Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_2 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 64

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_3 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 65

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_4 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 66

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_5 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 67

Notice: Undefined index: t_essay_6 in /home/writingl/essayswriters.com/!essays.php on line 68
SamplesLiterary AnalysisSophocles's Oedipus RexBuy essay
← Robert Frost's 'Mending Wall'Peter Moskos →

Free Example of Sophocles's Oedipus Rex Essay

The fundamental theme, upon which the play embraces a climax position, creates room for expansive critical review. This is attributed to the form of incest that Oedipus commits unknowingly. It is safe to assume that the Sophocles’s Oedipus Rex assumes Aristotle manner of philosophy, which stipulates the assumption in nature, for which a good man, who is nearing the misfortune occurrence, is depicted as being immoral and subversive while negative-centered man, who submits to non-moral forms of hardship as a victim of circumstance. Therefore, based on his perception, Aristotle deployed the term “Harmatia” to expound on the erroneous activities, which befall a hero tragically, hence sealing his downfall (Kane, 1974).This paper tries to examine the element of fate in the story through such thematic expressions as the immediate actions of Rex, which contributes to his downfall as well as pervasiveness witnessed in the dramatic ironies, which are showcased as the play unfolds. Furthermore, the paper provides for a clear discussion, which embraces the thought that the disagreement, which befall Rex as well as his continuous heroic temperament capabilities, are not premeditated in nature but are innocent and undeserving contributors to his fate, which render his entire life tragic.

In the ode, whose chorus sings of the different natures of insolence and domination, the author depicts Oedipus as having engaged in a demoralizing manner of behavior, upon which he is involved with disrespecting both Teiresias and his crude mistreatment of Creon, who had earlier been suggested to the counsels of the seer. Subsequently, the consequent ode depicts a discussion between Jocasta and Oedipus, in which initial revelations of Oedipus’ downfall are made in that matter. It reveals the fundamental presumptions that Oedipus was impure given the fact that he had earlier killed Laius, slept with his wife and thus, paving the way for his curse, for which he was subjected through the oracle. In that case, it is presumably safe to argue that both Jocasta and Oedipus acted in an impiety manner, especially because he, Jocasta, endorsed the queen’s uncertainty in respect to the fulfillment of the initial oracle presented to Laius. In addition to this facet, the discussion also depicts the revelations about the potential impurity attributed with Oedipus as well (Mahony, 2010).

In the Sophocles’s ode, the impurity of a deed was established through the manner, in which it was manifested as compared to its motivational capabilities. This perception is showcased in the second stasimon, which postulates: “May destiny still find me winning the praises of reverent purity in all words and deeds… the god is mighty in them and he grows not old (Scheepers, 2005). Thus, an impure action is showcased and reviewed through external non-moral phenomenon, which are the internal and moral facets of behavior, which has been used to motivate its occurrence. For instance, when Oedipus misbehaves unknowingly and later learns of it, he indicates: “I pollute the bed of the slain man with the hands, by which he perished. Say, am I vile?” in that sense, it is evidently clear that the words he uses are a true reflection of his remorsefulness (Scheepers, 2005).

Retrogressively, whenever Oedipus learns of anger manifesting in his words, the chorus depicts him with such impiety and impurity in nature, which helps him recollect his deeds altogether. For instance, whenever he suspects that he was the murderer as well as the immediate accused person in the case, Oedipus retorts: “Forbid, forbid, you pure and awful gods, that I should see that day” (Scheepers, 2005). Therefore, it can be established that through his words, Oedipus showcases the gods as being pure and should culminate their angers in case that failures are conducted by such mortals as Oedipus. Gods, according to Oedipus, should be revered.

The chorus of Moira is perceived as an element of personification for a person’s fate. Basically, the chorus is used in the ode to depict laws, which are inseparable even by the gods. Thus, it is an inescapable force, which sticks to man throughout his entire life, existence. It should be noted that these laws are composed of those happenings, which are going to occur in the future life and they may be good or bad.

Consequently, it is safe to indicate that Oedipus is, in most cases, described by the word: “bad fate” and perceived as having taken the center stage of Oedipus life. He cries foul: “Oh, my fate, how far have you sprung” (Scheepers, 2005). It is also safe to indicate that Moirachorusis a reflection of Oedipus’ destiny, which was at one point in time used to represent a higher level of purity. However, despite his efforts to make the chorus be perceived as a having a positive impact to his life, it changes to unspoken levels of irresistible and unspeakable psychological torture.  In the first of the Ode, Oedipus uses the terms: “father” and “parent,” which are hinted with elements of irony. For instance, the friendlier Oedipus unknowingly breaches the divine set of laws and purity, which are related to the parents, for whom he is perceived as having been innocent but is later led by fate in order to suffer immense levels of guilt.

The chorus of hubrisas used in the ode depicts elements of ‘quality,’ which are expected to impose a high degree of success to their king through his search for the killers. However, it is ironical for the chorus to lead him to the killer yet he is the one. Through fate and destiny, the hubris lands to him, hence impacting him with the plight he once faced in the course of the search for the killer. The aforementioned notion has been used extensively to problematize the core source of ruin given the fact that the downfall of Oedipus the king is the continuation of another chorus, which was brought on board to prevent such occurrences to the King, hence his dissolution from power. It is fair to assume that the chorus is also used to problematize the innocence, which was once attributed with Oedipus in respect to his individual culpability for his immediate downfall as certain levels of ambiguity are increased and are additionally enlarged by the manifestations, which appear in King Oedipus himself. The chorus says, “Insolence breeds the tyrant; insolence vainly surfeited on wealth is neither meet nor good for it” (Scheepers, 2005).

Moving forward, the hubrischorus has been used further to expound on the possible elements of traditional offences conducted by the King himself. In the first form of the traditional offence, the King is expected to demarcate by way of pride in actions as he intimately provides ruling over an unjust disposition in respect to other political subjects.

Secondly, the traditional offences are depicted in the manner, in which the King is perceived as reflecting elements of boastfulness with consideration to his individual achievements altogether. However, on both of these accounts, King Oedipus is depicted as having been innocent. For instance, in the first count of the traditional offence, it is safe to indicate that Oedipus’s unjust treatment of Creon is derived from the King’s concern for the positive welfare of the Polis rather than the perception, which targets self-interest regarding the matter as a whole.

On the second count of the traditional offence, which regards the arrogance in his form of speech, the King is also blameless given the fact that these words were used in the ancient Greece as they were not deemed inappropriate to showcase of one’s level of achievements in life. The King, after-all, became popular after he unraveled the solutions to the riddle of the Sphinx and thus, by him speaking with such an arrogance does not depict any form of offence (Scheepers, 2005).

In its composition, the hubrisdoes not support the fear for justice and, therefore, Oedipus’s innocence and fate is further amplified through the words, which accompany his realization that he is the killer of Laius. He is filled with immense levels of fear, especially, when he argues with Jocasta. He uses words, which depict an increasing form of anxiety over his wife’s detailing of Laius killings. Such words, which are used, are: “I have dread misgivings that the seer can see, I fear that my lips have been unguarded” (Scheepers, 2005). In addition to this, the chorus demands that an insolent man should be prevented from revering the gods, which is contrary to the deeds of Oedipus, who once again is perceived as having been blameless. This is because he gathered immense courage to meet Delphi, which put him on his destiny and his impiety towards Jocasta was a motivation of the persistence irony of events rather than traditional forms of offence. Though the archer gods does not heed to his prayers after he learns that he had killed his father and slept with the mother, it is certain that Oedipus involved himself with the actions unwittingly and it is not fair to have him executed for deeds he committed unknowingly (Scheepers, 2005).

To sum up, it is fair to stipulate the fact that King Oedipus led his life in the manner, in which he deemed best. He was involved with the protection of the Polis people, despite the fact that sometimes he came out loud and arrogant yet his actions were clearly out of his interest to the community as a whole rather than his self-interests. As a King, he used words, which were perceived to be appropriate within the context of Greek culture given the fact that one was allowed to self-praise, whenever they had achieved successes.

Therefore, King Oedipus is perceived to be a victim of circumstance and not as one, who had contributed to his immediate downfall. He was fearful to the archer gods, especially because he knew their form of justice towards wrongdoers. He also prayed, whenever he found out that his words were “unguarded”. These are unusual attributes to any king, thus, it is fair to postulate that all the happenings, which lead to his downfall, were destiny-based and not contributed by his self-interests.

Code: Sample20

Related essays

  1. Peter Moskos
  2. Peter Singer
  3. Robert Frost's 'Mending Wall'
  4. "How It Feels to Be Colored"
call-back-button
Live chat