Let’s not overlook the reasons for Oedipus’ tragic fall in OEDIPUS REX. To risk oversimplifying the reasons, consider only this: the gods had ordained a particular fate for Oedipus, and–in spite of his own attempts to outsmart the gods and avoid the fate–Oedipus’ life actually fulfilled that fate; however, the tragedy occurs when, against everyone’s advice (Tiresias, Jocasta, Shepherd, Chorus, etc.) Oedipus is determined to discover the truth about the late king’s murder, which actually involves his hubristic belief that only Oedipus can solve the problems of Thebes. Thus, the fullness of truth–especially as it involves human understanding of the inexplicable ways of the gods–can be dangerous. In other words, when humans aspire to Divine wisdom (i.e., seeing themselves as equal to or unaffected by the Divine), tragic outcomes are sometimes hard to avoid.
All true, R.T., and very well put. Nevertheless, Oedipus does achieve enlightenment and a kind of redemption and is better at the end than he was at the beginning. You are right not to downplay the suffering, but the discord is resolved. Tragic yes, but still hopeful.
Hopeful? Perhaps that is true at the end of the trilogy but not so true at the end of OEDIPUS REX. There is hope for Thebes but only sorrow for Oedipus. And, of course, that is part of the ancient Greek message: the community is more important than the individual.
Yes, that is another good point - about the community being more important than the individual. But yes,I so think the drama needs to be understood in terms of the trilogy, which addresses the myth in its its totality. The king's initial downfall is only a part of the story - and that story, taken as a whole, shifts the emphasis away from the notion of the community's greater importance toward the notion of the individual's integrity and redemption.
Frank, you say, "the drama needs to be understood in terms of the trilogy, which addresses the myth in its its totality. The king's initial downfall is only a part of the story - and that story, taken as a whole, shifts the emphasis away from the notion of the community's greater importance toward the notion of the individual's integrity and redemption."
I agree with you but only with this added caveat: OEDIPUS REX, now regularly appearing in book form with ANTIGONE and OEDIPUS AT COLONNUS, can be perceived by modern readers as a somewhat unified trilogy that can be read in the terms you suggest. However, we need to remember that these three plays--never intended by Sophocles as a unified trilogy for purposes of performance--were written over a period of decades. In fact, audiences in Athens would have first seen OEDIPUS REX performed as part of a spring festival (City Dionysia); OEDIPUS REX along with two other tragedies (about which we know nothing) and a satyr play (about which we know nothing) by Sophocles would have been performed as a day-long presentation during one of the three or four days of dramatic presentations in the Theater of Dionysus. (Note: The only extant trilogy of tragedies we now possess is THE ORESTEIA by Aeschylus.) I offer this background information as a way of putting a finer point on my argument that audiences in 5th c. BC Athens--familiar with the Oedipus myth--would have been fascinated by Sophocles' treatment of the myth--in the limited context of that day's performance of OEDIPUS REX--especially because of the ongoing political and philosophical circumstances for Athenians. One of the great debates at the time would have involved settling upon an individual's proper role in his or her relationship with the gods and the community (the polis). To read the Theban trilogy (described above) as a whole (now in the 21st century) is a mistake if we want to attempt an understanding of what the audience would have experienced and considered. Yes, Sophocles' over-arching themes with all three plays considered together may more accurately be seen in terms of your argument. However, I remain convinced that we need to look at each of the Theban plays in isolation. Of course, I could be wrong.
Historical arguments aside, there is also the issue that we are modern people reading ancient plays and putting our own interpretations on them. We cannot avoid that. One can do one's very best to be historically accurate, and appropriate to the era/period of an artwork's creation, to see it from its contemporary eyes (as much as that is possible for us to do). But one cannot avoid also bringing one's own experience to the table. The reason Sophocles remains so fresh and relevant, so universal, is that his plays DO still have something to say to us, here and now.
So I have to side with Frank's thoughts about the "trilogy," since it makes archetypal and psychological sense.
Furthermore, speaking as a writer, I have no difficulty in imagining that Sophocles thought of these plays as a series, or as sequels, or as working out the extended theme over several plays, even if they were written over a long period of time. He may have been thinking about them all that time. We cannot assume he viewed them as separate and disconnected, as we just don't know. But speaking as a writer, if I return to a theme several years later, it's not possible in my mind to separate it from what I wrote before; I expect most writers would agree.
I think we're all right. R.T. is definitely correct: We do need to look at the Theban plays in isolation, precisely because what I have been referring to is not an actual trilogy. But we can see from the Oresteia, which is an authentic trilogy, that the point of the dramas - which did serve as a kind of religious ritual - involved a reconciliation into harmony. And I think it is fair to say that that is what the Greeks were looking for when they attended: Hard to imagine a society that thrived on the downfall of a great person. But above all I think that Art is right: We must make these dramas ours, and by that I mean mankind's. They far transcend their parochial origins. And I think we must all agree on that. Otherwise we wouldn't be as passionately engaged as we obviously are. My thanks to both of you for raising my otherwise pedestrian column to a higher level of discussion.
Let’s not overlook the reasons for Oedipus’ tragic fall in OEDIPUS REX. To risk oversimplifying the reasons, consider only this: the gods had ordained a particular fate for Oedipus, and–in spite of his own attempts to outsmart the gods and avoid the fate–Oedipus’ life actually fulfilled that fate; however, the tragedy occurs when, against everyone’s advice (Tiresias, Jocasta, Shepherd, Chorus, etc.) Oedipus is determined to discover the truth about the late king’s murder, which actually involves his hubristic belief that only Oedipus can solve the problems of Thebes. Thus, the fullness of truth–especially as it involves human understanding of the inexplicable ways of the gods–can be dangerous. In other words, when humans aspire to Divine wisdom (i.e., seeing themselves as equal to or unaffected by the Divine), tragic outcomes are sometimes hard to avoid.
ReplyDeleteAll true, R.T., and very well put. Nevertheless, Oedipus does achieve enlightenment and a kind of redemption and is better at the end than he was at the beginning. You are right not to downplay the suffering, but the discord is resolved. Tragic yes, but still hopeful.
ReplyDeleteHopeful? Perhaps that is true at the end of the trilogy but not so true at the end of OEDIPUS REX. There is hope for Thebes but only sorrow for Oedipus. And, of course, that is part of the ancient Greek message: the community is more important than the individual.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is another good point - about the community being more important than the individual. But yes,I so think the drama needs to be understood in terms of the trilogy, which addresses the myth in its its totality. The king's initial downfall is only a part of the story - and that story, taken as a whole, shifts the emphasis away from the notion of the community's greater importance toward the notion of the individual's integrity and redemption.
ReplyDeleteFrank, you say, "the drama needs to be understood in terms of the trilogy, which addresses the myth in its its totality. The king's initial downfall is only a part of the story - and that story, taken as a whole, shifts the emphasis away from the notion of the community's greater importance toward the notion of the individual's integrity and redemption."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you but only with this added caveat: OEDIPUS REX, now regularly appearing in book form with ANTIGONE and OEDIPUS AT COLONNUS, can be perceived by modern readers as a somewhat unified trilogy that can be read in the terms you suggest. However, we need to remember that these three plays--never intended by Sophocles as a unified trilogy for purposes of performance--were written over a period of decades. In fact, audiences in Athens would have first seen OEDIPUS REX performed as part of a spring festival (City Dionysia); OEDIPUS REX along with two other tragedies (about which we know nothing) and a satyr play (about which we know nothing) by Sophocles would have been performed as a day-long presentation during one of the three or four days of dramatic presentations in the Theater of Dionysus. (Note: The only extant trilogy of tragedies we now possess is THE ORESTEIA by Aeschylus.) I offer this background information as a way of putting a finer point on my argument that audiences in 5th c. BC Athens--familiar with the Oedipus myth--would have been fascinated by Sophocles' treatment of the myth--in the limited context of that day's performance of OEDIPUS REX--especially because of the ongoing political and philosophical circumstances for Athenians. One of the great debates at the time would have involved settling upon an individual's proper role in his or her relationship with the gods and the community (the polis). To read the Theban trilogy (described above) as a whole (now in the 21st century) is a mistake if we want to attempt an understanding of what the audience would have experienced and considered. Yes, Sophocles' over-arching themes with all three plays considered together may more accurately be seen in terms of your argument. However, I remain convinced that we need to look at each of the Theban plays in isolation. Of course, I could be wrong.
Historical arguments aside, there is also the issue that we are modern people reading ancient plays and putting our own interpretations on them. We cannot avoid that. One can do one's very best to be historically accurate, and appropriate to the era/period of an artwork's creation, to see it from its contemporary eyes (as much as that is possible for us to do). But one cannot avoid also bringing one's own experience to the table. The reason Sophocles remains so fresh and relevant, so universal, is that his plays DO still have something to say to us, here and now.
ReplyDeleteSo I have to side with Frank's thoughts about the "trilogy," since it makes archetypal and psychological sense.
Furthermore, speaking as a writer, I have no difficulty in imagining that Sophocles thought of these plays as a series, or as sequels, or as working out the extended theme over several plays, even if they were written over a long period of time. He may have been thinking about them all that time. We cannot assume he viewed them as separate and disconnected, as we just don't know. But speaking as a writer, if I return to a theme several years later, it's not possible in my mind to separate it from what I wrote before; I expect most writers would agree.
I think we're all right. R.T. is definitely correct: We do need to look at the Theban plays in isolation, precisely because what I have been referring to is not an actual trilogy. But we can see from the Oresteia, which is an authentic trilogy, that the point of the dramas - which did serve as a kind of religious ritual - involved a reconciliation into harmony. And I think it is fair to say that that is what the Greeks were looking for when they attended: Hard to imagine a society that thrived on the downfall of a great person. But above all I think that Art is right: We must make these dramas ours, and by that I mean mankind's. They far transcend their parochial origins. And I think we must all agree on that. Otherwise we wouldn't be as passionately engaged as we obviously are. My thanks to both of you for raising my otherwise pedestrian column to a higher level of discussion.
ReplyDelete