Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Oedipus Rex
>
Oedipus Rex -- our first reading
date
newest »
newest »
Having read and studied the Theban trilogy extensively as well as Aristotle's Poetics, where he defines tragedy, I am intriqued by your statement that Aristotle called Oedipus Rex the perfect tragedy.Is this a chicken/egg debate? Did Aristotle come up with his definition of tragedy - which has withstood the test of time - and then decide, based on his criteria that Oedipus Rex was the perfect tragedy?
Or did he see Oedipus Rex and then base his definition of tragedy on Oedipus Rex?
The larger question is did the writer - Sophocles create/define tragedy through the writing his play or did the critic Aristotle create/define tragedy through writing about the play?
I've got a Penguin Classics version on the shelf, so I'll go with that. Of course I know the basic story, but I'm in no way an expert. I probably only read the play once or twice when it was assigned in college.
I am so glad this group exists! I have a full-time journalism job and I'm going to school at night to get my teaching license, but I have realized how terribly I miss studying and discussing literature, so I will try to make as much time as I can for the readings here. I may be late on some of the "deadlines," but I look forward to sharing my thoughts and seeing what you all have to say. Happy reading!
Great questions! I don't really have the answer, except to say that I don't think we can fairly credit Sophocles with creating or defining tragedy. The best information we have about the development of tragedy is in the Poetics, which you are familiar with, but it's clear that the form of tragedy was developed before Sophocles, although I think it's arguable that Sophocles developed and perhaps perfected it (at least as far the tragedians whose plays survive -- it is very unfortunate that only a very small number of the tragedies written in 5th and 4th century Athens survive). The other thing I'm not sure of is whether Aristotle ever "saw" Oedipus Rex. Traditionally the plays were performed at one annual festival of Dionysus and were not performed again; there was no established theater industry as we know it today. So while some of the plays may have been repeated during Aristotle's lifetime, I think it's more likely that he knew the play from reading, not seeing, it, though I haven't gone back to the Poetics to confirm this.
But as to the chicken/egg question, I think the genre existed in a pretty well established form before Aristotle, but he was the one who took the broader look across many tragedies and identified what it was that made the best tragedies work. Whether he used Oedipus Rex as the primary model for the Poetics and wrote his definition of tragedy primarily to demonstrate it as the perfect tragedy, or whether he developed the theory and then identified OR as the play which came closest to the ideal, is a great question I don't know the answer to. My guess would be a bit of both, but that's just a guess.
Tom wrote: "Having read and studied the Theban trilogy extensively as well as Aristotle's Poetics, where he defines tragedy, I am intriqued by your statement that Aristotle called Oedipus Rex the perfect tragedy.
Is this a chicken/egg debate? Did Aristotle come up with his definition of tragedy - which has withstood the test of time - and then decide, based on his criteria that Oedipus Rex was the perfect tragedy?
Or did he see Oedipus Rex and then base his definition of tragedy on Oedipus Rex?
The larger question is did the writer - Sophocles create/define tragedy through the writing his play or did the critic Aristotle create/define tragedy through writing about the play?"
Welcome to all our new members. We already have 14 people signed up -- looks like a great group. I neglected to set up an introductions topic, but I'll do that right away -- please come and introduce yourselves!
Audible has a good audio dramatization of the play from L.A. Theatre Works. The translation is by Nicholas Rudall, and an interesting discussion follows the presentation. http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/prod...
Are we reading just the first of the three plays? I've finished rereading Oedipus the King but didn't continue on to the second play.The version I'm using is one I downloaded from ManyBooks.net for my eBookwise, and I believe ManyBooks.net uses the Project Gutenberg editions of the public domain works.
That said, here is my commentary on the play:
There are only two things Oedipus could have done to avoid his fate entirely, and those are: never kill, never marry. Why those things never seemed to occur to him, I just don't know. I guess he thought by fleeing the country in which he was raised and removing himself from the presence of his adopted parents, he avoided his fate and no longer had to worry about it. Wrong! He should have gone one step further and simply vowed never to kill anyone and never to marry anyone. By allowing himself to kill and to marry, he leaves that slightest little sliver of possibility that his prophesied fate would come to fruition. Stupid, stupid, stupid. He simply wasn't as clever as the gods, as I really do think he could have avoided his fate by not killing and not marrying.
BUT, he did. So here we are, questioning whether he could have avoided his fate in other ways.
My theory is this: whether or not the fate was foretold to mortals, i.e. whether or not his parents or he himself knew that he was fated to kill his father and marry his mother, he would have done as he was fated to do ANYWAY. He and his father are both hotheaded, as evidence by their argument at the fork in the road. We have further evidence of Oedipus' hothead personality by the way he reacts to the seer and to Creon. They tell him things he doesn't like and doesn't want to believe, and right away he gets defensive and angry, threatening punishment or banishment. This is a not a calm, coolheaded man, Oedipus Rex, and it's probably a personality trait inherited from his father. Neither seem to want to listen to reason when they're having a fit. After all, didn't his father react the same way as soon as he heard the prophesy? Right away, he punished the innocent babe and did away with him.
So, even had he lived with his true parents and none of the three had ever heard the ill-fated prophesy, Oedipus and his father probably at one point would have clashed more than once and ended up trying to kill one another, and the anger in the household might have made Oedipus grow up a little twisted and want his mother for his own. He might have outright killed his father and married his mother anyway, of his own volition.
I think THAT was the road not taken.
As it was, the prophesy was made known to the people involved, and they did everything they could think to do to avoid that fate. Instead, they took another road that led to the same place, and I think that may be why that forked road is so important in the play. I think it's symbolic of the two possibilities, the two realities, both leading to the same conclusion, so it is at that fork that Oedipus ends up killing his father -- two hothead people clashing in a tragic argument.
Someone mentioned in another thread that Oedipus overreacted at the fork in the road, killing not just his father but the others with him, but I think that can be easily explained. Laius, after all, is a king. If you were one of the king's guard and you saw your king struck down, wouldn't you attack the one who struck him down? Surely, when Oedipus killed the others it was in self defense. It was only when he killed his father that it was in anger and in retribution of the first blow.
Anyway, that's my take on the play.
:)
I like the thought you put into the characters of Oedipus and Laius.
Yes, but you filled in some blanks for me. You've jogged my memory from college - a long long time ago - that yes Aristotle was analyzing Oedipus to demonstrate the perfect tragedy. What also is interesting about the play is that Oedipus usurps the right of the gods to mete out punishment by punishing himself - he blinds himself.
The gods were so awed by Oedipus that they made him a god when he died and was buried in hallowed ground.
So despite his tragic flaw and the terrible sins he committed, he escaped the punishment of a mere mortal.
April wrote: "Are we reading just the first of the three plays? "Officially, yes. But I'll set up topics for discussion of the other two for those who want to discuss them, also.
Personally, I would love to talk about Antigone; it's perhaps my very favorite of the Greek tragedies.
Antigone has always been a favorite of mine also. At least we can agree on this one, Christopher. Remember our Hamlet/Lear debate? :)
Evalyn wrote: "Antigone has always been a favorite of mine also. At least we can agree on this one, Christopher. Remember our Hamlet/Lear debate? :)"Ah yes, I remember it well!
We may even get a chance to reprise it at some point in this group! (Translation -- I may be able to get you to see the light at last. [vbg:])
Patrice wrote: "Is the "light" that Lear is a superior play? That's my vote!"Yep. Mine too.
But Evalyn is a noble and worthy contender, informed and passionate about her preference, so it won't be an easy victory if the Learites are able to be victorious in the end.
Why would anyone think that Lear is superior to Hamlet? Sidenote: Lear fans should read "Fool" by Christoper Moore. Hilarious.
Gerald wrote: "Why would anyone think that Lear is superior to Hamlet? Sidenote: Lear fans should read "Fool" by Christoper Moore. Hilarious."
My husband, too, told me that "Fool" was a fun read. I've been sceptical. But now here you are, out the blue, holding the same opinion. Mmmm.
My husband, too, told me that "Fool" was a fun read. I've been sceptical. But now here you are, out the blue, holding the same opinion. Mmmm.
Adelle wrote: "Gerald wrote: "Why would anyone think that Lear is superior to Hamlet? Sidenote: Lear fans should read "Fool" by Christoper Moore. Hilarious."My husband, too, told me that "Fool" was a fun read..."You learn a lot about Lear also--like what he was like when he was younger, why there is no Queen Lear, how the fool became a fool, and what happened to him after the death of Lear.
Gerald wrote: "Why would anyone think that Lear is superior to Hamlet?"Why would anybody even need to ask why Lear is superior to Hamlet? [g:]
haven't read "Fool" but I will look it up right away. I do like Lear but I still maintain that Hamlet is better! :) The debate continues...
Everyman wrote: "Gerald wrote: "Why would anyone think that Lear is superior to Hamlet?"Why would anybody even need to ask why Lear is superior to Hamlet? [g:]
"Well, I've seen maybe 35 productions of Hamlet and only hated one (not because of the play but because of the director's choices to be "with it"). I've seen 6 or 8 productions of Lear and always come away with the feeling that watching a senile old man destroy his own life and the lives of everyone who was loyal to him was less than edifying.
Patrice wrote: "I think it may be a function of age."I don't get this remark. I'm 70 years old and I've liked (and continue to like) Hamlet for at least 50 of those years.
Gerald wrote: "I've seen 6 or 8 productions of Lear and always come away with the feeling that watching a senile old man destroy his own life and the lives of everyone who was loyal to him was less than edifying. "Then I submit that you saw bad productions. Have you watched Olivier's Lear?
I see nothing senile in Lear. Driven temporarily mad, yes, though a very intelligent mad. Senile, definitely not.
Gerald wrote: "I've seen 6 or 8 productions of Lear and always come away with the feeling that watching a senile old man destroy his own life and the lives of everyone who was loyal to him was less than edifying. "You find it more edifying to watch a petulant and arrogant frat boy (arrogant enough to try to instruct professional and highly experienced actors in how to carry out their art -- how much more arrogant can a twenty-something year old kid be?) dither around endlessly, drive his girlfriend to suicide, casually kill an innocent man because he's too bored with life to look before he stabs, forge an order for the execution of two old friends, desecrate a grave with the casual playing with a disinterred skull, and then help knock off everybody in his little kingdom who was a possible legitimate heir to the throne and turn the rule of the kingdom over to a foreigner who happens to be passing through at an opportune (or inopportune) moment?
That's edifying?????
[g:]
I haven't read or seen Lear yet, but Hamlet DID seem like a bit of a whiner to me. :)
Patrice wrote: "The real question.... Gerald...do you have daughters? LOL"That's a good question. For an aging father with daughters, Lear is an object lesson in the warning that your children will choose your nursing home!
Everyman wrote: "Gerald wrote: "I've seen 6 or 8 productions of Lear and always come away with the feeling that watching a senile old man destroy his own life and the lives of everyone who was loyal to him was less..."Maybe edifying was the wrong word. But a kid whose beloved father was killed by his uncle and who hesitates to become a murderer himself until he can be sure the crime really was committed, who becomes the victim then of his uncle's plots against him and being spied on by his uncle's cronie as well as his former friends, employed by his uncle, can certainly be understood, if not forgiven, when in despair he acts rashly. And he at least thinks about things--the soliloquies. Lear only thinks of how he's being picked on.
And yes, I have three daughters as well as a son. I find one of the blessings of growing old is that, if you have raised your children with love, attention, and fairness, your adult children become your best friends. Why did Lear's daughters turn on him? Something about how they were raised, perhaps? Something about how he treated their mother, perhaps?
Gerald, I don't mean to jump on you and I appreciate your sentiments. I, too, consider myself lucky that my children are indeed my best friends, especially, my daughter. However, in defense of many of my friends, I need to clarify your statement. I would hate to see all mothers lumped into a category where they are blamed if their children turned on their family. I have many friends who put their all into raising their children, were also model parents, treating each other respectfully, but for some reason the children turned against them. In other cases, the most abusive parents begat the most devoted children.
In most cases, relationship problems began and ended with the child, not either or both parents, or it was a combination of causes.
I wouldn't always blame the mother or the parents although, in this instance, regarding Lear, you may be correct. I would have to reread it to give an educated opinion on that. My response, right now, is a purely emotional one, in defense of mothers and parents everywhere!
Everyman, as a father of daughters and a fan of Lear, I think you'd enjoy Jane Smiley's "A Thousand Acres," her take on Lear from a midwestern perspective.Ms. Smiley and I brought our kids to the same daycare for a few years here in Ames, Iowa. I understand from my friends in the English Department at Moo U (ISU) that she threw a great party. Cheers!
Patrice wrote: "Was that made into a movie with Jessica Lange?" Yes!
Gerald wrote: "And he at least thinks about things--the soliloquies. Lear only thinks of how he's being picked on. "Oh, my goodness. I can NOT let that pass without comment.
There's as much wisdom in a few lines of Lear than in entire soliloquies of Hamlet. For example, on what differentiates man from beast:
O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is cheap as beast's.
Or, on the pure objectiveness of nature:
Rumble thy bellyful! Spit, fire! spout, rain!
Nor rain, wind, thunder, fire are my daughters.
I tax not you, you elements, with unkindness.
I never gave you kingdom, call'd you children,
You owe me no subscription. Then let fall
Your horrible pleasure.
And his wonderful comment on justice and poverty:
A man may see how the world goes with no eyes.
Look with thine ears. See how yond justice rails upon yond
simple thief. Hark in thine ear. Change places and, handy-dandy,
which is the justice, which is the thief? Thou hast seen a
farmer's dog bark at a beggar?
Glou. Ay, sir.
Lear. And the creature run from the cur? There thou mightst behold
the great image of authority: a dog's obeyed in office.
Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand!
Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.
Thou hotly lusts to use her in that kind
For which thou whip'st her. The usurer hangs the cozener.
Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and furr'd gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;
Arm it in rags, a pygmy's straw does pierce it.
And where is there anything in Hamlet to match some of Lear's wonderful speeches.
Such as:
Hear, Nature, hear! dear goddess, hear!
Suspend thy purpose, if thou didst intend
To make this creature fruitful.
Into her womb convey sterility;
Dry up in her the organs of increase;
And from her derogate body never spring
A babe to honour her! If she must teem,
Create her child of spleen, that it may live
And be a thwart disnatur'd torment to her.
Let it stamp wrinkles in her brow of youth,
With cadent tears fret channels in her cheeks,
Turn all her mother's pains and benefits
To laughter and contempt, that she may feel
How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child!
But the final recognition of superiority is that in the end Lear reaches self knowledge, understanding, and acceptance. Hamlet never does. He never winds up going anywhere or developing in any way. He remains the same throughout.
Gerald wrote: "Why did Lear's daughters turn on him? Something about how they were raised, perhaps? Something about how he treated their mother, perhaps? "We don't see, of course. But we have to remember that in Shakespeare's day, and even more I think in Lear's time, raising daughters was not the father's role or responsibility. Involved as he was in the affairs of state, it wouldn't be surprising if he saw his daughters only a few times a year.
And, of course, there is that old "power corrupts." How many next generation young people can wait to get their parents out of the way so they can take over the family business? Today they use gentler means than a thousand years ago, but perhaps they are no less brutal inside.
All this just because I mentioned the ongoing debate that Christopher and I have about Hamlet and Lear? :)One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that Hamlet is a young man just beginning to grapple with the corruption (something rotten in Denmark) and questions and disappointments in life. He does reach eye-opening levels of understanding and he dies trying to right the wrongs in Elsinore. WHEREAS - Lear is an old man (nothing wrong with that, I'm not young either) but he should have gained a better understanding of human nature. The compassion we feel for Lear is because it's his own daughters who are his undoing. In both cases, it's familial and those are the unkindest cuts of all, aren't they?
Evalyn wrote: "All this just because I mentioned the ongoing debate that Christopher and I have about Hamlet and Lear? :)One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that Hamlet is a young man just beginning to gr..."
In my opinion, they are BOTH great plays.
Patrice wrote: "I agree Laurele!When I was in high school I read Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and Lear.
At l9, madly in love, I thought Romeo and Juliet was the greatest play ever written.
At 40 I had a moment of recognition when watching Hamlet. So THAT'S what he meant! I then decided that Hamlet was the greatest play ever written.
Then, two years ago, months after losing both my parents, I read Lear. That's when I decided Lear was the greatest work of all time!"
With age finally came wisdom. [vbg:]
There it is, then. It depends on where you are in life, and it's true of any great work; if you can relate to it with your own personal experiences, it is more likely to touch your heart.
thewanderingjew wrote: "Gerald, I don't mean to jump on you and I appreciate your sentiments. I, too, consider myself lucky that my children are indeed my best friends, especially, my daughter. However, in defense of many..." I don't know why anyone interpreted my remark as an attack on mothers. My wife is a wonderful mother and the reason my kids are my best friends is because of the way they were raised by both of us. We have no idea why Lear's two oldest daughters turned on him, and we have no idea what part Mrs. Lear played in their upbringing (because the play is fiction, and Mrs. Lear is not mentioned in the play in any way.) If G and R turned out to be vicious children, I'd guess (which guess is meaningless) that it was Daddy Lear's treatment of them and the way he played favorites (until Act I of the play) with Cordelia. Anyhow, let me go on record as saying I honor and refer mothers.
I'm tired of this meaningless debate. My opinion is just my opinion. Hamlet has never (well once) failed to entertain me and made me feel good about seeing how he coped. Lear has never entertained me. And for me, sorry, going to a play is ultimately about being entertained. Everyman, feel free to attack my education, my understanding of Shakespeare, whatever you want. Still, when I next have a chance to see a good production of Hamlet, I'll be first in line. I may pass up my next chance to see Lear, however.I strongly suggest all Lear fans read Christopher Moore's hilarious book "Fool" for one view of what Shakespeare left out.
I agree with Laurel that both are good plays and I really liked the comment by Patrice about how each of the plays affected her at different points in her life. The effect of great literature for sure. Other favorites of mine are Much Ado About Nothing, Tempest, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Othello and on and on ---the man did not write a bad play!
I have a question about Oedipus Rex, like I said before, I'm no expert in Greek literature, but I was wondering if there is any symbolism in a person hanging themself? Because in one part Oedipus says that not even hanging himself will he be able to redeem what he has done, and also, Jocasta ends up hanging herself, so basically, what I want to know is if there was ever a believe that by hanging oneself you would be redeemed, or was it just the act of sacrificing?... again, sorry if I misspelled...
Elky wrote: "I have a question about Oedipus Rex, like I said before, I'm no expert in Greek literature, but I was wondering if there is any symbolism in a person hanging themself? ..."Not that I'm aware of. And the Oxford Classical Dictionary doesn't have any entry under hanging, which isn't dispositive but is suggestive since they would probably say something if it were a symbolic act.
Gerald wrote: "I'm tired of this meaningless debate. My opinion is just my opinion. ... Everyman, feel free to attack my education, my understanding of Shakespeare, whatever you want...."I'm sorry you feel attacked -- that was never my intention. If I stepped out of line, I certainly apologize.
We all like different things, and I sometimes do enjoy exchanging views on what we like and why. But it is always intended in a spirit of fun discussion.
Gerald, my remark was not meant to be an attack or to be personal. I was just expressing my opinion, as you did, about parents in general and mothers in particular. I am sorry if it offended you.twj
Elky wrote: "I have a question about Oedipus Rex, like I said before, I'm no expert in Greek literature, but I was wondering if there is any symbolism in a person hanging themself? Because in one part Oedipus s..."Just a thought, since hanging is traditional a form of execution mabey there is some meaning there. Self execution as opposed to other methods of suicide ie. poison or wrist slitting. Maybe it's indicative of their mindset or the gravity of their crimes. A punishiment instead of simple death. Once again just a thought.
Evalyn wrote: "I agree with Laurel that both are good plays and I really liked the comment by Patrice about how each of the plays affected her at different points in her life. The effect of great literature for s..."I agree that both Hamlet and Lear are among the greatest works of literature ever written--I just find Hamlet richer to my tastes. As to "the man did not write a bad play" you're probably right, but I sure do find Henry VI, all three plays, pretty boring. Our Shakespeare Readers group in San Miguel has read all of the plays in their entirety over the past two years (we assign parts and read the whole script) and we're on our second time through now. "Comedy of Errors" is next week, and it's a play I always enjoy.
Gerry
Gerald wrote: "Our Shakespeare Readers group in San Miguel has read all of the plays in their entirety over the past two years (we assign parts and read the whole script) and we're on our second time through now."I'm jealous. I've thought about trying to get such a group started here, but have never found other interested people.
Everyman wrote: "Gerald wrote: "I'm tired of this meaningless debate. My opinion is just my opinion. ... Everyman, feel free to attack my education, my understanding of Shakespeare, whatever you want...."I'm sorr..."Good for me too. I apologize too for overreacting.
Gerry
In order to give participants a chance to find and join the group, and to get and read a copy of the play, let's begin the formal discussion on Thursday, June 11, but feel free to start right away posting general information about the background of the play, the Greek drama generally, information about resources and other on line translations, etc.
While the plays appear to us as though they make a unified trilogy, in fact they were written separately, and not in the order in which we read them. Antigone was the first of the plays produced , in 441 B.C. (Presumably it was also the first written, but our records only speak of when they were performed.) Oedipus Rex was produced fourteen or fifteen years later, and Oedipus at Colonus in 405 or 404 B.C.
There are many excellent translations of Sophocles’s play available (and some not so excellent). The translations often used for academic reading are those in the Modern Library edition, edited by Lattimore and Grene, now published by the University of Chicago press. A recent and well reviewed translation is that of Robert Fagles. There are at least a dozen other translations in print.
In addition, there are a number of translations available on line.
The Internet Archive has all the major plays of Sophocles in various translations
http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse...
The Harvard Classics contains two of the plays
http://www.bartleby.com/people/Sophoc...
Ancient mythology has Oedipus Rex here
http://www.ancient-mythology.com/gree...
A simple internet search will find many other on line texts.