Ambiguity In Sophocles 'Oedipus Rex'

Sophocles ' Oedipus Rex begs the question: If Oedipus was insensible of his heritage when he slaughtered Laius and then wedded Jocasta, does that make him a moral man? Another question would be: Is he inherently immoral because he somehow should have known his real relatives on some level? If one assumes that he is innocent because no one told him the situation, then that is a modern day take on the event. There are other ways to look at the case. Mainly, children can sense who their parents are on some psychological level and vice versa. Therefore, Oedipus really should have known, even if he claims he had no idea. In the examination of these questions lies the moral ambiguity of the play. As King, Oedipus is faced with the horrible sickness. A plague, that has left Thebes stricken. People look to him as their lord and leader. He is considered to be connected to the Gods. In his search for an answer, Oedipus is told that the sickness will end when the killing of Laius is avenged. In the past, Laius was on his way to an oracle. Criminals hanging in the countryside murdered him. Oedipus seeks to solve the puzzle of who really killed him. As he explores the events surrounding Laius ' murder, he calls upon a blind prophet, Tiresias, for help.

Besides, it’s I who gained the powers that were his and share his marriage bed and fertile wife” (Sophocles 18, line 260). He rants and raves that he has seen the truth. Then he returns to his palace, unable to bare it any longer and blinds himself, staggering around and demands that someone send him into exile. Is this enough to clean up his guilt? The ambiguity lies in the fact that Oedipus lives on while both his father and mother died violent deaths that are inherently his fault. Even in modern times ignorance of the law is not an