Oedipus Rex as Social Commentary
Oedipus Rex, written by the Poet Sophocles in the Golden Age of Greek Theatre, was described by Aristotle to be the greatest tragedy of all time. It encapsulates the very essence of the Greek cultural milieu, and it is these ideologies which are translated into the play. The very essence of Greek society; the political democracy, a moral belief in the power of the Gods and social recognition of hierarchy, are portrayed when the society is pictured in a state of chaos.
The Ancient Greeks formulated what they believed to be a true democracy. Everyone was to have a say in the political scene, every man had a vote and no one should be disadvantaged. At the same time, however, the society was very much a patriarchal one. Power resided with the male; the leader, the logical and strong enforcer. Women, viewed as emotionally erratic, illogical and weak, were marginalised. Men were given the most noble of duties surrounding the glory of war; women were faced with trying to raise a household.
This conflict is clearly portrayed in the text. In the opening scene all are equal. Servants, peasants and royals alike proclaim, "We are your suppliants." All have an equal interest in the state of Thebes and the actions Oedipus must take. After this, however, the females of Thebes are represented in the characterization of Jocasta. It is here that the chorus, the most important element of Greek tragedy, comes to the fore. As the Theban elders they portray the views of the greater society. Jocasta's actions characterize her as the stereotypical female. By ordering the death of her son, blaspheming the Gods and eventually killing herself, she shows the essential perceived frailty of w...
... middle of paper ...
...ssenger must talk to Oedipus through Jocasta. Eventually, Oedipus shows his respect that that this order exists by imploring him to 'tell me yourself!'
A play represents society. By upsetting the societal order, the basic fundamentals of the societal group can be examined. In the case of Oedipus Rex, Sophocles portrays the basics of the Ancient Greek culture, the culture which existed in his time. He exposes a patriarchal society, one attempting to come to grips with democracy while at the mercy of the Gods. The social hierarchy is respect but forced to crumble, while the Gods rule it absolutely. All of this is exposed through the underlying conventions, mainly the chorus, dramatic action, dialogue, characterization and methods of social construction. It forms an in-depth exposition of the group and its formation of the beliefs and values.
The authority which Oedipus and Jocasta defy is the same. Both the king and his mother defy the authority of the gods by trying to evade their edict. The edict states that a son would be born to Jocasta who would marry his mother and kill his father, as Oedipus says, “How mating with my mother I must spawn a progeny...having been my father's murderer.” (OEDIPUS, Oedipus, 44). When Jocasta hears of this, she attempts to kill the baby Oedipus, thus trying to escape the prophesy. Similarly, when Oedipus, as an unmarried adult, hears that he would kill his father, he runs away from his home town, Corinth, never to return. Oedipus and Jocasta both defy the gods' authority, which in this case comes in the form of running away from a menacing prophesy. In the end, however, Jocasta dies and Oedipus is overthrown and ruined.
In the novel “The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” a number of
Even before this story begins, irony is brewing and continues throughout the pages. The creative author is using this enticing technique as a backbone for his play, and also as a key component in foreshadowing the tragic plot. Oedipus Rex by Sophocles is filled with many different ironies, so much so, that this reoccurring element tremendously affects the outcome of the story.
The great Sophoclean play, Oedipus Rex is an amazing play, and one of the first of its time to accurately portray the common tragic hero. Written in the time of ancient Greece, Sophocles perfected the use of character flaws in Greek drama with Oedipus Rex. Using Oedipus as his tragic hero, Sophocles’ plays forced the audience to experience a catharsis of emotions. Sophocles showed the play-watchers Oedipus’s life in the beginning as a “privileged, exalted [person] who [earned his] high repute and status by…intelligence.” Then, the great playwright reached in and violently pulled out the audience’s most sorrowful emotions, pity and fear, in showing Oedipus’s “crushing fall” from greatness.
Throughout history, many historical philosophers have contributed as to how the human mind has two sides. Human beings tend to have good and evil within them, the duality of right and wrong, bliss and distress. There is always an impulse to act against society in terms of violence and the laws, although this varies depending on the individual. In the novella “ The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” Robert Louis Stevenson introduces a foil interconnection between moral choice and behavior through Jekyll and Hyde. However, ironically set in the Victorian era, a time when peace and prosperity took place.
Stevenson explains to the reader that humans have lots of different sides to each other and not just one. The final chapter of the novel, ‘Henry Jekyll’s Full Statement Of The Case’ explores the ways in which the author presents Victorian attitudes to the nature of humans. He also explains how duplicitous humans are, which means how people often have two separate approaches to their life. The duality of man means the two sides of the person’s mind and is most apparent in, as the title suggests, the characters ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’. The separation of Jekyll into two beings, Jekyll and Hyde, is an analogy for humankind’s conflicting forces of good and evil. These characters bring to life the inner struggle between the two powers of the soul. Dr. Jekyll asserts that ‘man is not truly one, but truly two,’ within the book to illustrate the theme of the novel and to help describe Mr. Hyde to more rational people such as Mr. Utterson.
The story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a confusing and perplexing one. R.L. Stevenson uses the devices of foreshadow and irony to subtly cast hints to the reader as to who Mr. Hyde is and where the plot will move. Stevenson foreshadows the events of the book through his delicate hints with objects and words. Irony is demonstrated through the names of characters, the names display to the reader how the character will fit into the novel. These two literary devices engage the readers; they employ a sense of mystery while leading the readers to the answer without them realizing the depth of each indirect detail.
This essay will focus on how Robert Louis Stevenson presents the nature of evil through his novel ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’. Using ideas such as duality, the technique used to highlight the two different sides of a character or scene, allegories, an extended metaphor which has an underlying moral significance, and hypocrisy; in this book the Victorians being against all things evil but regularly taking part in frown able deeds that would not be approved of in a ‘respectable’ society. This links in with the idea of secrecy among people and also that evil is present in everyone. The novel also has strong ties and is heavily influenced by religion. Stevenson, being brought up following strong Calvinist beliefs, portrays his thoughts and opinion throughout the story in his characters; good and evil.
Could anyone live with knowing his or her fate? Well that is precisely what is happening to Oedipus, King Laius, and Jocasta in the story of Oedipus Rex. These three people are caught in the grasp of fate and they don’t have a choice but to go along with the story. In Oedipus Rex by Sophocles the plot, setting, characters, foreshadowing, irony, and themes rely on one thing…fate.
Mr. Hyde and Dorian Gray are characters that nearly match each other in their symbolism and manner. However, it is the key differences that make them remarkably interesting as a pair. They symbolize the battles between good and evil, though they have differing interpretations of morality.
The first three tests are, respectively, Oedipus’ meetings with Creon, Teiresias, and then Creon again. In each case he is pursuing the killer as someone whom he assumes is other than himself. . . . The second series begins with Jocasta and continues with the Corinthian messenger and Laius’ herdsman. Now Oedipus is pursuing the killer as possibly the same as himself. . . . In this set his goal shifts gradually from uncovering the murderer to discovering his own parents. The confidence and power that he demonstrated in the first series of encounters gradually erode into anger, loss of control, and fear (72).
Conscience, in modern usage, term denoting various factors in moral experience. Thus, the recognition and acceptance of a principle of conduct as binding is called conscience. In theology and ethics, the term refers to the inner sense of right and wrong in moral choices, as well as to the satisfaction that follows action regarded as right and the dissatisfaction and remorse resulting from conduct that is considered wrong. In earlier ethical theories, conscience was regarded as a separate faculty of the mind having moral jurisdiction, either absolute or as a representative of God in the human soul.
Sophocles’ Oedipus is the tragedy of tragedies. An honorable king is deceived and manipulated by the gods to the point of his ruination. In the face of ugly consequences Oedipus pursues the truth for the good of his city, finally exiling himself to restore order. Sophocles establishes emotional attachment between the king and the audience, holding them in captivated sympathy as Oedipus draws near his catastrophic discovery. Oedipus draws the audience into a world between a rock and a hard place, where sacrifice must be made for the greater good.
In the play Oedipus the King, Sophocles affirms that the gods ultimately have the final say to control one’s destiny; however, an individual is solely responsible for the decisions he makes. Approaching near the climax, Sophocles sets up a fundamental conflict of the play, the need for Oedipus and Jocasta to perceive the immutable state of prophecy through the consequences that deliver itself when the gods fulfill their plans for one’s destiny. The messenger even describes the omnipotent power of the gods, and witnesses the augury of death proposed by the supernatural, finally stating:
The article that I have chosen to analyze is entitled “Challenging the Biological: The Fantasy of Male Birth as a Nineteenth Century Narrative of Ethical Failure”. The author of this article is Galia Benziman. Benziman states her main thesis as “I will discuss four nineteenth century works that examine such possibilities, emerging in an era that offers a particularly rich treatment of the theme. With the rise of the belief in, and anxiety about, the supremacy of science, we witness in nineteenth-century fictional works a recurrent staging of the male subject’s attempt to harness technology for the purpose of overcoming the biological limitation of his sex and procreating a new being.” This is a rather extensive thesis but really works well