nothing to sneer at but isn't affecting him or his family personally, he's on top of the world. If he had just left things alone, he would presumably have died happy.

But he can't let things alone. Whether it's the working of the fates, or whether it's the insatiable drive of man to know, to search for the truth no matter what, he goes looking for answers, and he finds them. And it is the knowledge of the answers, rather than the actual facts themselves, that leads him to blind himself.

When you were curious about something in your life, haven't you ever been told "you really don't want to know," or "don't ask," or some such? Did that satisfy you? Or did you insist on knowing anyhow? And did knowing make you happier?

There's an old saying "when ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise." But who among us is really satisfied with ignorance? Isn't one of the key imperatives of human nature the desire to know? (That's just what Aristotle said at the start of his Metaphysics: "All men by nature desire to know.") But isn't Sophocles saying "but sometimes it is not in our best interests to know"?

Perhaps, I thought, this is one reason that Sophocles starts the play where he does. If he had started with the events themselves, we would get caught up in the events and less in the search for their meaning. But by starting with the events in the past and Oedipus having, at least in theory, the opportunity to choose NOT to know, but to continue his life in happy ignorance, Sophocles can emphasize for us how it is not the events themselves but the search for truth which destroys him.

I posted this on another thread, earlier today, but I think it belongs here in response to your post so I am copying it and pasting it here. I don't know how to move it. I am not quite comfortable with this website yet and haven't fully explored the options.

My reaction to Oedipus was that there is a moral here...which is...be careful what you wish for! A person's background is the taproot of his/her identity. The discovery of one's ancestors has become an increasingly common endeavor and the tools of modern technology have aided in the search, enormously.

Forever, men/women have wanted to see their line/name continued with the birth of a son. Tragically, because of the prophecy, Laius and Jocasta felt forced to abandon theirs.

Oedipus' true lineage was a cruel irony. His efforts to avoid fulfilling the prophecy totally failed and backfired. His life was a sham, all for naught. Shame would always be attached to his ancestry.

The saddest thing is that, on the surface, he unknowingly committed this horrific crime, for which he exacted an enormous price from himself. Perhaps the emphasis should be placed on what we have accomplished rather than from whence we came.

Did arrogance bring Oedipus down or the eventuality of the prophecy? Can we escape our destiny?

There are many moral dilemmas exposed here.
Today, there may be many “Oedipus” variations taking place because of genetically engineered births. There could be unintended incest in our future.

Patrice wrote: "I first read this play a couple of years ago and was bowled over.

And for the original audience, seeing it on stage, what a powerful impact it must have had. We can see it from a distance, but for them it was part of their immediate tradition.

I also saw that Freud took his entire theory of the unconscious, projections, repression and of course the Oedipus Complex from his play. ... The amazing thing is how, thousands of years later, we can relate. They understood what it means to be a human being.


This is what is so special about the classics. They are so universal -- they are not "dead" works at all, but are living works which are every bit as relevant to our lives (if not more) than the morning newspaper.

For some reason, in this reading I have become acutely aware of the motif or theme (I never can get those two straight!) of the double or hidden meaning. The play is absolutely rife with them.

For just a few examples: I his first speech, he says to the priest (all my quotes in this post will be from the Fagles translations unless otherwise noted) "You can trust me. I am ready to help. I'll do anything." He has no idea when he says this what the anything will entail, or how little trust he actually deserves, but the audience knows. They see a whole different meaning to the speech than he does.

In the same scene, he hears the priest, then says "I know you are sick to death, all of you, but sick as y ou are, not one is as sick as I." He means that in a metaphorical sense, not that he is really sick, but we the audience know that in fact he really IS sick unto death.

When Creon is telling him of the oracle's message, and of Laius being killed, Oedipus says "I know -- or so I've heard. I never saw the man myself." Tilt! He believes this, but the truth is that he not only saw the man himself, but killed him.

Later in the same scene, Oedipus says "Now you have me to fight for you, you'll see: I am the land's avenger by all rights." What we'll see is that you were the cause of the need for an avenger; you are why there needs to be a fighter to defend Thebes.

And in even more delicious double meaning and irony, "Whoever killed the king may decide to kill me too..." Yes, you will want to kill yourself when you find out that it was you who killed the king. "by avenging Laius I defend myself." Oops ... by avenging Laius you destroy yourself.

These are only a few examples. The biggie, of course, is the oracle itself, which Oedipus totally misunderstands. He thought it meant one set of parents; it really meant a totally different set. It was his misunderstanding that destroyed him.

Is anybody else noticing these double meanings, and finding any that are particularly noteworthy?

Oedipus says:
But now I possess the ruling power which Laius held in earlier days. I have his bed and wife. she would have borne his children, if his hopes ot have a son had not been disappointed. Children from a common mother might have linked laius and myself...
(Little did he know that they were so closely linked!)
Oedipus says to Teiresias:
You live in endless darkness of the night, so you can never injure me or any man who can glimpse daylight...
(soon he will be vulnerable, blinded by his own hand.)

What are you saying? Do you know and will not say? Do you intend to betray me and destroy the city?
(his silence was to protect him)

Patrice wrote: "Those double meanings make me think of Freudian slips. Does he really know? Is the truth in his unconscious? The idea of a pollution in his soul that pollutes all he touches feels to me like an ..."

That's an interesting thought that hadn't occurred to me. He could hardly remember it from his infancy, and according to the versions of the myth I'm familiar with, his adoptive parents didn't know. And if they had told him he was adopted, he might not have felt the need to run away from them (though maybe he would have thought the oracle meant them anyhow.) So in your theory, there must have been some other factor -- genetic recognition? -- at play. But it's an interesting theory.

How do you think it fits in with his quite violent response to Tiresias? If he has some sense of the truth, would you read that as a defensive anger, or denial?

Patrice wrote: "Line 205 Who is the Lycean King? Lycia was in Anatolia. "

Fagles translates that as Apollo, and doesn't mention Lycia at all.

Roche translates:
Aureate champion Apollo
Let us sing the song of your arrows
Shot from the bow of the sun;
While Artemis blazing with torches
Courses the Lycean mountains.

This may be one of the areas in which the Greek is ambiguous, and each translator takes his best shot.

Patrice wrote: "Line l63 "the three averters of Fate". What is he referring to there? "

He's referring to the three gods he just called on -- Athena, Artemis, and Apollo -- but why he thinks they could avert fate I'm not sure. Fagles translates that as "O triple shield against death..." Which implies that he doesn't accept the theory that a man's life is measured out at birth, but believes that death can somehow be avoided or averted with the gods help. That relates back to our discussion of fate; this view of the relationship of the gods and the fates is, I think, in conflict with the view of the Greeks of Oedipus's time, but perhaps by the time Sophocles was writing there was a change in viewpoint and a belief that the gods had the power to intervene to delay death. I'm not expert enough to know.

Patrice wrote: "As for the gods, didn't they intercede repeatedly in the Iliad, to delay or speed the deaths of different warriors?

They interceded frequently, yes. But I don't think Homer though they were changing the fate of the warriors, but what they were doing then isn't clear. Were they, not realizing it, simply being the handmaidens of fate? I think perhaps that they couldn't accelerate or retard a death, but they could make a fighter fight more gloriously until he died as fated. But yes, it's an interesting question we'll get to when we read the Iliad as to exactly what the gods were really accomplishing.

Also, there was that discussion between Zeus and Hera when Zeus wanted to save a favorite of his. Hera talked him out of it by saying that if he fought the Fates, he would upset the entire system. So he seemed to have the power but decided not to use it.

That does indeed seem to be the way Homer presents it. The other instance is Achilles actually having two possible fates, and having the right to choose between them. Fight and die young but gloriously, or go home and live a quiet old age. He's the only Greek character I'm aware of who was given this choice, and it presumably was an element of his unusual half-divine lineage. Unusual in that it was fairly common for a male god to seduce a female human and produce a child, but it was quite unusual for a female goddess to submit to being seduced by, or seducing, a human (there's no way a human could rape a goddess!) Since sex was seen as a power relationship, the goddess was submitting to human power, which was rare. This may explain why he gets special treatment from the fates, and the right to choose his fate.

I remember reading "the God" several times and thinking that was an odd phrase and there must be some special meaning in the way it was worded.

Patrice wrote: "[Oedipus:]had a scar where they had pinned his legs together. Scars are always the ultimate identifier in Greek literature. Remember when his nurse sees Odysseus' scar and then knows who he is? Doesn't she say he looked like her husband?"

Which makes the following bit tasty. From Oedipus when he's talking to Jocasta about killing Laius at the crossroads:

"...May I be sooner dead
And blotted from the face of the earth, than live
To bear the scars of such vile circumstance."

Patrice wrote: "message l0

David Grene's translation:

And your unconquered arrow shafts, winged by the golden corden bow,
Lycean King, I beg to be at our side for help;
and the gleaming torches of Artemis with w..."

I like your translation quite a bit better than the old Penguin Classics version (E.F. Watling, translator) that I have.

In mine, that bit about Bacchus goes "Bacchus, our name-god, golden in the dance of Maenad revelry, etc." Name-god? Nothing about Evian One.

Patrice wrote: "message l0

David Grene's translation:

And your unconquered arrow shafts, winged by the golden corden bow,
Lycean King, I beg to be at our side for help;
and the gleaming torches of Artemis with w..."

An on-line translation has it:

O that thine arrows too, Lycean King,
From that taut bow's gold string,
Might fly abroad, the champions of our rights;

It seems pretty clear that he's calling Apollo the Lycean King. Why?

Search and you will find ... at least something.

this site contends:

In Lycia, Leto, Apollo and Artemis were worshiped above all other deities and by far the most important religious sanctuary in Lycia was dedicated to Leto, called Letoon, in the Xanthos valley. It was the sacred cultic center of Lycia and Leto was the prime deity worshiped there, but in later dates her two twin children Apollo and Artemis were given equal importance.

There's more there, but there seems to be a close link between Lycia and Apollo.

And this site mentions that Apollo is also called Lycean King in a speech of Clytemnestra in Sophocles's Electra. So it seems that this was a way to refer to Apollo, but doesn't really explain why.

Patrice wrote: "It just occurred to me that Apollo was the sun god! He rose in the east, where Lycia was! the god of the rising sun? "

I like that idea!

Maybe I should be praying to Apollo instead of Ra!

An aside regarding Achilles


I have to re-read OR, but regarding message 14 on the rarity of a female goddess bearing the child (Achilles) of a mortal.

I just finished discussing Prometheus Bound. I'll try to keep this short.

Zeus was punishing the god Prometheus and had had him [Prometheus:]chained to a high cliff at the very ends of the earth.

In the play he has the "gift" ... sometimes... of foresight. He knows that he is going to be chained to that rock for thousands of years and his only bargaining chip is the knowledge that Zeus will one day Zeus will choose a partner whose "fate" is such that the offspring of that union "will be greater than his father" Apparently at some point (that play is lost), Prometheus reveals that the female in question is the sea-goddess Thetis.


Once Zeus has this knowledge, and not wanting to be bested by his own son, Zeus and the other gods marry her off to the mortal Peleus...and, indeed, the son, Achilles, is greater than his father. I don't think Thetis actually had much choice in the matter.

I'm discussing this play with my husband. He refers quite often to Robert Graves' 'The Greek Myths' which explain a lot of the stories behind the myths. He also looked up the 'family trees'. Apparently, Zeus is Oedipus' great great Uncle and also his great great great Uncle. Dionysis is his great Uncle. Apollo is not the Lycean King. It could be a reference to Hermes who was born in the mountains of Arcadia ... But we can't tell at the moment. I thought it was a reference to Zeus who is the father of the gods and Arcadia is the seat(?) of the gods ... ??? !! The Lycean Hills are in Arcadia.

Another interesting thing: the temple to Pytho is a temple of Apollo, he is the bringer of plague and also the god of medicine.

Also - Cadmus is the founder of Thebes - he is the city father.

Yrinsyde wrote: "Apollo is not the Lycean King. It could be a reference to Hermes who was born in the mountains of Arcadia ... But we can't tell at the moment."

Does Graves specifically say that Apollo is not the Lycean king? Both the translations I used that use the term Lycean pretty clearly refer to Apollo. But maybe that was just something Sophocles added that wasn't previously part of the legends.

From the For What It's Worth department:

Richmond Lattimore (he seems credible. translator of Greek. poet. AB from Oxford. Rhodes Scholar.) wrote "To say he [Oedipus:] was "fated" is to overstate it with prejudice toward the grand designs of the heaven; [instead:] it is a part of his pattern or story- tyche, which in the Greek does not mean "fate," "chance," or "fortune" so strictly as it means "contact," or, say, "coincidence," the way things are put together" (The Poetry of Greek Tragedy, page 88)

Perhaps translators use the word "fate," which we take to mean that it canNOT be avoided, whereas the orginal Greek meant something more along the lines of really, really strong coincidence.

Again, maybe there IS just that small possibility to ... rearrange ... what is "fated" to happen.

But we don't, like, read Greek.

We are "fated" to read translations, eh?

Sigh. I keep reading introductions that say that reading these plays in Greek is awesome.

Aside:

The line in Agamemnon which talks about the Helen and the resulting death of ships, death of men, death of cities’ is

‘Helenan…helenas, helandros, heleptolis”

and Pandora is referred to as a "beautiful evil" in the Greek kalon kakon.

Wouldn't all aliteration be beautiful to listen to?

Patrice, I had to run back up the stairs.

It occurs to me that an apt way to look at "fate" might be that we are not absolutely fated to read the Greek plays in translation. We could put in the effort, and give up years of our lives, and actually master the Greek language. But the effort and sacrifice that is ... necessary to change one's "fate" seems to be too much to most of us. And so we are fated to read translations.

I think you may be onto something. That in part the play is addressing impiety. The examples that you mentioned: Oedipus distainful of the gods. Jocasta, too: "Do not concern yourself about this matter; listen to me and learn that human beings har no part in the craft of prophecy" (707). "the oracles, so clear and false. Give them no heed, I say" (723).

I may be mistaken, but I think that Jocasta, Laius, and Oedipus were guilty, not of disregarding the gods, but of ... maybe your word choice "hubristic" is a good choice... They were hubristic. They dishonored the gods. They took actions that they thought would cleverly do an end-run around the prophecies.


They tried to AVOID/to run away from what the gods had decreed for them: Jocasta and Laius by exposing their child. ("Screw you, gods, we are smarter and more powerful than you.") and Oedipus by deserting his mother and father (leaving them without an heir)


Might not the gods have looked more kindly on them had they (J, L, O), instead of trying to avoid their decreed future, had manned up (I rather like that terminology since I heard it on SNL). They COULD said to themselves. "OK. The gods have gifted me with a view to the future. What can I do to prepare myself to meet it?"


Oedipus could have worked on his temper. He could have found himself a wife, thinking that might hold off temptations of his mother. He might have discussed the whole situation with his father and mother. A tough topic. But perhaps the truth would have been easier on them then their son just not returning home...probably leaving them in the lurch. No right-hand man for the King of Corinth to lean on.

Adelle wrote: "Richmond Lattimore (he seems credible...wrote "To say he [Oedipus:] was "fated" is to overstate it with prejudice toward the grand designs of the heaven; [instead:] it is a part of his pattern or story- tyche, which in the Greek does not mean "fate," "chance," or "fortune" so strictly as it means "contact," or, say, "coincidence," the way things are put together"..."

Lattimore is certainly credible. No question there.

I think one thing we have to keep in mind is that the concept of fate changed over the centuries. Homer wrote (okay, I'm not getting into the Homeric question here) around 750 BC. Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex perhaps around 450. That's 300 years. Think of the changes in concepts of religion belief that have taken place in the Western world since 1700.

According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, fate primarily referred to the length of a man's life, set at birth. But it wasn't responsible for all the events of his life; ... I'm being called, sorry, have to go.

But it was O's error or frailty, I've come to think. He repeatedly took action before he put in the effort to gather facts/knowledge/nuances. This is an aspect of himself that it would have been possible for him to have tried to counter.

OK, I'll grant you that he tried at least once, when he journeyed to Delphi to find out about himself.

But he didn't use that information to evaluate himself. He didn't use that information to "Know thyself." He went straight into denial and avoidance.

I think he did have a chance. In an alternate universe, he MIGHT have made a different choice.

But in the play of Sophocles..."He chose poorly" (Indiana Jones and the Search for the Holy Grail) and as a result, we're reading a tragedy.

CONSCIOUSNESS FATE ANGER

Someone earlier (so sorry, I can't find that posting) had brought up the question of how much Oedipus might "remember" or "know" on some below the surface level.


And last night I ran across what seemed an apt quote:

"Wht is not brought to consciouness, comes to us as fate." --- Carl Jung

So from a psychological point of view, OR is dead on: You cannot run away from your issues. You HAVE to deal with them. You can convince yourself that they are buried, or so far removed from you that you can "forget" them. But you can't.

Again, regarding O's anger, the psychological literature tends to hold that when we repress our feelings, when we deny what's going on, that we are likely to displace our rage onto others.

AUTHENTICITY

Ok, ok. I think I've only two last thoughts to post, and then I'm going to read Oedipus at Someplace. Colonus.

I'm finding that I like to look at the play --- at least in regards to Oedipus himself --- as a play about authenticiy.


The rumors at the court of Corinth that he wasn't the child of the king and queen. "Who am I then?" He takes the plunge and goes to Delphi. There he is given ambiguous clues as to who he is. [Just like we get in life.:] The gods have gone to all the trouble of making Oedipus and sending him here to earth to be Oedipus...and when Oedipus gets his first solid information on who he might be, he reaction is, "No. I'm not going to be the 'real' Oedipus who is fated to kill my father." I'm going to be somebody else."

John Bradshaw writes on the subject of non-acceptance of the self: What a tragedy to go to one's death never knowing who one is.

Everyman wrote: "[Reveals plot details:]

One comment on OR that I read noted that the play starts after all the action is over. By the time we get to the opening of the play, Oedipus has already fulfilled the p..."

I'm not keeping up with the discussion very well (out of town company here and two of them are 2 years old and 3 years old - not conducive to clear thinking :))
but I am enjoying re-reading the play. It does seem to me that it is the knowledge of his actions that is ultimately Oedipus' downfall and that makes the timing of the play AFTER the action purposeful on Sophocles part. And much more thought-provoking. Well done.