Sophocles “Oedipus Rex”
Oedipus Rex is an extraordinarily cruel play.
Oedipus has seemingly done nothing wrong and lacks the fatal flaw that would justify the way that coincidences and events align against him. The punishment is completely disproportional to his crime, which seems to have been his birth. And whatever he does to extricate himself from his fate seems only to implicate Oedipus further. The story is constructed something like a noir thriller in which a minor transgression brings devastating consequences, or a slasher film in which “if they’d only stayed out of the woods, they’d still be alive”. But it’s hard to see what Oedipus might have done wrong; Apollo just has it out for him. And Sophocles’s attitude about this is disturbingly blasé; often described as the most pious of the Athenian tragedians, Sophocles seems a bit like an authoritarian lickspittle, rooting on Apollo as he persecutes an innocent man. His tone is pitiless, as if we’re listening to a fundamentalist cheerily comment on an earthquake: well, God is both great and mysterious!
A few things to remember though: there is another play in this series, ‘Oedipus at Colonus’, which discusses Oedipus’s seeming innocence, and Zeus basically absolves him. Maybe Sophocles had second thoughts. Secondly, Oedipus does suffer from hubris in his immoderate attacks on Creon and the prophet Teiresias; however, that comes after the fact of his doomed coincidences, so faulting him would be a bit like criticized a wrongly condemned man for swearing on the way to the electric chair.
There also seems to be the implication that kings are uniquely imperiled by their position; that the social order always threatens the sacred order and they tend to slip into impiety especially easily. And Oedipus’s father was impious. The backstory: La?us, king of Thebes, asks the oracle of Apollo at Delphi if he will have a son. The answer: yes, but the son will come to slay his father as a punishment for La?us having snatched the son of the pious Polyps. Fearing his son, he instructs a slave to kill the infant. But, just like the story of Cyrus in Herodotus, the slave instead hands the child to another shepherd, the herdsman of Polybus, king of Corinth.
So, the future king of Thebes was raised to be the king of Corinth. Trouble arose when a drunken reveler at a feast announced that Oedipus was not the true son of Polybus. Disturbed by this, Oedipus consulted the oracle of Apollo at Delphi and was given an infamous prophecy: he would slay his father and mate with his mother. So Oedipus fled from Corinth to Thebes where, by a turn of events, he became the King with Iocasta as his Queen.
As the play begins, Oedipus and Iocasta have been married sixteen years and have four children: Eteocles, Polyneices, Antigone, and Ismene. Thebes is afflicted by the plague, and their beloved king vows to help them. Iocasta’s brother Creon brings news of the latest prophecy: the state is suffering from a blood stain after the murder of Laius, the former king. Like OJ Simpson, Oedipus vows to find the killer and bring him to justice.
To this end, Teiresias, the god-inspired seer, is brought forth. Blind, he nevertheless has sacred vision, a trope that is often extended to Homer. He doesn’t want to speak, but when pressed blurts out that Oedipus is the “accursed polluter of this land”. He has killed the king and married his widow.
Oedipus, understandably, is in denial. He blames Creon, who he accuses of plotting to usurp him. But Creon doesn’t want to be King, and indeed, won’t handle the role well. Oedipus condemns him on mere suspicion and further condemns Teiresias of conspiracy. The play proceeds like a murder mystery, in which the detective eventually uncovers his own crime. While fleeing Corinth, Oedipus fought with a traveler at the meeting of three roads in the land of Phocis, and killed La?us in a case of road rage. Later, he became a hero in Thebes and married the king’s widow, unaware that he had killed the king.
Thus, he unwittingly killed his father and mated with his mother, just as prophesized. Sophocles tells us that one must follow the laws ordained on high, “The God in them is strong and grows not old.” In this case, the son is punished for the sins of the father by bloodline curse. Lineage is destiny.
To a disturbing degree though. Here, blood not only damns Oedipus; it seems to deny him agency. His actions are free, but not free since the information he would need to make free choices is withheld from him. He is cursed from birth to enact a punishment ordered by Apollo and to receive punishment for the contract killing. Nothing he does allows him to escape nature; he finally blinds himself to escape the sight of what he has done. Even crueler, Iocasta is driven to kill herself over a curse that clings to her by marriage. In the end, family ties are so strong that none of us can escape them.
Endnotes:
1. I’m a little busy this week preparing for a conference on Saturday, so I might be slow in responding to comments.
To a disturbing degree though. Here, blood not only damns Oedipus; it seems to deny him agency. His actions are free, but not free since the information he would need to make free choices is withheld from him. He is cursed from birth to enact a punishment ordered by Apollo and to receive punishment for the contract killing. Nothing he does allows him to escape nature; he finally blinds himself to escape the sight of what he has done. Even crueler, Iocasta is driven to kill herself over a curse that clings to her by marriage. In the end, family ties are so strong that none of us can escape them.
I’m reminded of the blasphemy thread.
Given that blasphemy back then was exceptionally different from blasphemy today, I’m wondering if the various (Capital-S) Sins didn’t have similar disparity… perhaps even to the point where “intent” was seen as secondary to what was actually done, if not tertiary.
And if the Sin of Patricide was one of the Big Sins, then of course the Erinyes would come up. That’s what they do.
With that said, however, it’s hard not to hear echoes of Job in your opening. After we get through the one and a half chapters with special effects, we’re treated to a Beckett play in which the audience gets to see all of the arguments given by God’s “defenders” and how they don’t measure up to the secrets that we were told in the first little bit…
And we, the audience, get to watch our emotions toyed with as we see exactly how unjust everything that happens to the protagonist actually is… but, quite honestly, God is God and His Creation is His Creation and Rules are Rules.
The caprice of the Gods was a huge problem for us, the audience, until we got a Devil worth calling “evil”, I reckon…Report
“The caprice of the Gods was a huge problem for us, the audience, until we got a Devil worth calling “evil”, I reckon…” – Jaybird
I think it still is, even with the advent of the Devil. The problem of an omnipotent or even mostly-potent God allowing pain to occur is still one of the prime arguments against belief in theological and practical terms, and it shows quite often in current literature and culture, it seems to me. Even in Job, much of the animus in from the reader is against God for letting this happen to a pious man to prove a point, rather than the Devil for fulfilling his purpose and drive. If we posit a God or Gods with power over the Devil, their caprice will always be a problem.Report
“If we posit a God or Gods with power over the Devil, their caprice will always be a problem.” I’ve always had a much harder time with the idea of the Devil than with God. It seems to me very easy to visualize an omniscient and loving Being, but when I try to imagine “Satan”, I just think of the absence of that, which is not much.Report
Without pushing the “Crazy Jaybird” button and giving my speech about how the evolution of Satan directly co-incided with the evolution of The State’s power over the individual, I’d say that “The Devil” was intended to be a solution to how a loving, powerful God could allow bad things to happen.
Hey. It’s a war. It’s not God’s fault. He still loves us… but wars have casualties and we aren’t at the end of days yet.
Of course, thinking about this brings us to about just as many problems as we had with Monotheism… but, on an emotional level, Mani totally makes a great deal of, well, sense is the wrong word… it *RESONATES*. God *IS* good and bad things *DO* happen. Hell, this popped up and was a best seller when Kirshner dressed it up with 70’s language. It still troubles us.
It’ll haunt us until doomsday.Report
I guess the pessimistic flip-side of my beliefs is that it doesn’t really disturb me to think that God is good and bad things do happen, mostly because it’s hard for me to conceptualize His caring greatly about me.
Incidentally, have you seen “A Serious Man”? It’s a pretty great take on the Job story and I felt much more comfortable with the Coen brother’s answer to why bad things happen to good people, which struck me as being, basically, “Ah, who can say? Embrace the mystery.” Which brings up a thought- do Taoists even think about this question?Report
Which brings up a thought- do Taoists even think about this question?
I find that this is where the afterlives are most interesting.
Christians (WARNING! SWEEPING GENERALIZATION ALERT!!!) generally resort to “His ways are not our ways, someday we will understand, on that day all of our tears will be wiped away and then we will exist the way we always ought to have existed… within Him, eternally.”
Taoists (and many Eastern Religions) tend toward the “the point is to get off this wheel.”
The Christians move to Life Eternal and finally understanding, and the Taoists move to annihilation.
Maybe that’s how they deal with it.Report
Could reincarnation explain this question by going backwards? Like, “Of course, Job is having it bad now; he must have been a jerk in a previous incarnation”? I’ve never heard that from Hindus. Taoism was the hardest course I took in university, and honestly I remember almost nothing about it.Report
I wasn’t saying that re-incarnation was how they dealt with the caprice of the gods, but that annihilation was.
“Screw you gods, I’m audi.”, if you will.Report
Yeah, I heard that. I was just thinking reincarnation might be another way to explain it. I’ve certainly heard hippies say as much. But, definitely, anihilation is another sort of parting gift to make up for a lousy life.Report
So when something bad happens, I take the role of my own Eliphaz? Or, indeed, when something bad happens, I do that for everybody?Report
Yeah, I was thinking of Job but forgot to talk about it. It’s a really similar story and I think what I find sort of callous in Sophocles is that he doesn’t even think we need an explanation and he doesn’t seem to be particularly troubled himself- of course, Oedipus gets it in the neck; after all, Apollo can do that. I think the idea of a bloodline curse is a way of explaining not so much why bad things happen to good people as the fact that often great things happen to shit heels. I mean, if you’re a slave and the king is a real bastard who lives a long and comfortable life, there’s something reassuring about thinking, “I’ll be dead and won’t see it, but your sins are going to be visited on your kids!” Of course, that all changes when you have such stark options for the afterlife. Even with an afterlife and considering all the explanations, Job’s lot seems pretty unfair. I remember an old joke in which Job pleads for an explanation and God says, “Honestly, Job, there’s just something about you that pisses me off!”Report
“Oedipus vows to find the killer and bring him to justice.”
Wasn’t this vow a big part of the problem with Oedipus? Back in “olden times”, when you made a vow, it really, really meant something. There wasn’t any wiggle room.Report
Well, he does fulfill it. He just has a really hard time accepting what he uncovers. Which, given the circumstances, is pretty understandable.
Incidentally, there’s a David Lynch movie called Lost Highway, in which a man kills his wife and then mentally invents an entirely new identity who didn’t kill anyone. When asked, Lynch has basically said, “I was thinking of OJ”.Report