Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Interim Readings
>
Sophocles - Oedipus the King
date
newest »
newest »
Thomas wrote: "Once Oedipus slowly puts the pieces together, his reaction is extreme, as is to be expected. But does he deserve to be punished, or to punish himself so thoroughly?.."It seems to me Oedipus' decision to blind himself at the end of the play is logical. His eyes, which are instruments of knowledge, had blinded him to the truth. So, in a sense, it is fitting that he blinds himself when he discovers the truth since his eyes had proved themselves useless in revealing his true identity.
If I'm not mistaken, I think the Greeks didn't take into account one's intention. They focused on the act. Oedipus' intention was to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother. The problem is not with the intention but with the fact he acted on the intention. He actively tried to avoid his fate by running away. He thought he could escape his fate, which is another way of saying he thought he could defy the gods. A definite no, no. The gods don't take kindly to acts of defiance and will mete out a punishment for any who defy them.
Oedipus always brings to mind "The Appointment in Samarra," as retold by Somerset Maugham. https://www.k-state.edu/english/baker...
One fact of interest is that when Oedipus the King was produced, probably 430 or shortly after, Athens was suffering from the plague described by Thucydides (see Thucydides, II.48). It is one of a few parallels Sophocles draws between Thebes and Athens.It's also interesting to consider that Thucydides was probably in the audience when the play was first produced.
I've come to see this play as a demonstration of a metaphysical conundrum. We act with free will, yet live in a universe in which every effect has a cause. I observe the universe outside myself and see that space and time exist, and everything is subject to the law of causation. It must be this way, otherwise thought is not possible. I can observe myself as a part of this outside universe, in which case my actions are predetermined. But I am the one observing myself. Everything I observe is the outside universe, I cannot turn my eyes to look at myself. I exist in an inner space not a part of the outside universe I observe.
I act in the present moment. But time is made of past and future. The present is just the line where past and future meet. It has no width. I cannot observe the present, once it's observed, it’s the past. The present is not a part of the outside universe I observe.
So existing in a space that is not part of space and acting in a time that is not part of time, I am not subject to the law of causation, and I have free will. And I exist in a universe in which all is subject to the law of causation and is thereby predetermined.
The oldest, simplest and perhaps still the best demonstration of this is Oedipus the King. In it a man, by acts of his free will, follows a predetermined path. Sophocles shows us this man in two aspects, as both observer and as observed. Those two aspects must remain distinct; once they become one and the same, the eye is turned on itself and the power of sight no longer exists.
Tamara wrote: "It seems to me Oedipus' decision to blind himself at the end of the play is logical. His eyes, which are instruments of knowledge, had blinded him to the truth.."There's another connection between sight and knowledge in Oedipus' name -- the Greek word "oida" (I know) is the perfect of the aorist of "orao" (I see). The connection is there in English as well when we say "I see" and mean "I understand."
It's also interesting that in some versions of the Oedipus story, Homer's for instance, he does not blind himself, or exile himself, but goes on ruling Thebes. But he is still cursed, and Jocasta still hangs herself. So it doesn't seem to be an inevitable conclusion that he punish himself so severely when he is made to suffer so much anyway.
Donnally wrote: "In it a man, by acts of his free will, follows a predetermined path. Sophocles shows us this man in two aspects, as both observer and as observed. Those two aspects must remain distinct; once they become one and the same, the eye is turned on itself and the power of sight no longer exists."A very interesting interpretation, and I think I follow it up to this point. I don't understand why the meeting of subjectivity and objectivity, or free will and predetermination, must result in self-annhilation (subjectively as loss of sight, or objectively as exile.) It seems to me they co-exist in the present, which is the only time that actually exists.
Thomas wrote: "There's another connection between sight and knowledge in Oedipus' name -- the Greek word "oida" (I know) is the perfect of the aorist of "orao" (I see)..."I remember reading somewhere that "oida" also means swollen and "pus" means foot--a reference to Oedipus' swollen feet, the consequence of having his ankles pierced when he was a baby. So, in addition to his name meaning "swollen feet," could it also refer to his "swollen" ego? We see plenty of evidence of his giant ego and excessive pride throughout the play.
Thomas wrote: "So it doesn't seem to be an inevitable conclusion that he punish himself so severely when he is made to suffer so much anyway..."The gods required that Oedipus be sent into exile for polluting the city. They didn't require that he blind himself. He did that of his own volition. I think this is another illustration of his giant ego.
Exile isn't sufficient for him. Doing the gods' bidding isn't sufficient for him. It may be good enough for other mere mortals, including Creon, but it isn't enough for him. He chooses to do more than is required by exercising control and taking matters into his own hands. Creon criticizes him for that very thing at the end of the play: "Do not crave to be master in all things; the mastery which you won has not followed you through life."
Tamara wrote: "I remember reading somewhere that "oida" also means swollen and "pus" means foot--a reference to Oedipus' swollen feet, .."Apollodorus explains it this way:
After Amphion's death Laius succeeded to the kingdom. And he married a daughter of Menoeceus; some say that she was Jocasta, and some that she was Epicasta. The oracle had warned him not to beget a son, for the son that should be begotten would kill his father; nevertheless, flushed with wine, he had intercourse with his wife. And when the babe was born he pierced the child's ankles with brooches and gave it to a herdsman to expose. But the herdsman exposed it on Cithaeron; and the neatherds of Polybus, king of Corinth, found the infant and brought it to his wife Periboea. She adopted him and passed him off as her own, and after she had healed his ankles she called him Oedipus, giving him that name on account of his swollen feet. Library 3.5.7
I don't recall Sophocles explaining the name this way, but he puns on "oida" a number of times in a pointed way. Knowledge, and the price Oedipus pays for it, is key to the play. Oedipus's ego is certainly part of this, I agree. If he were a more humble man, could he just send thoughts and prayers to Thebes and avoid his terrible enlightenment?
Susanna wrote: "For a more concrete connection of the Oedipus story to the present, see this article about Dr. Donald Cline, a fertility doctor who inseminated many of his patients with his own sperm. His patients..."There's a big difference here though, right? Unlike Donald Cline, Oedipus had no intention of committing his crime. He was the victim of a family curse and fell into his situation unknowingly. This sounds tremendously unjust to modern sensibilities, but it serves as an explanation for the pestilence that afflicts the city. Oedipus's pride, as I see it, is in his powers of intelligence. He achieved his royal position as a reward for his intelligence, and it turns out that his intelligence is also what brings him down.
I’m drawn to the idea that it was Laius’ ego that started the ball rolling, in so much that HE thought he could take action to avoid fate.Oedipus let himself off lightly, if you consider blinding and exile not as severe as death. Oedipus says that he will kill the person who is the cause of the plague. Before, of course, he knows that he is the cause.
Thomas wrote: "He was the victim of a family curse".Actually, in Sophocles' play there is no mention of a family curse. This is particularly notable in that the Athenian audience would have known of a trilogy on this subject written by Aeschylus. What we know of that trilogy is that the three plays were Laios, Oedipus and The Seven Against Thebes. Only the Seven has survived. It seems to have shown the working out through three generations of a family curse (much like the Oresteia). In the first, Laios committed an offence against the gods. Laios was brought up by Pelops, but he abducted and raped Pelops' son Chrysippus, thereby violating the sacred laws of hospitality. Later the gods forbade him to have children, but one night he got drunk and impregnated Jocasta. Oedipus was then punished for his father's crimes, and Oedipus' children also suffered because of the family curse. As it says in the Seven, "an old breach of law, long since begotten." The Thebans in Sophocles' play make no mention of this family crime.
I believe Tamara is closer to what Sophocles was thinking. Oedipus' crime was hubris. In the first antistrophe of the second Stasimon the Chorus says,
"The tyrant is a child of Pride
Who drinks from his great sickening cup
Recklessness and vanity,
Until from his high crest headlong
He plummets to the dust of hope."
Since the play was produced probably in the second year of the Peloponnesian War, when the gods seemed to be punishing Athens for pride by inflicting the plague, Sophocles is giving a warning to his city. This is one of the parallels between Thebes and Athens.
So far, I see a couple of themes emerging in this play:The concept that the sins of the father are inherited by his offspring.
The Ancient Greeks embraced the idea of collective punishment: A whole community is made to suffer because of the actions of one man even though the community had no prior knowledge of and was not responsible for the crime he committed.
The larger-than-life individual who once saved the community from the tyranny of the sphinx is now called upon to save the community by his expulsion from the community. He cleanses the community by carrying the pollution with him when he exits.
Donnally wrote: "Since the play was produced probably in the second year of the Peloponnesian War, when the gods seemed to be punishing Athens for pride by inflicting the plague, Sophocles is giving a warning to his city. This is one of the parallels between Thebes and Athens.."Donnally, I appreciate the historical connections you are making as I know very little about the history.
Thomas wrote: " I don't understand why the meeting of subjectivity and objectivity, or free will and predetermination, must result in self-annhilation (subjectively as loss of sight, or objectively as exile.) It seems to me they co-exist in the present, which is the only time..."It isn't the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, it's the difference between observer and observed. And they can't coexist in the present because once the observed has been observed it's in the past already.
Donnally wrote: "Thomas wrote: "He was the victim of a family curse".Actually, in Sophocles' play there is no mention of a family curse. This is particularly notable in that the Athenian audience would have known..."
In A Brief Guide to the Greek Myths (Stephen P Kershaw), chapter on Oedipus, or as Kershaw spells it, Oidipous, mentions his hubris.
I found this interesting because it’s always been a puzzle me, so this gave it some context / helped me to understand it better.
One thing that has always puzzled me about this play is why did the gods wait so long to punish Oedipus? He killed his father, married his mother, fathered four children--all of which he had time to do before the gods decided to send the plague as punishment for polluting the community. Why the delay?
Todd wrote: "Oedipus let himself off lightly, if you consider blinding and exile not as severe as death. Oedipus says that he will kill the person who is the cause of the plague. Before, of course, he knows that he is the cause.."Good point. There are many ironies in what Oedipus says in the first part of the play -- Sophocles delights in them, and I presume that the audience, knowing the Oedipus legend, delighted in them as well. The reveal is the focal point of the play, and while Sophocles doesn't spoil the reveal, he knows his audience already has this inside knowledge and uses it for dramatic effect.
I think immediate punishment would lack any drama and tragic intensity: no years of tranquil and happy life, no children, no love - nothing to lost. So dull. Greek gods are fans of dramatic effects, I believe.
Thomas wrote: "There are many ironies in what Oedipus says in the first part of the play -- Sophocles delights in them..."This is very true. There is another subtle irony I don't believe I've ever seen anyone mention.
When Oedipus blinds himself, he boasts (more hubris?) this is something he did of his own free will, it was not predestined:
"Apollo. Apollo. Dear
Children, the god was Apollo.
He brought my sick, sick fate upon me.
But the blinding hand was my own!"
But was it?
I was always struck by the fact that the third stage in the Sphinx's riddle seemed a bit arbitrary, rather than inevitable. Many people grow old without having to use a cane. But there would be a case in which a cane was needed: if one were blind. This is why Oedipus was uniquely suited to answering the riddle, because it was about himself, notwithstanding his boasts about his unique ability.
Alexey wrote: "I think immediate punishment would lack any drama and tragic intensity: no years of tranquil and happy life, no children, no love - nothing to lost. So dull. Greek gods are fans of dramatic effects..."Good point. Thanks.
But it seems so unfair, doesn't it? Here he is as king, chugging along, thinking he's got it all made with a wife and four children. Happy as clam. Full of confidence that he--and only he--can save the people from the plague. When, boom! It all falls apart before his very eyes.
The Greek gods are vindictive, nasty, and unfair. It's as if they deliberately misled him in order to make his crash all the more painful. But, then again, they've never been known for their compassion and kindness.
Extremely unfair. That's the reason why I never read the Iliad from beginning to end. I drop it after Hector and Andromache's scene, and a year or so after beginning it from this point.
Alexey wrote: "Extremely unfair. "Is Apollo really unfair to Oedipus?
This goes to the root of what he is being punished for. Tamara makes the point that if he is being punished for killing his father and marrying his mother, the punishment should have come much sooner. But he did everything in his power to avoid committing those crimes. His intentions are completely innocent. It would be unfair if Apollo were to punish him for those crimes. So is that really what he's being punished for?
I made the point in an earlier post that the Athenian audience would have been aware of a version of the story in which his punishment is the working out of an ancestral crime, but Sophocles deliberately, in my opinion, makes no mention of that crime. From this play alone no one would be aware of Laios' evil deeds. So why is he being punished?
For his hubris. He believes that he alone can save the people of Thebes and remove the plague. It is his arrogant insistence on getting to the truth, in spite of Jocasta's insistence that he not look further, that results in the closing of the trap. Apollo laid the trap at his feet, but did not punish him at that time. He waited till Oedipus himself brought his punishment on himself.
I agree with you, and perhaps you've got Sophocles's intention absolutely right, but Oedipus would have never killed his father and married his mother if Apollo did not nudge him to do so, when Oedipus asked for help. This is what I suppose unfair.
Donnally wrote: "His intentions are completely innocent. ..So why is he being punished? For his hubris. He believes that he alone can save the people of Thebes and remove the plague...Yes, but isn't Greek mythology littered with Greek heroes who suffer from a chronic case of hubris? But the gods don't punish them because of hubris. They punish them because they do something that insults or defies the gods. It's the action that gets humans into trouble with the gods.
Granted, Oedipus suffers from a chronic case of hubris. Granted, he did not intend to commit this heinous deed. But his intentions are beside the point. The fact is he committed regicide and incest. He has committed an abomination and must be punished. He is a pollutant and must be expelled because he risks contaminating everyone who comes into contact with him.
Even the herdsman who saved his life by giving the infant Oedipus to the messenger can't bring himself to look at Oedipus when he shows up to reveal all--as if looking at him is enough to contaminate one. Oedipus has to yell at him: "Ho, you, old man. I would have you look this way and answer all that I ask."
Just a quick note on the term "hubris," because it doesn't mean the same thing in Attic Greek as it does in modern English. It is commonly thought of and translated as "pride," but a more literal translation is "outrage." Hubris can be prideful, but it is first and foremost abusive and excessive, an intentional violation of decency. Aristotle defines it in Rhetoric as "doing and saying things at which the victim incurs shame, not in order that one may achieve anything other than what is done, but simply to get pleasure from it....the cause of the pleasure for those committing hubris is that by harming people, they think themselves superior; that is why the young and the rich are hubristic, as they think they are superior when they commit hubris." Oedipus may be proud of knowing who he is, and may think that he is capable of dispelling the plague, but he is the king after all. He should be secure in himself, and taking care of the city is his duty. Unfortunately for him, he is mistaken about who he is and must suffer personally to redeem the city. This is what makes him so tragic, I think. He's a decent man who is destroyed through no fault of his own.
When the original Athenian audience of this play entered the theater of Dionysos, they weren't handed a playbill with a list of the cast and some notes from the producer. Instead, according to Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, it was customary for the playwright to mount a platform and announce to the audience the title of the play and give a description of its themes. What wouldn't you give to know what Sophocles said to his audience? This is a play I've found myself constantly coming back to over the years. I have no idea how many times I've read it. It's given me a great deal to think about. So bear with me, I'll try not to go on too long.On the surface it is very simple: the gods punish Oedipus because he has killed his father and married his mother. But this simplicity is very deceptive.
I made the point earlier that he wasn't punished for his crimes, but rather for his hubris. What if, upon hearing the words of the oracle, he had reacted in a way many reasonable people would have, and said, "Well, the murder of Laios happened long ago and in a different place. The people involved must all have moved on or passed away. There's no point looking into it." If he had, he would never have been punished. But that's not his nature. He had to know.
Why did he conduct his investigation out in the open? When Creon returns from Delphi there is this exchange:
CREON:
Is it your pleasure to hear me with all these
Gathered around us? I am prepared to speak,
But should we not go in?
OEDIPUS: Let them all hear it.
Not only does he have to know, what he knows has to be made public.
In the first half of the play, Oedipus displays his character by acting very belligerent and arrogant towards Tiresias and Creon. I think Sophocles was drawing an unflattering portrait of a typical Athenian. The Athenians, more than any of the other Greeks, were the ones who had to know, who looked into everything, who conducted their business in public, who were aggressive and arrogant towards other Greeks. Just peruse Pericles' famous funeral oration in Book II of Thucydides, read his praises of the Athenians, and see if you don't see much of Oedipus. Pericles gave that oration in 431, the first year of the Peloponnesian war, and he died from the plague that struck Athens in 429, the same year it's believed the play was first produced.
When did Jocasta know who Oedipus was? She certainly knows in the third scene, when she says "May you never learn who you are." Did she just become aware at that point, or had she known earlier? This is never made clear, but consider: a young man arrived who was just the age her son would have been if he had lived, and she must have seen the scars created by the holes in his ankles. Was she really unaware? She must have known. She tries to convince Oedipus not to look further and just to hush everything up, which is what any actual politician would do. But this is not in his nature. Then she hangs herself once it becomes clear her shame will be made public.
And it's not Apollo, or "the gods" who punish him. He punishes himself. Every step of the way, It is his own being that leads to his undoing. And one final irony is that once he's perceived that his entire life up to that point was predetermined, he does something that can only be attributed to his will, not the gods, and blinds himself, yet that was foreseen in the Sphinx's riddle, as I showed in an earlier post, because a man who walks with a cane is not just any old man, but specifically a man who is blind.
I think Sophocles was trying to tell his fellow Athenians that the plague they were suffering from at that moment was brought upon them because of their very nature, and woe to them if they learned who they really were.
I’m really learning from all these different perspectives/insights on the play. My reaction is that Oedipus is trapped, doomed regardless of what he does. By the time the play opens, the prophecy has already played out — he’s killed his father and slept with his mother, he just doesn’t know. Given that there is a curse on Thebes and that he is the ruler, it seems reasonable and appropriate for him to look for the cause of the blight on the city. He might be better off not knowing what he’s done, but if he hadn’t investigated, the city would remain under the curse, (and my guess is eventually the truth would have come out through more tricky sayings from the oracles).
On the topic of hubris, what’s the difference between hubris and being self-confident? What I’m struggling with is Oedipus as a king whose city looked up to him, needed a certain level of confidence, or hubris, to be a competent ruler.
Tamara makes the point of a person’s hubris is punished if a god is defied, from what I can tell, I think Oedipus's actions are unintentional, where he’s doing everything not to get on the wrong side of the gods.
Inkspill wrote: "On the topic of hubris, what’s the difference between hubris and being self-confident? What I’m struggling with is Oedipus as a king whose city looked up to him, needed a certain level of confide..."
I don't see Oedipus as particularly hubristic, either in the conventional sense of being proud, or in the Greek sense of being insolent. I think a modern audience wants to find fault with Oedipus so that we can assign a cause to his downfall, hold someone responsible -- Oedipus himself, a god, fate, a curse, something. But Oedipus is thrown into this situation through no fault of his own, and he doesn't understand what it is. As a responsible ruler of the city, he has to find out what it is and remove it. His wanting to investigate and root out the cause of this pollution is not hubristic, in my opinion. It's acting responsibly, even heroically.
The notoriously pessimistic philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote in a letter to Goethe:
It is the courage to make a clean breast of it in the face of every question that makes the philosopher. He must be like Sophocles' Oedipus, who, seeking enlightenment concerning his terrible fate, pursues his indefatigable inquiry even though he divines that appalling horror awaits him in the answer. But most of us carry with us the Jocasta in our hearts, who begs Oedipus, for God's sake, not to inquire further.
Oedipus does the hard thing in seeking out the truth. If it's pride that spurs him to do this, then I think it is a reasonable pride, not an excessive one. "Self-confidence" is a good way to put it.
Inkspill wrote: "... I think Oedipus's actions are unintentional, where he’s doing everything not to get on the wrong side of the gods ..."This is a tricky question. On one hand, we can read as Oedipus is trying very hard to avoid these terrible sins that the augurs keep telling him that he will perform - so, we may think of him as "trying to do the right thing". On the other hand, if the augurs said so, then it represents the gods telling him that this is his fate - but he was trying to avoid it. So the gods may think that the right thing would be to submit to his fate as that is what the gods told him. At the end, I agree with Tamara, this is a clear message that his biggest sin was to defy his fate (and therefore the gods).
Oedipus knows he is guilty of regicide, parricide, and incest at the end of the play. He has lost his mother/wife and has blinded himself. On the one hand, it seems like a tragic fall from his exalted position. On the other hand, he seems to have been elevated in heroic stature. The last scene has him making long speeches and giving orders to Creon. He is very much in charge. He accepts his fate and seems to be proud of it—almost bragging about it to the degree that Creon wants to shut him up and take him inside the house since he thinks it’s not fitting for the world to see him in this condition.
Oedipus was always larger than life, a leader in his community. But now, unlike in the past, he has gained knowledge. He has defied the gods by trying to escape his fate, but now he has insight. He seems to accept his fate and is reconciled to his situation. Doesn’t that elevate his stature? One has to admire his tenacity at seeking the truth even when he begins to suspect it will all come crashing down on him.
He begins the play as high in stature; he falls; and then rises even higher than before because he has gained insight. In my mind, Oedipus is a hero. He has the guts to defy the gods; he seeks the truth at whatever the cost is to him personally; and he is ready to accept his punishment.
Creon, on the other hand, is just a humdrum ordinary character, completely lacking in heroic stature. He is not a risk-taker. He won't budge without checking with the gods first. He plays it safe. He will not send Oedipus into exile until he gets clear direction from the gods. He is cautious, circumspect, and may make a good leader.
But one thing for sure: he ain’t no Oedipus!
Inkspill wrote: "On the topic of hubris, what’s the difference between hubris and being self-confident? What I’m struggling with is Oedipus as a king whose city looked up to him, needed a certain level of confide..."
Hubris is 'overweening' self-confidence, self-confidence that reaches the point of arrogance. If one seems to bask in the feeling of being right, that is hubristic. The right course is the mean, between insecure self-doubt and arrogance, what the Greeks called sophrosyne, which is usually transaled 'temperance'. For more on this see Plato's Charmides and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, particularly Books III -- V.
I think Sophocles displays Oedipus as hubristic. It can be seen in the way he denounces Tiresias and Creon and accuses them of conspiring against him. And earlier, when he met Laios, King of Thebes, with an escort of five men, one of them shoved him off the road. His reaction was to kill Laios and all his companions, except for one who ran away. Perhaps an over-reaction? He came to Thebes and brashly answered the Sphinx's riddle and married the old queen. Every step of the way, Apollo puts the traps in front of him and Oedipus, because of his own nature, has no choice but to step right into them.
The slave who saw him kill Laios knew who he was and he tried to bury himself in obscurity to avoid bringing the truth to light. Jocasta, as I said before, if she didn't know, must have had strong suspicions about who he was, and she chose not to look into them. Creon, the able politician, tells him not to hold his investigation out in public. But it is his own nature that insists on bringing the truth to light and making it public.
And at the end, it is he himself who administers the punishment of blinding. Oedipus's nemesis was not Apollo, it was himself.
Tamara wrote: " He has defied the gods by trying to escape his fate, but now he has insight. He seems to accept his fate and is reconciled to his situation. Doesn’t that elevate his stature? ."I think so. Oedipus remains an admirable person even when he is found to be in the most shameful state imaginable. Todd noted that Oedipus does not kill himself -- that too elevates his stature. He is a king brought low, but even in his lowness he is admirable for the ability to endure his suffering. It's easy to see why Aristotle loved this play.
Creon is a great foil for Oedipus. When Oedipus accuses him of plotting against him to take the throne, Creon defends himself by saying he already has this power through his sister. Why would he take on all that responsibility?
Consider, first, if you think anyone would choose
to rule in fear instead of sleeping peacefully --
provided his power is the same. It's not my nature
to desire to be a king when I can act
already like a king...
...
I am not yet so self-deceived that I desire to have
more than what is both fine and profits me.
585 (Blondell)
Oedipus has strength of character. Creon is a much weaker man. He sounds to me sometimes like a Shakespearean bad guy.
Thomas wrote: "Creon is a much weaker man. He sounds to me sometimes like a Shakespearean bad guy."Creon is a typical politician. We'll learn more about him in the next two plays.
post replies to - Hubris Vs self-confident - amazingly, brilliant insight, it's been tough but I'm slowly veering toward's self-confidence. Thomas's argument (post 33) raises points that have baffled me, and for now makes the most sense to me.
But there's also a clear message of Oedipus not being able to escape his fate, as Monica points out (post 34) though I'm not sure if it's his biggest sin as he did everything he could to avoid this. I'm keep coming back to the idea of bad luck -- can this be viewed as fate? I'm not sure?
And yes, as Tamara and Thomas have noted (posts 35 & 37), next to Creon Oedipus comes off brave. He also has a lot more charisma, which maybe viewed as hubris but it doesn't to me.
Side question: If Creon was in charge, would the town people have the same confidence in Creon to help them as they do in Oedipus?
But I remain open-minded and now have a copy of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, thanks to Donnally (post 36). This is a seriously big read for me, and it will take several attempts but I'm up for the challenge as looks like an interesting read.
Inkspill wrote: "Side question: If Creon was in charge, would the town people have the same confidence in Creon to help them as they do in Oedipus?"I gather that Oedipus was made king because of his superior intellect -- he solved the riddle of the Sphinx and kingship was his reward. Perhaps if Creon had been so smart then he would have the peoples' confidence to the same degree. What is sort of odd here though is that this play about a Theban monarch was written for an audience of Athenian democrats. I wonder how this affected the audience's point of view... does the tragedy of Oedipus argue at all against monarchy?
Thomas wrote: "What is sort of odd here though is that this play about a Theban monarch was written for an audience of Athenian democrats. I wonder how this affected the audience's point of view... does the tragedy of Oedipus argue at all against monarchy?"
I suppose hardly anything could say how audience see this. From my point of view, since hubris is the main theme of every tragedy, it must be critical about a monarch or any leader; on the other hand, it is following the idea of the sanctity of the monarchy and the monarch personally. It may be received from the mythical material, nevertheless, it can hardly coexist with anti-monarchical sentiments.
Thomas wrote: "Inkspill wrote: "What is sort of odd here though is that this play about a Theban monarch was written for an audience of Athenian democrats. I wonder how this affected the audience's point of view... does the tragedy of Oedipus argue at all against monarchy? "Yes, I think it does, and I also wondered about this. With Hollywood blockbusters, some are produced where the premise is well known that the movie sells itself. I’m wondering if the same thing applies here?
Some opening thoughts, then:
Before the play begins, Oedipus comes to power when he answers the riddle of the Sphinx and puts an end to the terror that is ravaging Thebes. Through his intelligence and cleverness he saves the people. But as Oedipus the King starts, another pestilence is upon the land, and his journey to discovering the cause of this pestilence is what this play is about. In the course of this discovery Oedipus learns who he himself is. Early on in the play, the seer Teiresias resists revealing the truth of things to Oedipus, telling him that he's better off not knowing the truth. Isn't this true? Wouldn't Oedipus be better off not knowing?
The temple of Apollo is inscribed with the command "Know Yourself." Yet the tragedy of Oedipus is just this, knowing who he himself is. How are we to interpret this?
Once Oedipus slowly puts the pieces together, his reaction is extreme, as is to be expected. But does he deserve to be punished, or to punish himself so thoroughly?