Analysis Of On Misunderstanding The Oedipus Rex

On the last occasion when I had the misfortune of analyzing E. R. Dodds “On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex”, I came to the conclusion that Dodds had a lot of free time. But his question of “does the Oedipus Rex attempt to justify the ways of God to man” does indeed drive readers to question the famous piece of literature. Yet the theses he came to do not strike me as conclusive. In fact, I disagree with most of his statements. I thoroughly believe that what he labeled as “misunderstandings” are not misunderstandings at all, au contraire, they present the proper technique of how the book should be read. Dodds’ first opinion is that Oedipus doesn’t deserve the punishment of the gods; Dodds concludes that Sophocles has intended for readers

Yet his argument can be refuted by the evidence he uses… again. Dodds even states the idea of free will vs. determinism is a Hellenistic concept and would not have even occurred to the audience during Sophocles ' time. It is clear that, as all of Oedipus ' actions, including those over the course of the play, were determined before his birth, and he cannot avoid them although it is his will to do so, those actions cannot be construed as free will.

In his rebuttal of the first student-made opinion, Dodds asserts that Oedipus does not get what he deserves. He states that most readers do not see Oedipus as a good character; the way Sophocles intended for the audience to see him as. But, Dodds, ironically, seems to have misunderstood Sophocles. We can conclude that by analyzing what Dodds meant to use as evidence: the reaction of the Chorus and the actions of King Oedipus. Dodds notes that the Chorus took their king as a wise, darling-of- the-city type of guy; so he didn 't deserve the punishment he received. Yet his godly wisdom is questioned and he is repeatedly