Long before daytime soap operas, Sophocles regaled the masses with the tragic tale of Oedipus the Tyrant. It is the first of its kind to enmesh the reader in a complicated web of incest, patricide, and regicide whilst featuring a protagonist who evokes rage and pity in the same breath. Centuries after its first performance, the tragedy remains a focus of political discourse, not only because it is one of the most celebrated plays of the ancient world, but also because it has produced brilliant, thought-provoking, and wholly different interpretations. Exactly what provoked Oedipus’ demise remains a source of debate among scholars and laypersons alike, but the scholarly consensus seems to accept Oedipus’ renunciation of reason and sudden turn to piety as the source of his downfall. Sophocles’ acclaimed tragedy ultimately reveals that Oedipus meets his doom when he strays from political rationalism and secularism, the dominant political ideologies of his tyrannical rule, in pursuit of divine providence.
One of the most perplexing points of Oedipus the Tyrant is Sophocles’ use of the term “tyrant” in reference to Oedipus. His literary usage of the word is especially curious when viewed against the fact that Cadmeans exalt Oedipus as a wise, public-spirited ruler and seem quite pleased with his political rule —which is inconsistent with the modern, pejorative meaning of tyrant. Upon closer inspection, and with the aid of Peter Ahrensdorf’s Greek Tragedy and Political Philosophy (2009), Oedipus’ ambiguous status is demystified. Ahrensdorf defines a tyrant as: “a man who ascends to power and rules outside the limits imposed by humans and divide.” Unlike ordinary tyrants who ascend to power, “by force or wealth or guile”, or the rulers who come to power through royal descent, Oedipus obtains his throne through intellect alone when he defeats the Sphinx tormenting Thebes and is subsequently selected to rule the city. And yet, the characterization of Oedipus as a “tyrant” —tyrant in the modern, vitriol-inducing sense— is decidedly fitting, for he violates the divine laws protecting the family when he murders his father and sleeps with his mother.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In view of Oedipus’ crimes, and perhaps clinging to the natural human instinct for justice without further investigation, one might rejoice in Oedipus’ downfall; but the intrinsic human desire for justice is precisely why the reader should delve deeper into the play. His heinous crimes do not negate the well-documented fact that Oedipus is greatly devoted to the wellbeing of the city, he adores his children and reveres his wife; even more telling, his departure from Corinth as the heir to the throne to evade the prophecy that he would commit patricide and incest. And not to be forgotten, Oedipus’ transgressions were committed unwittingly, before his biological parents were known to him. When Oedipus finally discovers his parentage and the crimes he’s committed, he is evidently heavy with guilt as he punishes himself in a way that surpasses what was demanded by the oracle and begs Creon to banish him from the city. With this understanding, it is difficult to sustain such a naive view of Oedipus’ guilt.
Throughout the play, Sophocles reveals that Oedipus’ rule, until the plague, was absolutely devoid of divine law—relying only on his wits to govern the city. He has no qualms about addressing Teiresias’ non-involvement in the effort to eliminate the Sphinx nor is he shy about his impiety: For come, say, how are you clearly a prophet? How was it that when the Dog of the song was here, You did not speak a word of salvation for these townsmen? And indeed, the riddle was not for any man who just happened along To solve, but rather needed a prophet! As regards it, you were not conspicuous in knowing anything, Either from the bird omens or from the gods; but I came— Oedipus, the one who knows nothing!—and put an end to it, Hitting the mark by my judgment, not learning anything From birds! (390-398) Oedipus’s tyrannical rule, then, rests on human reason and logic, or more accurately: political rationalism in lieu of the divine law that once guided the city. Curiously, the first time things go awry during Oedipus’ seemingly tranquil rule is immediately after his turn to the gods. Indeed, Oedipus’ turn to piety sets the chain of events leading to his eventual doom in motion. His hubristic persistence in discovering the murderer of Laius, against the counsel of his wife only seals the deal. What, then, might Sophocles be trying to communicate with Oedipus’ turn to the gods? Is it that the threat of imminent destruction will drive any, including atheistic Oedipus to the gods out of sheer desperation? Or might the plague reveal the pitfalls of rationalism in the face of human suffering and the inability of reason to triumph in a meaningless, absurd world—as Albert Camus would say? The answer lies with the reader. Given Oedipus’ vehement denial of the gods, and negative prior experiences with Teiresias and the Delphic Oracle, his turn to piety is surprising, but as the proverb goes “desperate times call for desperate measures.” If one looks closely, Oedipus’ distrust of the gods is not unfounded. Teiresias fails to defeat the Sphinx despite possessing ostensible spiritual gifts. Additionally, Teiresias and the Delphic Oracle have contradicting accounts about who killed Laius: Teiresias accuses only Oedipus of the murder, while the Delphic Oracle purports that the murder was perpetrated by many.
Lastly, Teiresias’ credibility as a prophet is never established, for all the reader knows, he could be a charlatan merely parroting the witness of Laius’ murder. Although lacking in textual evidence, Nietzsche proposes a fascinating reading and interprets Oedipus as: “ a noble human being who, in spite of his wisdom, is destined to error and misery but who eventually, through his tremendous suffering, spreads a magical blessing that remains effective even beyond his decease.” On account of his suffering, according to Nietzsche, Oedipus comes to realize that there’s no cosmically prescribed meaning to the universe, it is inexplicably cruel and impervious to human reason. In this way, Nietzsche designates Sophocles as an anti-rationalist on the basis that he’s the author of a tragic hero who renounces reason and later finds comfort in the “mystery of being”. Certainly, this is a more convincing reading than that of Ahrensdorf which states that Sophocles is both a proponent of political rationalism and divine providence.
Stuck on your essay?
