Discuss the conflict between personal liberty and fate in Oedipus the King.
Can we condemn Oedipus's actions in the tragedy?
What dramatic effect does the unity of time, action and place in the Oedipus the King create?
What use is made of the metaphor of blindness in the play?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"What use is made of the metaphor of blindness in the play?"
The way Sophocles employs the metaphor of sight vs. blindness is reminiscent to me of Shakespeare's 'King Lear'. Both writers manipulate our pre-conceived notions of what is to be blind, favouring a more holistic interpretation of the condition.
Both King Lear and Gloucester have clear vision yet their behaviours, being easily susceptible to malevolent manipulation and disowning their offsring, are those of blind and ignorant men. Gloucester is of course the most literal illustration of this metaphor, as it is only after his eyes have been plucked out that he realises the error of his ways; it is only when he is physically blind that he achieves mental clarity.
Similarly, in 'Oedipus Rex', Oedipus is in possession of his sight, and yet he chooses to remind blind to the unpalatable truths of the oracle and his unintentional transgressions. Even when the visually impaired prophet Teiresias reveals to Oedipus the gruesome reality of his history, he still refuses to acknowledge it, preferring to remain in a self-imposed state of blindness. It's incredibly ironic that Teiresias can 'see' more clearly than Oedipus despite being blind.
The play is steeped in irony, which is again illustrated by the fact that Oedipus only achieves full anagnorisis and 'sees' the truth after having physically blinded himself with Iocasta's brooch.
In ‘Oedipus’ every step the main character takes to escape the prophecy only brings it closer. While he thinks he has personal freedom he has none, and when he believes he has escaped the prophecy he has not. It could be that his fate is his inclinations and personal freedom, being merely a prediction of what happens due to them, but this is contradicted by the way that fate through the prophecy interferes directly with his life, changing it and fulfilling itself through its own results. If there had never been a prophecy, Oedipus may have led a normal life.
The only possible freedom he seems to have is whether he discovers that he has fulfilled the prophecy, and is reduced to humiliation, or not, since it is not explicitly foretold. But the speed of the events and their momentum, how once put into motion they seem to happen independently of Oedipus seem to be evidence against this. And if his past was fated, it seems his present must also be. The play perhaps takes the form of a sacrifice, with Oedipus as the scapegoat sacrificed to restore fertility to Thebes, which implies that he has as little personal freedom as the goat sacrificed at the beginning of the play. Oedipus is driven to his sacrifice by his reaction to the prophecy, and what seems to be personal freedom, but may in fact be fate manipulating him, driving him onwards.
Sorry if this makes no sense.
Following from f’s comment, Oedipus’ only freedom is to follow his line of enquiry leading to self-discovery; the phrase “curiosity killed the cat” comes to mind. Unity of time requires Sophocles to tell most of the action through dialogue rather than showing it but Aristotle emphasises that tragedy is the product of recognition and reversal of situation themselves rather than the events subject to recognition. Dramatic irony makes this effective because audiences are already familiar with the legend and “fear and pity” are aroused by the nature of the discovery rather than the patricide and incest themselves.
Perhaps Oedipus’ most heinous act is the pursuit of self-knowledge, this is what ruins him rather than simple fate. His possession of guilt and blame is highlighted after Oedipus blinds himself with the almost confessional: “the hand that struck my eyes was mine,/ mine alone - no one else- ”. There is a sense that the king is claiming responsibility for more than just self-mutilation. Bernard Knox’s introduction to the Penguin edition of the play calls it a “reassertion of the traditional religious view that man is ignorant, that knowledge belongs only to the gods” and this aspect of the play may be testament to the dangers of self-knowledge and awareness. Although blindness is a potent metaphor, at phase value blindness, ignorance and denial seem like suitable coping-mechanisms for the tragedy that Oedipus is dealt. I find it extremely interesting, therefore, that Freud chose this story to underpin an unconscious conflict, beyond the remit of human self-awareness.
Can we condemn Oedipus' actions in the play?
I don't believe we can blame Oedipus and his actions throughout the play for its tragic ending. Since his birth Oedipus was subject to a prophecy which in some form or another he would inevitably fulfil. I think it is a combination of his fate and personality that lead Oedipus to ultimately fulfil his destiny.
In the false belief that Polybus and Merope are his real parents, Oedipus leaves Corinth in a noble attempt to defy his fate. Whilst travelling to Thebes he encounters a group which contains his biological father, Laius. They quarrel over who has the right of way and the disagreement ends with the proud and stubborn Oedipus murdering his own father. Oedipus is unknowingly on his way to completing the legend.
Oedipus is an intellect and a rationalist, he even solves the question of the Sphinx. As a wise problem solver Oedipus both frees the kingdom of Thebes and becomes his biological mother, Jocasta's husband.
Oedipus comes to his predicted tragic end. Due to certain flaws in his personality he makes the choices throughout his life that lead to fulfilment of the Oracle's prophecy. His own father, Laius also has an input into this tragedy. Even though Laius was aware that if he fathered a son, this child would eventually murder him he continued with his actions. Oedipus himself was certainly free to make any decisions on his own accord but I believe that something in his nature would always draw him towards the path of realising his destiny.
Blindness... as victory.
(C.M)
One could argue that the blindness so thoroughly inflicted on Oedipus is his destructive response to a sense that has not improved his life prospects; rather, indeed, we may say that sight led him to the realisation of the Oedipal Complex and, even, perhaps, intensified it.
A younger Oedipus- hypothetically blind- would not have been drawn into bitter dispute with Laius, would not have, one could argue, felt lust (so driven by sight) for his mother Jocasta. If we allow that this thought may have entered Oedipus' head later, we may also say that the blinding of the hero is a declaration to the Gods of disrespect for their power. If, when he destroys his sense of sight, Oedipus is saying that sight in some way led him to this point, is he not claiming his eyes held control over the events? Perhaps his blinding is king flipping Gods the bird.
This, too, may refer to the "pride" issue we discussed in class. It is Oedipus' pride that drives the action forward. He seeks only information from the prophecy so that he may resolve the blight which has struck Thebes. In the words of Joan Didion (on her writing method), "Read, learn, work it up. Information is control."
I put it to you now that it is this very confidence, this resolute self-possession of the noble, that gives Oedipus the ultimate victory over the Gods who have made his being sinister. Though the Gods influenced his life, Oedipus controlled it; he made those poor choices. The proof? The flick of the knife, the loss of the sense. HIs eyes had power, and so did he.
Post a Comment