Oedipus The King Essay, Research Paper

Oedipus the King & # 8211 ; Tragic Justice of Fate

by Tina Uhlig

Oedipus the King is one of the most celebrated and influential of Sophocles & # 8217 ; dramas. On the surface of this play there is, without a uncertainty, a tone of disenchantment. Dramatic sarcasm is a much-used literary device in this drama and its unusual construction serves as an account for its abiding popularity. Oedipus is portrayed as a character of societal scruples whose calamity stresses the exposure of human existences whose agony is brought on by a combination of human and godly actions. The cardinal subject is the incest of Oedipus with his female parent ; and so, the violent death of his male parent. Depending on how one reads the elaboratenesss and vagueness of Athenian civilization and the writer & # 8217 ; s questionable character, Sophocles, in this drama about King Oedipus, is viewed as either virtuous or immoral.

The most common reading of Sophocles & # 8217 ; Oedipus the King maintain that the incestuous behavior that takes topographic point between Oedipus and his female parent and the homicidal act he commits against his male parent are viewed morally. Consequently, the impression is given that Oedipus commits a wickedness by kiping with his female parent and killing his male parent, and is punished because of it. Others will reason that this kind of moral reading is, in fact, incorrect as farther research into the interlingual rendition of the drama reveals a rationalisation of an wholly different position. In his single analysis of Oedipus the King, D.W. Myatt articulates in his debut that, & # 8220 ; The kernel of this peculiar Grecian calamity lies in the kingdom of the Gods, with the relationship between persons, their communities, and the Gods. The incest in peculiar is simply an interesting incident which occurs to a peculiar person and whose importance lies in the kingdom of prognostication & # 8211 ; in what prognostication says about the will of the Gods and the destiny of persons & # 8221 ; ( paragraph 3 ) . On Oedipus & # 8217 ; morality Myatt offers this reading:

& # 8220 ; The calamity lies in the fact that Oedipus was non ab initio disrespectful of the Gods & # 8211 ; he tried to avoid killing his male parent, and kiping with his female parent ; and when he learns that the prophet at Delphi has said that the pestilence which is killing the people of Thebes is the consequence of a befoulment which has non been cleaned [ the blood is still on a slayer ‘s manus ] so he is ready to make all that the God says is necessary & # 8221 ; ( paragraph 5 ) .

Myatt & # 8217 ; s interlingual rendition of this Sophoclean calamity concludes, & # 8220 ; persons can non be delivered from the bad lucks of their destiny & # 8221 ; ( paragraph 5 ) . This analysis shed a new visible radiation on what should hold been most obvious to any reader of Greek mythology. I found this reading of Oedipus the King both challenging and interesting in that it heightened my consciousness that the Grecian Myths are our window into the distant yesteryear ; a position of a universe that existed non merely in the head of the Greek dramatists but in the Black Marias of the low and long enduring indigens of ancient Greece.

Many critical theories can be applied to Sophocles & # 8217 ; Oedipus the King. Some may see the Sophoclean scholarship as historical in orientation as they view Sophocles & # 8217 ; work non in the visible radiation of cosmopolitan values but in the visible radiation of ancient Greek yesteryear, peculiarly that of Sophocles himself in the Periclean Athens of the 5th century. Another theory to see is the archetypical attack in that Sophocles ne’er suggests that Oedipus had brought his fate on by himself but instead was merely a hapless being who had been cursed by a destiny beyond that of his control. Hence the prognostications that led him into catastrophe, for grounds unbeknownst to all, was put in to put by the Gods. Consequently, gallantry describes the bravery with which Oedipus searches to happen the truth about what he has done and the credence of his destiny is the forfeit he makes upon larning the truth. In an overview of Oedipus the King J. Michael Walton & # 8217 ; s psychological theory points out that the sarcasm of this drama by Sophocles appealed to none other than Freud himself for its manner of showing through myth the most basic of all relationships, those between a kid and its parents ( paragraph 1 ) . The Encyclopedia Britannica farther maintains that, & # 8220 ; Sigmund Freud chose the term? Oedipus composite? to denominate a boy & # 8217 ; s feeling of love toward his female parent and T

chapeau of jealously toward his male parent, although these were non emotions that motivated Oedipus’ actions or determined his character in any ancient version of the story” ( paragraph 4 ) . The bulk of reader-response attacks to “Oedipus the King” go one of two waies — Oedipus either receives merely punishment in exchange for his corrupt behaviour, or he is regarded as a inculpable animal of god undeserving of the sentence that he receives. In my ain reader-response theory to “Oedipus the King” I see a righteous adult male with a good bosom who, by seeking justness in the truth, faces desolation and is destroyed. Therefore, it’s commiseration that is felt as a consequence, as Freud tells us, because at some degree, his destiny could be our ain ( Walton, paragraph 7 ) .

Calamity is normally filled with sarcasms because there are so many cases in the secret plan when what appears to be turns out to be wholly different from what really is. Grecian calamity is traditionally more disposed to be public than private and the destiny of the full community is frequently linked with that of the supporter. Oedipus, the supporter of this Grecian calamity, was looked upon as exceeding instead than typical ; a outstanding adult male brought from felicity to wretchedness. His character? s stature is of import because it makes his autumn all the more hideous. In today? s universe, newscasts are filled with day-to-day studies of calamities, such as a kid being struck and killed by a auto ; an aeroplane clang ; or a annihilating fire. Harmonizing to The Bedford Introduction to Literature, these types of unexpected cases of enduring are normally and accurately described as tragic, but they are non calamities in the literary sense of the term ( page 1221 ) . A literary calamity? nowadayss brave persons who confront powerful forces within or outside themselves with a self-respect that reveals the comprehensiveness and deepness of the human spirit in the face of failure, licking, and even decease? ( page 1221 ) . When existent events are compared to a Grecian calamity it is about ever this drama which lurks behind the comparing.

Many lifes have been written about the life and Hagiographas of Sophocles. The unfavorable judgment has been made that Sophocles was a superb creative person and nil more ( The Encyclopedia Britannica ) . He struggled with neither spiritual jobs or with rational 1s. He accepted the Gods of Greek faith in a spirit of undeniable rule, and in his authorship he took pleasance in showing human characters and human struggles. To Sophocles & # 8220 ; the Gods & # 8221 ; look to hold represented the natural forces of the existence to which human existences are unsuspectingly or reluctantly capable. Consequently, he believed that human existences live for the most portion in the shadow of ignorance because they are cut off from these lasting, unchanging forces and constructions of world. Yet it is pain, agony, and the endurance of tragic crisis that can convey people into valid contact with the cosmopolitan order of how things appear to be and how things truly are. In the procedure, a individual can so go more genuinely human, more truly himself. Sophocles & # 8217 ; extraordinary manner and ability to portray exceeding characters under emphasis was his hallmark. His play were built around strong-minded, extremely principled, and passionate characters that encounter apparently unsurmountable ethical and moral fortunes. Sophocles therefore created characters of epic magnitude but his dramas besides demonstrated that holding a heroic character might really good take to catastrophe.

Whatever position is taken of Sophocles and his authorship of & # 8220 ; Oedipus the King & # 8221 ; , there is no uncertainty about the deepness, strong belief, and art with which he expresses his doctrine. These qualities have ever been admired, and, as a consequence, the signifier in which Sophocles has cast the myth has frequently been imitated and admired. Some of Sophocles & # 8217 ; finest choral authorship is to be found in this drama as & # 8220 ; Oedipus the King & # 8221 ; illustrates the significance of his entire dramatic achievements. Structured within it, and suggested with exceeding dramatic diplomatic negotiations, are all the basic inquiries of calamity, which are presented in such a manner as about to specify the signifier itself. The capriciousness of destiny and the manner in which the person character plays a portion to that destiny is what makes Oedipus the King one of the true mention points in play and in all others facets of literature.