Before reading this play I already had an idea about it from comments and readings from my Greek myth class. However the real play itself was astonishing and rather tragic. Sophocles wrote a play where a man is destroyed because of things which were out of his control. While the play also has the idea that all prophecies come true, and for the Greek’s this idea probably stemmed from the idea that what their gods said would definitely happen – I think that the reason the prophecy of Oedipus was true is because his father believed it to be true and acted on the prophecy. If his father hadn’t gotten scared about what his son would do later on in life he would not have sent him away with the shepherd to die in the woods, instead the only reason Oedipus missed out on a childhood with his real parents (and an adult life which DID not involve incest and patricide) is because his father basically, and without knowing, orchestrated the whole tragedy.

In Greek mythology the idea of the son killing (or taking away the masculinity) the father is not a strange idea. Cronus castrated his father and Zeus then defeated Cronus and became king of the earth and heavens. Oedipus in killing his father was not exactly out of sync with much of Greek’s societies ideas and religion. However what really puts him over the edge from tragic hero to just a disaster is the fact that he, unknowingly, marries his mother. The sad part about all of this is that he truly had no idea, and the only reason all of this came to light was because of his curiosity. Jocasta warns him not to try and find out the truth and yet he does not listen, if he had listened to her he might have died not knowing, or perhaps found out but in a less public way. Also the way the chorus, or the people, act towards Oedipus is saddening. At first they vow to stand behind him no matter what and are proud of him and then suddenly when the truth comes out they turn against him, the reject him from society. If Oedipus had only unknowingly killed his father then the crowd would have forgiven him or moved on from it, siting Zeus and Cronus, but the only fact of this novel that people focus on is the fact that he married Jocasta. However the play is about more than that, it is about prophecies and people causing them to come true even though if they had just left it all alone nothing would have happened (similar to Lord Voldemort, if he had not heard the prophecy about Harry then he would have never tried to kill him and if he hadn’t tried to kill him he would never have created the only person alive who could defeat him). Lauis created his own tragedy.

These short, twisted, tragic plays really are brilliant. First Medea, then Oedipus The King. After a meandering doctrine such as Plato’s, I sometimes feel like I get just as much (albeit very differently) from Sophocles, in less than 100 pages.

Although Oedipus Rex is it’s own distinct play, i’ve started to notice a number of similar themes running through the Greek tragedies. I suppose this is not too surprising, considering the way in which all these playwrights had convened under similar laws and times. However it’s still interesting to note recurring ideas. They all seem to gain a more worldy significance. Anyway, a prominent one is the dramatic shift from greatness to pitiful shame and general awfulness. Just like Medea or Jason, Oedipus begins as a self regarding person, in this case a king, with a history of pride and power. (killing a whole caravan because one fellow hit him with a staff.) He presents himself as caring about his citizens and willing to do anything for their well-being. When blamed for a murder, however, he is quick to put fault on anyone else. Even though he doesn’t know his crime, he runs on the assumption that he cannot, could not ever be wrong. It must be somebody else.

Like Medea, and like a vast amount of other stories, there is also some clever commentary on the state of mankind. There is a line on page 215 that I read over more than once. “What should a man fear? It’s all chance, chance rules our lives… better to live ate random.” This connotes to the cliche, modern day saying of “things happen”, but something about this play being written in the 400′s BC gives it some added weight. This develops into what was my favorite part of the play: grappling with the idea of fate and destiny. Part of the play seems to be saying you can’t escape it. Despite out best intentions, fate will play out just as it has been prophesized. But there is something a bit more subtle that is even more interesting. I may be misled, but the ideas of fate and ones own actions, ones free will, seem to be blended together in what I feel is an important way. Oedipus is given choices, and his arrogance drives him to make the “wrong” decisions. These decisions lead to utter ruin. Is Sophocles saying that our arrogance is what, in the end makes us blind? When Oedipus stabbed his eyes out at the end, I think Sophocles was simply making a metaphor real, making sure we really got it. I think Sophocles is saying that arrogance and power can make one “blind.”

Yeah.

After diligently reading and earmarking potential quotes from the three Theban plays, I discovered that we were only supposed to read one of them. Fabulous.

Anyway, Oedipus the King, tied with Colonus as the play with the least earmarked quotes, has a different format to it as opposed to other plots with prophecies hanging over them like black signboards dyed in the stink of a convenient gimmick. In this play, the prophesized individual does not learn about his “destiny” until after he’s already fulfilled it, which in my opinion is a much better way to go about it if the writer is for some inexplicable reason compelled to add that kind of stink to the plot. Because of this, Oedipus does not suffer self-fulfilling prophecy syndrome, nor did he constantly second-guess himself about whether his fate is his own and all that annoying angst when he was doing the Sphinx’s puzzle (I didn’t read that so I could be wrong). Of course, I know that I’m looking at this from the viewpoint of a modern reader; fate back then was completely tied to the gods, so plays about prophecies in that era were simply tools to solidify people’s trust in divine power.

The concept of prophecies aside, the prophecy itself in this play is a rather peculiar one. First of all, Oedipus’ father did suffer from self-fulfilling prophecy syndrome, as his choice to throw Oedipus off the cliff was what led to his eventual death at the hands of his son. Secondly, I am still unsure whether or not Oedipus’ mother knew what she was doing when she married her son—she seemed to me to have been hiding it from him until it couldn’t be hidden anymore, after which she promptly committed suicide. I’m not absolutely sure that she wasn’t actually just refusing to see the truth herself, however, though I suspect that I’d get a better idea if I read the play involving her first meeting with adult Oedipus. Finally, Oedipus’ reaction when he learned about the prophecy and his connection to it was, to put it mildly, not a happy one. He cursed everything about himself and ripped out his eyes in his self-hatred, moving straight past normal angst and into absolute angst. What made this play interesting to me, however, was what happened after that (in Colonus, which we weren’t supposed to read but whatever). Oedipus, after going through his cycle of turmoil, actually leaves it and attempts to get his life back together. The prophecy of doom is fulfilled, despaired at, and finally…accepted. Killing his father, marrying his mother, and ripping out his eyes wasn’t the end for Oedipus. Instead, there was a whole other play after that depicting him as an almost mystic figure who (ironically) had the power to give prophecies that were always right. His end was described as quite a spectacular sight as well, showing perhaps that even after suffering such pain and anguish, it is possible to attain redemption and a decent end. 

Oedipus The King was a really interesting read. Though I hadn’t read the play before, I knew about the “Oedipus complex” and understood the main idea of the play. However, after actually reading the play, I find that it’s less about the disturbing acts of Oedipus towards his birth parents and more about the natural suffering that each human is destined to face. As mentioned in the Odyssey, sometimes the gods seek revenge for sinful acts by directly punishing the faulty parties. However, the gods may also use mortals as a vessel of their wrath and revenge. In this case, Oedipus is nothing more than a channel of retribution for the gods. He never really does any that warrants all the pain he receives by the end of the play, but through him, so many people suffer and the prophecy finally comes true. The final words of the play summarize the idea that life is painful and true peace is only found in death. This idea is also reflected earlier in the play when Oedipus firsts finds out what he’s done. He wishes the shepherd would have just killed him so that he wouldn’t have to go through all the anguish, and so he wouldn’t have to cause all this pain for those who surround him. Life, for everyone in this play is torturous. The towns people are being plagued amidst all the shame that’s surrounding kingdom, and after Oedipus is exiled, a power struggle ensues for the throne by his two sons. Nobody has peace in the play, and powerful people are continually reduced to nothing, as is common in most greek tragedy. Oedipus’ blinding of himself is done so he can no longer look upon the pain and suffering he’s caused, and he subsequently wishes he was deaf, so he could live in a world almost completely free of pain. For him, being blind and deaf is as close as a person can get to death while still living because they are closed out to the pain of the world. Another thing I found interesting about this play is that Oedipus recognizes the difficult life his children will have to live. He especially recognizes that it will be difficult for his daughters to survive in a world where they will most likely be unmarried and alone. However, he doesn’t kill them. That being said, Oedipus was much more connected to power than Medea.

When I finished reading Oedipus the King, I was consumed with sadness. The terrible misfortunes of Oedipus and Jocasta left me with a real sense of pity for both. To realize that one’s entire reign and marriage has been born out of wretchedness would inevitably drive even the most joyous of individual’s to horror.

That being said…

I found it quite interesting that Oedipus was such a narcissist. Literally, he believed that he could do no wrong, that he was the gods’ gift to mankind or something. He even calls himself the son of Chance, which produces only good things. This sheer egocentricity, though, was vitally important, as it becomes utterly destroyed once Oedipus learns the truth about his life. This complete devastation and switch from excessive pride to utter self-loathing depicted not only the effect of grief, but also how quickly the joy in life vanishes. It was mentioned in the play by Oedipus that joy is merely a vision, and I found this best exemplified through his complete change in self-perception.

Another aspect that I remarked on was that the work makes it seem like humans have a hand in their own destiny. In many other Greek works, it appears that our power in changing our fates is minuscule. In this work, however, I got more of a sense of the humans influencing destiny. One section in particular describes those who act cruelly as providing themselves with a crueler fate.

Blindness was a recurring theme as well. Initially, Oedipus mocks the blind seer, Tiresias, for his inability to see, but gouges out his own eyes demonstrates an ironic realization. Tiresias may see the divine, the prophesized, but is saved from having to experience and see the horrors of the world. Oedipus does not realize this initially, but only at the end of the work does he clearly understand that oblivion results in happiness sometimes.

Finally, I noticed near the very end the focus on Oedipus’ love for his daughters, Antigone and Ismene. When talking to Creon, Oedipus states that his sons will be fine, able to go out into the world and fend for themselves. However, with his daughters, Oedipus showed genuine paternal emotion, crying out for his daughters to remain with him, demonstrating a high amount of fatherly love. This veers away from the traditional Greek view where the sons hold more value than the daughters.

I was glad to see another short text on our reading list. For one reason or another I found myself gravitating to this book more than most we have read. I thought the story itself was very interesting and provided for unusual plot twists. The idea of incest is usually a very touchy subject, not often tackled in what I have had the chance to read. This brought the idea fully forward, showing just how undesired the practice was at the time. Oedipus destroys his own vision because of the horror and regret he feels regarding his actions.

I found Oedipus’ response to the incident very revealing. Oedipus consistently places himself before the gods in his ability to accomplish things. He states that he is responsible for being a great leader, not because of divine intervention. He receives the revelation regarding events to come (that being, the killing of his father and marrying of his mother), and still continues to disregard the abilities of the gods. He believes that he, as a human, is able to combat this by relocating and taking full precaution. His fate eventually is fulfilled however, leaving one to believe that he would finally subdue to the will of the gods; He doesn’t do this. Oedipus places blame fully upon himself. He cries and mourns his actions, constantly calling himself out for what has occurred in his life. He does not curse the gods, he chooses to destroy his eyes and leave the world he knows, seeking isolation in the mountains.

The reaction from Oedipus leads me to believe that he is not a monster in any sense. He is nothing more than a victim, placed into a position he did not deserve. He was shown throughout the text to be a fantastic ruler. He was loved by his citizens, he cared for them all, he became “tyrant” through his many actions. Despite all of the good he has done, he is still sentenced to a horrific fate. He is so graceful in his acceptance of the fate, he blames no one other than himself. This is a truly selfless act, one which not many characters throughout our readings would have treated equally. Take Odysseus for example; he would have likely cursed one of the many gods for putting him into the situation. He would not have an equally humble response as Oedipus had.

I am actually looking forward to reading the essay prompts relating to Oedipus, this is my favorite text so far and I can’t wait to dissect it further in class.

Oedipus Rex… was quite the tragedy.  Extraordinarily depressing, next to the blank word document that was my Plato Essay. Having read Antigone, I knew some of the background to Oedipus Rex, but reading the actual tragedy made me wonder… what do you do when the universe has already condemned you?

Oedipus was basically doomed from the start.   The prophet’s prophecy… basically led to Oedipus running from his fate for his entire lie.  An unenviable fate indeed, but one as he found out the hard way, he could not escape.  Of course, this brings up the question of whether his actions created his fate, or whether fate was predetermined for Oedipus.  To my opinion, it’s seems to vary from situation to situation within the text.  Oedipus killing his father… SEEMED like an accident.  It was Laius who struck out against Oedipus who chanced upon running into the king, but if Oedipus hadn’t run away in the first place, he might have never met Laius.  To me though, it seems that the gods and fate are more to blame than Oedipus’s actions.  If he hadn’t known and everything the prophecy predicted happened to him, then the answer would have been obvious, but Sophocles has written the play in such a way that in a sense, Oedipus’s attempt to know his destiny, led to his downfall.

Ignorance and whether ignorance is bliss is also a key factor in the play.  Oedipus, despite his mother/wife Jocasta’s warnings and pleadings, was determined to seek out the shepherd.  This eventually led to her killing herself, which can be seen as Oedipus driving his mother to death, though I’m more inclined to see Jocasta as being primarily responsible.  If Oedipus just ignored his urge to find out the truth of his heritage… that could have changed things greatly, but then again, given the strange nature of fate within the text, it may not have changed anything.  However, to my eyes, Oedipus’s confronting of the truth, eventually led to his downfall of blinding himself.  So in a sense, Sophocles’s Oedipus Rex warns us that the truth, may cause more harm than good and it also make s a commentary on the nature of fate and destiny.

The chicken-and-egg question is by no means a new question. It’s a question that can go both ways and nobody knows which really came first into existence. In the case of Oedipus Rex, it is arguable both ways whether he controlled his own fate or whether fate controlled his life.

When Oedipus was born, a prophecy was made that stated he was destined to kill his father and marry his mother. In fear of this prophecy, he was left to die as an infant with his ankles bound on the orders of his parents. Oedipus manages to come out alive anyway because the servant who was ordered to leave him to die felt pity on him and gave him away. Fast forward into the future and during a roadside brawl, he kills his biological father Laius and marries his mother Jocasta. Was the prophecy really fulfilled or did fate happen because it was shaped by the actions of Oedipus and his parents? This is the really interesting question. I find that people in literature who often try so hard to avoid a prophecy from coming true often end up making the prophecy come true. For instance, in Harry Potter, Voldemort hears a prophecy that a boy born at the end of July with parents who defied him three times would end up defeating him. He gets understandably worried and goes to try and murder Harry as a baby. Fast forward to the seventh book and Voldemort does get defeated by Harry. But what if Voldemort didn’t pay any attention to the prophecy? Then Harry would have no reason to come after him and he might’ve achieved his goal of immortality! Another example would be Macbeth, who because of a prophecy, decides to murder King Duncan (I think that’s the king’s name, but it’s been two years so I could be wrong). These people all self-fulfill these prophecies; either through trying to avoid the prophecies, or by directly taking action to make the prophecies come true. Laius and Jocasta tried so hard to prevent Oedipus from growing up so he couldn’t kill his father and marry his mother as the prophecy predicted. This is exactly what happens, however. If Laius and Jocasta had simply ignored the prophecy, I doubt Oedipus would ever have thought of killing Laius or married Jocasta.

It’s an interesting topic; this talk about whether we control fate or whether fate controls us. Most people, when asked, will say that they believe we, as humans, control fate. Yet, when people are told that something will happen, they also have a tendency to believe it. It’s rather contradictory.

Another noteworthy question to ask is: Is Oedipus a monster? Taken out of context, Oedipus is someone who kills his father and marries his mother. Monstrous? Yes. But when you actually read the book, it’s hard to blame Oedipus. He didn’t know who his real biological parents were. His parents even tried to kill him! Also, even though his crimes are certainly monstrous, he is by no means unloving towards his family. He shows deep concern for his children and regrets the fact that he has to leave them. He elicits pity from the audience and readers alike. I personally found “Oedipus Rex” an entertaining read and I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to read this play in my English 12 class.

So after reading a couple tragedies I’ve come to the conclusion that majority of the characters and their spouses have to die and or mutilate themselves in the worst way possible. Brutus runs onto his own sword, his wife swallows hot coals and chokes to death. Macbeth is decapitated, his wife loses her mind and flings herself from a tower. Oedipus stabs himself in both eyes with clothing pins and his wife hangs herself from a noose. Quite a spectacular pattern. Shakespeare must of felt inspired by Oedipus’ conclusion

Unfortunately I didn’t have the good fortune to read this in secondary school, but of course I heard the most controversial part. *Spoilers* Oedipus bangs his own mom and bears children of incest. Now I think this is one of these instances- like Medea, that although incest is a major part of the plays plot, it is not the major theme of Oedipus. However, I’m sure it made for a good hook in the Athens theatre district. “He does what?! Oh I have to see this.”

All jokes aside the obvious themes in Oedipus are both Fate and Tyranny. Now what confuses me the most is whether or not Oedipus is to blame for his misfortune or if it was simply bound to be. When the play begins Oedipus has already done both heinous deeds without his own knowledge. He has already ascended to the King of Thebes, and has raised two daughters born from his mother’s womb. Are they his sisters or daughters…? This hindsight perspective doesn’t give the reader the impression that he had much choice. We don’t get to see him conflict over any of these decisions. All we can do is wait in suspense, waiting for a verdict. But was the prophecy fulfilled?

The Oracle predicted three things. Oedipus would murder his own father, sleep with his mother, and eventually murder her. Now to be fair, the Oracle did predict it least two of these occurrences, but did he really murder his own mother? Oedipus may of drove his mother into an emotional state but she did die by her own hand, not his. This could be an example of how his own choices can be applicable to his fate.  Jocasta pleads with Oedipus to end his search for truth. Both she, Tiresias and The Shepard know it can do him no good and will lead to ruin. If he had “chosen” to abide to her wishes perhaps the Oracle’s final prediction could have been avoided. But you can’t blame the guy. If anyone had any sort of reason to question whether their spouse was related to them, I’m sure they wouldn’t just shrug off the notion.

One last thing, Is Oedipus really to blame for his father’s death? His dad did cut him off while he was driving. Things escalated from there, but Laius was the instigator and he attacked Oedipus first. And although it’s taboo in Ancient Greece to murder your father it’s a bit of a double standard. No one talks down Laius for attempting to murder his own child… Well, maybe it was actually Jocasta, but I’m sure he still had some say in it.

Kyle