oedipus thesis

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• 168,891 literary resources
• 172 content providers
• 53,470 books

Oedipus Thesis Statements and Essay Topics

Below you will find four outstanding thesis statements / paper topics for “Oedipus” by Sophocles that can be used as essay starters. All four incorporate at least one of the themes found in “Oedipus” and are broad enough so that it will be easy to find textual support, yet narrow enough to provide a focused clear thesis statement. These thesis statements offer a short summary of “Oedipus” in terms of different elements that could be important in an essay. You are, of course, free to add your own analysis and understanding of the plot or themes to them. Using the essay topics below in conjunction with the list of  important quotes from”Oedipus” on our quotes page, you should have no trouble connecting with the text and writing an excellent essay.

Thesis Statement #1: Family as Defined in  Oedipus

To the character of Oedipus, his biological parents are not his real parents. He views his adoptive parents as his true parents. He interprets the prophecies based on his beliefs about his family. When he marries his mother and has children with her, he is both their father and their half-brother. Examine the definition of family as outlined in the mind of Oedipus. Does it make his deeds any more or less distasteful because he does not acknowledge his biological parents as his true parents?

Thesis Statement #2: The Role of the Prophecy

Throughout  Oedipus , several prophecies are brought forth. It could be argued that the reaction of his biological parents lead to the prophecies being fulfilled. Laius orders Jocasta to kill her son. She cannot do it, so she orders a servant to do it for her. The servant then leaves Oedipus to die from exposure rather than killing him outright. These actions contribute to the prophecy about Oedipus’ birth becoming truth. Additionally, each character interprets the prophecies based on his or her own beliefs and thoughts. Discuss the relationships between the prophecies and some characters’ beliefs about them.

Thesis Statement #3: Fate and the Tragic Hero

Many readers express pity for Oedipus at the conclusion of the play, as Oedipus did not mean to commit the crimes and misdeeds that befall him.  Some see Oedipus as a “tragic hero” whose one major flaw brings him ruin and sorrow, making the audience feel pity.  However, Oedipus almost seems to disregard the evidence of his crimes that Tiresias gives him.  Did Oedipus have any free will to avoid the tragedies in “Oedipus” or was he meant to live in exile because of his fate?  Does Oedipus have a major flaw that characterizes him as a “tragic hero”?

Thesis Statement #4: An Analysis of Jocasta

Jocasta is at the center of much that occurs within  Oedipus . When Laius orders her to kill Oedipus, she passes the unpleasant job off to one of her servants and does not make sure that it is done. Later on, she unknowingly marries that same son and bears his children. She is both grandmother and mother to them without realizing it. When Oedipus is seeking out the truth behind the prophecy about killing his father and marrying his mother, Jocasta realizes the truth before he does. She tries to prevent Oedipus from pursuing the knowledge. Analyze the role that Jocasta plays in the events of the story. How often does her influence or decision make a difference in how things happen?

A Summary and Analysis of Sophocles’ Oedipus the King

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

The plot of Sophocles’ great tragedy Oedipus the King (sometimes known as Oedipus Rex or Oedipus Tyrannos ) has long been admired. In his Poetics , Aristotle held it up as the exemplary Greek tragedy . Samuel Taylor Coleridge called it one of the three perfect plots in all of literature (the other two being Ben Jonson’s The Alchemist and Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones ).

Oedipus the King might also be called the first detective story in Western literature. Yet how well do we know Sophocles’ play? And what does a closer analysis of its plot features and themes reveal?

The city of Thebes is in the grip of a terrible plague. The city’s king, Oedipus, sends Creon to consult the Delphic oracle, who announces that if the city rids itself of a murderer, the plague will disappear. The murderer in question is the unknown killer of the city’s previous king, Laius. Oedipus adopts a sort of detective role, and endeavours to sniff out the murderer.

He himself is plagued by another prophecy: that he would one day kill his father and marry his mother. He thinks he’s managed to thwart the prophecy by leaving home – and his parents – back in Corinth. On his way from Corinth to Thebes, he had an altercation with a man on the road: neither party would back down to let the other past, and Oedipus ended up killing the man in perhaps Western literature’s first instance of road rage.

Then Oedipus learns that his ‘father’ back in Corinth was not his biological parent: he was adopted after his ‘real’ parents left him for dead on a hillside, and he was rescued by a kindly shepherd who rescued him, took the child in, and raised him as his own. (The name Oedipus is Greek for ‘swollen foot’, from the chains put through the infant’s feet when it was left on the mountain.)

Tiresias the seer then reveals that the man Oedipus killed on the road was Laius – the former king of Thebes and (shock horror! Twist!) Oedipus’ biological father. Laius’ widow, Jocasta, is Oedipus’ own mother – and the woman Oedipus had married upon his arrival in Thebes.

When this terrible truth is revealed, Jocasta hangs herself, and Oedipus puts out his own eyes and leaves Thebes, going into self-imposed exile so he can free the Thebans from the plague.

This much constitutes a brief recap or summary of the plot of Oedipus the King . How we should interpret and analyse its use of prophecy and Oedipus’ own culpability, however, remains a less clear-cut matter. Is Oedipus to blame for what happens to him? Or is he simply a pawn of the gods and fates, to be used according to their whim?

Eventually, the nemesis can take no more and raises an army against Winter Kay. One of his soldiers, bearing a golden badge that resembles an eye in shape, is the one who kills Winter Kay in battle. In his dying moments, the hapless villain realises that, in seeking to avert the prophecy, he had, in fact, helped it to come true.

This is similar to the story of Oedipus the King . Oedipus heard the prophecy that he would one day murder his father and marry his mother, and so fled from his presumed parents so as to avoid fulfilling the prophecy. Such an act seems noble and it was jolly bad luck that fate had decreed that Oedipus would turn out to be a foundling and his real parents were still out there for him to bump into.

But what is clever about Sophocles’ dramatising of the myth is the way he introduces little details which reveal Oedipus’ character. The clues were already there that Oedipus was actually adopted: when he received the prophecy from the oracle, a drunk told him as much. But because the man was drunk, Oedipus didn’t believe him.

But, as the Latin phrase has it, in vino veritas . Then, it is Oedipus’ hubris, his pride, that contributes to the altercation on the road between him and Laius, the man who turns out to be his real father: if Oedipus was less stubborn, he would have played the bigger man and stepped aside to let Laius pass.

What does all this mean, when we stop and analyse it in terms of the interplay between fate and personal actions in Oedipus the King ? It means that Sophocles was aware of something which governs all our lives. Call it ‘karma’ if you will, or fate, but it works even if we remove the supernatural framework into which the action of Oedipus the King is placed.

Our actions have consequences, but that doesn’t mean that a particular action will lead to a particular consequence: it means that one action might cause something quite different to happen, which will nevertheless be linked in some way to our lives. A thief steals your wallet and you never see him, or your wallet, again. Did the criminal get away with it? Maybe.

Or maybe his habit of taking an intrusive interest in other people’s wallets will lead him, somewhere down the line, to getting what the ancient Greeks didn’t call ‘his comeuppance’. He wasn’t punished for pilfering your possessions, but he will nevertheless receive his just deserts.

Oedipus kills Laius because he is a stubborn and angry man; in his anger and pride, he allows himself to forget the prophecy (or to believe himself safe if he kills this man who definitely isn’t his father, no way ), and to kill another man. That one event will set in motion a chain of events that will see him married to his mother, the city over which he rules in the grip of plague, and – ultimately – Oedipus blinded and his wife/mother hanged.

Or perhaps that’s to impose a modern reading onto a classical text which Sophocles himself would not recognise. Yet works of art are always opening themselves up to new readings which see them reflecting our changing and evolving moral beliefs, and that is perhaps why Oedipus the King remains a great play to read, watch, analyse, and discuss. There remains something unsettling about its plot structure and its ambiguous meaning, and that is what lends it its power.

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Type your email…

7 thoughts on “A Summary and Analysis of Sophocles’ Oedipus the King”

Reblogged this on Writing hints and competitions and commented: Insight, the fate that launched a thousand clips

Wonderful analysis. Thank you. ~~dru~~

Thank you :)

• Pingback: A Short History of Detective Fiction | Interesting Literature
• Pingback: A Summary and Analysis of the ‘Rumpelstiltskin’ Fairy Tale | Interesting Literature
• Pingback: A Short Summary of Arthur Miller’s ‘Tragedy and the Common Man’ – Interesting Literature
• Pingback: A Short Analysis of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth – Interesting Literature

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Oedipus the King

Table of contents.

Tiresias says to Oedipus, “Creon is not your downfall, no, you are your own.” What is the extent of Oedipus’ guilt in his own downfall?

• “Oedipus the King demonstrates that the quest for truth only leads to self-destruction.” Discuss.
• What does the play have to say about fate and free will?
• “The play is about Oedipus’ search for his identity.” Discuss.
• “What should a man fear? It’s all about chance, / chance rules our lives.” Discuss Jocasta’s philosophy about life.
• Discuss the dual role of the Chorus.
• What do the choral odes have to say about the relationship between humans and the gods?
• What are Oedipus’ feelings about family?
• Evidence Bank

Oedipus the King is a classic Greek tragedy by Sophocles about the downfall of Oedipus, a heroic yet ill-fated character who was prophesied to slay his father and marry his mother. Oedipus finds himself caught in a dilemma between his determination to unwind the tangled threads of his history, or avoid undermining everything he knows about his life. The premise of the ancient play reminds audiences of the cruel nature of fate and the importance of making good decisions. Yet Oedipus himself is a complex character who does his best to exercise free choice within the restraints of his fate, which lends itself to the argument surrounding the extent of his guilt in his eventual downfall. To a large extent, Oedipus is responsible for his horrible actions that drive him to fulfil the prophecy given to him at birth, such as his violent nature which drives him to slay his father, as well as his incessant drive to seek the truth about himself. Yet as the ancient Greeks would have it, despite taking extensive manoeuvres to avoid his terrible future, Oedipus may have been a prisoner of his own fate and thus remain guiltless.

Oedipus the King, a timeless Greek tragedy penned by Sophocles, unfolds the tragic descent of Oedipus, a heroic figure ensnared in the ominous prophecy of patricide and matrimony with his mother/incest. Confronted with the formidable choice between unraveling the intricacies of his lineage and preserving the foundation of his perceived reality, Oedipus grapples with a profound dilemma. The narrative serves as a poignant reminder of the inexorable cruelty of destiny and the consequential significance of judicious decision-making.Oedipus, a character of intricate depth, endeavors to wield volition amidst the constricting threads of his foretold destiny, thereby fueling debates about the degree of culpability in his eventual downfall. While Oedipus bears considerable responsibility for the grievous deeds that propel him toward the fulfillment of his preordained fate—such as his proclivity for violence leading to the slaying of his parents—he also exhibits an unwavering determination to unveil the veracity of his existence.Yet, adhering to the ancient Greek ethos, Oedipus, despite his concerted efforts to circumvent the ominous prophecy, remains ensnared in the inexorable web of fate, prompting contemplation about his potential innocence. In essence, Oedipus, despite his extensive manoeuvres to avert a calamitous destiny, emerges as a captive of his predetermined path, thereby challenging conventional notions of guilt and culpability.

Oedipus’ violent and aggressive nature, as shown by his various impulsive actions, can be said to be a defining factor which led him to the actions of his downfall. Even considering the audience’s knowledge of his horrible fate, there is no question that his nature lends itself to his questionable actions. For example, Oedipus testifies to Jocasta that the man he killed, Laius, was “accompanied by a herald”, thus announcing to the world that he was a king. Yet Oedipus, despite having been raised as royalty himself, does not hold himself back in the slaughter of Laius, the herald, and multiple others. This can be interpreted in several ways: either his impulsivity and pride led him to rashly kill Laius and his followers, thus cementing his guilt in his own fate, or that the threads of fate led him to make that decision in that moment. Either way, there is little doubt that it was simply part of Oedipus’ nature, as there is little other justification for his violent actions. In a similar way, his dogged determination to uncover the truth of his past turns him hostile and abusive, revealing his hubris; when Tiresias does tell him the truth about what he seeks, he does not listen as he is consumed by paranoia. His aberrant character flaws are thus determinant of his guilt in his own downfall.

Oedipus’ propensity for violence and aggression, manifested through impulsive actions, emerges as a pivotal factor contributing to his eventual downfall. Despite the audience’s awareness of his inexorable fate, there is an unequivocal acknowledgment that his inherent nature propels him towards morally ambiguous deeds. Notably, Oedipus, while recounting to Jocasta the slaying of Laius, explicitly highlights the regal stature of his victim, accompanied by a herald. Paradoxically, even though Oedipus himself was nurtured in royal surroundings, he fails to restrain his carnage, perpetrating the ruthless murder of Laius, the herald, and others. This dichotomy invites interpretations that either his impetuosity and pride precipitated the hasty annihilation, cementing his culpability in his tragic destiny, or that the inexorable threads of fate coerced him into that fateful decision.Moreover, Oedipus’ unwavering commitment to unraveling the truth of his origins transforms him into a hostile and abusive figure, laying bare the depths of his hubris. When Tiresias imparts the veracious revelation he seeks, Oedipus, ensnared by paranoia, remains deaf to reason. His anomalous character flaws thus serve as decisive elements substantiating his complicity in the tragic unraveling of his own fate.

In addition to his violent nature, Oedipus’ incessant seeking of the truth also leads him to his downfall. As the play opens, the audience learns that Oedipus is at the height of his success, as he had already become a great ruler of Thebes, revered by many for “defeating the Sphinx”. This only lends itself to demonstrate the great downfall that he will face at the hands of his own curiosity. Later, when Jocasta tells the tale of Laius’ death to Oedipus, he begins to doubt himself, in that he is indeed the murderer he is seeking. However, despite understanding the consequences, this does nothing to stop the momentum of his investigation. Oedipus refuses to consider Jocasta’s advice that he “live at random, best we can” and according to chance. Instead, he is so fixated on getting to the bottom of the truth by calling for the old shepherd who saved him when he was a baby. Oedipus is aware of the consequences, that “if he refers to one man, one alone, / clearly the scales come down on me: / I am guilty”. Even as the shepherd, like Tiresias, demonstrates reluctance to tell Oedipus what he knows, he insists that the truth must come out. Moreover, when Jocasta collapses in despair, Oedipus remains fervent in his determination to discover his true identity, proclaiming that “I must know it all, / must see the truth at last”. In the end, it is this unwavering confidence and determination for the truth that ultimately leads him to his downfall.

However, despite these interpretations, it can also be said that Oedipus was merely a prisoner of his own fate, indicating that all the questionable actions he took were merely part of his destiny, no matter how hard he tried to avoid it. Through this interpretation, Oedipus is guiltless as there was no way to avoid his fate. Many attempts to avoid Oedipus’ tragic fate appear in the play, yet he still fulfilled it regardless. Jocasta and Laius cast him out as a mere infant; Oedipus exiles himself from his adopted parents in fear that ill would befall them (and not his birth parents). Yet it is fate that drives him towards Thebes and to the crossroads where he slew Laius, where there was no reason to kill Laius, but he was driven to do so anyway. Fate rewards him cruelly with Jocasta as a wife after besting the Sphinx. Lastly, fate drives him to pursue the truth of his past, driving home the final punishment of exile and blindness set by himself. There appeared the illusion of free will in his choices, but Oedipus was ultimately driven to make horrible choices which resulted in the fulfillment of the prophecy. Hence, Sophocles presents the cruel reality that even though characters may take extensive manoeuvres to avoid committing the crimes of their fate, they will be compelled to commit abhorrent acts in order to fulfill their destinies.

Overall, Oedipus himself is a complex character: the extent of his guilt depends on how much the audience places value on his personal choices or the prison of his fate. It is true that his nature lends itself to the interpretation of his own guilt in his actions. However, given the context of ancient Greece where individuals were commonly understood to be prisoner of their own fate, there may have been no way for him to avoid the consequences. Hence, while Oedipus was ill-fated from birth, Sophocles aimed to imbue audiences with the moral that one’s choices are highly important to the outcome of their lives.

“ Oedipus the King demonstrates that the quest for truth only leads to self-destruction. ” Discuss.

Two Faces of Oedipus: Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus and Seneca’s Oedipus

Jennifer e. thomas , grinnell college. [email protected].

Throughout his career, Frederick Ahl has taken on both long-held canonical interpretations and postmodern methods of reading, in the process provoking confusion, vitriol, and even a few cheers from the scholarly community. Ahl’s most recent book, however, which pairs translations of Sophocles’ OT and Seneca’s Oedipus along with a lengthy introduction and an “indexed glossary” of names and concepts, does not offer much new in the way of unorthodoxy; but rather takes the argument of Ahl’s earlier Sophocles’ Oedipus: Evidence and Self-Conviction , 1 adds a discussion of Seneca and his play, and delivers it to a new audience: students, general readers, and those looking to stage one or both of these tragedies. The overall interpretations are familiar from Ahl’s previous work: Sophocles’ Oedipus may not be guilty of parricide or incest, but accepts these conclusions based on faulty, unexamined evidence; Seneca’s play reflects “the frustrated political and moral energy” (22) of intellectual life in the emperors’ brave new world. The mood of this book is one of skepticism, and Ahl uses close reading and rhetorical investigation to explore inconsistencies and to push controversial interpretations large and small. The energy with which Ahl pursues his questions is laudable, as is his refusal to accept the often tautological idées reçues on both Sophocles and Seneca. The book’s success, however, is largely a non-issue; if readers have been following Ahl’s work, they probably already know how they feel about the ideas in the current volume. Given, then, that much of the material has already been subjected to scholarly scrutiny, I shall in this review focus on the differences between this volume and Ahl’s earlier publications on Sophocles and Seneca and the translations themselves.

Two Faces of Oedipus begins with an eponymous introductory essay that, at 132 pages, runs longer than the translations themselves. The style is conversational and avoids excessive jargon; aside from its length, students probably won’t complain about reading it. The essay is subdivided into 26 sections dealing with various issues, interpretive and historical, of the two plays. I confess that Ahl has not persuaded me to acquit Oedipus, and I remain dubious about the methods Ahl uses to support his thesis; but, like many reviewers of Sophocles’ Oedipus , I think there is value in reading an argument that constantly keeps its reader on the defensive.

As most of these arguments are, however, made at greater length and depth in the earlier book, classicists would be better served by turning to Sophocles’ Oedipus rather than Two Faces . The strength of the new book lies in the way Ahl draws contrasts between the plays of Sophocles and Seneca; non-specialists will certainly benefit from the discussions of the changing role of rhetoric in both societies, the impact of Stoicism and its theological implications, tyche vs. fatum, issues of staging and theater, and even the different poetic strengths of Greek and Latin as languages.

Much of the introduction is occupied by a discussion of the Oedipus Nachleben ; Ahl repeats his thesis that modern readings of Sophocles’ play derive in large part from back-dating Seneca’s determinism onto its predecessor. Ahl provides a good discussion of words like moira, tyche, casus, and fortuna and Stoic vs. 5th c. Greek views of theology; he is less successful, I think, in constructing a larger framework for Greek religion. On p. 35 he describes as traditional a polytheistic system depicting “a far less authoritarian social and political order” than in Roman or Judeo-Christian religion.

Yet on p. 83 he suggests that the institution of tragedy deliberately subverted traditional religion’s power over the state and that “the dialectical polytheism of tragedy is the religion of democracy.” Why, if traditional religion was non-authoritarian to begin with, would it need to be subverted by anyone? Individual aspects of Greek religion, notably prophecy, are here also regarded warily and politically. Ahl compares Teiresias to a Jesuit inquisitor (19) and suggests that modern readers’ casual acceptance of the Theban prophet’s status stems from Christian familiarity with and belief in prophets, as opposed to Greek skepticism (122). Ahl’s general treatment of Greek religion in his earlier book met with criticism, notably from Goldhill and Segal, 2 and readers who shared their opinion then will probably not find much to agree with in the new book. 3

The examples used to advance the thesis of Oedipus’ innocence and self-conviction do not much vary from those used in Sophocles’ Oedipus , but here they are condensed and represented for a non-specialist audience. For example, in both books Ahl proposes a connection between the character Creon and the politician Cleon. In Sophocles’ Oedipus this argument includes a lengthier discussion on the rhetorical devise of labdacism ( Sophocles’ Oedipus : 95-97), whereas Two Faces spends only a paragraph on it, but gives greater biographic detail on Cleon (101-102). There are some new points made in Two Faces — such as an argument against reading OT through Oedipus at Colonus 4 — and the bibliography has been updated. Some of the excised material might have profitably found a place in Two Faces . I particularly missed a section in Sophocles’ Oedipus in which Ahl laid out his psychological approach to reading, and opposition to, Barthes’s directive against analyzing a fictional character as if he were a real person ( Sophocles’ Oedipus 30-32). Given the wide influence of Barthes, I cannot understand excluding this section that makes clear so many of Ahl’s divergences with what is by now a traditional method of scholarly analysis.

Ahl travels less controversial paths in his analysis of Seneca’s Oedipus , if only because this play is less read and therefore less often interpreted. Although Senecan drama has enjoyed a scholarly revival of late, one hopes that its pairing here with Sophocles’ smash-hit will bring this neglected play to the attention of readers who would never find it otherwise. Ahl insists that “Senecan tragedy demands performance,” by which he means full staging and not just recitation (118), but many scholars today think these plays were performed, as Ahl does, in private theaters (119-120).

Ahl paints a vivid portrait of the paranoid, dangerous atmosphere of the later Julio-Claudians, then surprises with an argument for an Augustan date of composition, with the Elder Seneca as author. His evidence for this is a remark by Quintilian (9.2.42), but certainly it is not the case that the “only reason for attributing the tragedies to the Younger rather than the Elder Seneca” is the presence of Octavia in the corpus (14-15). Further evidence for Ahl is a plague in 22 BCE, although he admits that this step is necessary “only to satisfy those readers who … incline to link the dramatic plagues in both Oedipus tragedies to historical occurrences of plague” (126). I am not one of those readers and, before abandoning the Younger, would like to see Ahl address the play’s style, which seems quintessentially Neronian to me. Ahl also suggests that the play reacts to issues of the Augustan succession and Augustus’ use of the Sphinx on his signet ring; he notes that Seneca’s Jocasta says Laius has been dead nine years, which would be the interval from 22 back to Actium (129-131). Augustus’ problem in 22, however, was that he had no heir; Oedipus has too many. If one seeks contemporary resonance for a play in which a tyrant in an incestuous marriage leaves two sons to fight over his throne, surely the late Claudian period makes more sense — and corresponds to Fitch’s hypothesis that the Oedipus was written before 54 CE. 5 Ahl, however, is not adamant about an Augustan date and skillfully manages to have both a Neronian and Augustan Oedipus in play throughout.

All in all, the essay is intriguing and provocative although, as I have mentioned, scholars interested in Oedipus’ self-conviction would be better served by reading the earlier Sophocles’ Oedipus . For non-classicists, the current book provides an introduction to the plays; and students will find many examples of how to read critically, although I think most of us try to discourage our students from psychologizing characters as this book does. Furthermore, his portrait of a deluded, Stalinesque Oedipus surrounded by scheming yes-men in OT is attractively modern after countless portraits of Sophocles’ hero as a relentless intellect striving for truth no matter the consequences. While his views have not won wide acceptance in the scholarly community, I suspect many undergraduates will be won over by Ahl’s pleasant, conversational, and occasionally passionate style — as well as by the catnip of rebellion when he tells them that scholars who discourage questions like his are trying “to intimidate the reader, to maintain orthodoxy, and to defend the faith of the young against subversion by heretics by limiting their choices of interpretation” (28). Those who do not agree with Ahl will need considerable faith in their own charisma before assigning such a text to their students (assuming youthful attention spans persevere through such a lengthy essay).

The translations themselves are delightful. For the OT , Ahl has rendered the dialogue in a versatile English iambic trimeter, keeping a line-by-line corresponsion to the original and trying, he says, to maintain “the neutrality of the Greek text” for those who disagree with his interpretation (ix). In this he is not entirely successful. His stage directions, for one, fully support his reading, e.g. the comment after line 295: “Unnoticed by Oedipus, Teiresias enters, guided by a servant.” Since Ahl’s Oedipus is a sloppy investigator who fails to ask the right questions, having a blind man sneak up on him is neatly symbolic, but this is Ahl’s symbolism, not Sophocles’. For newcomers to tragedy, a note in the text of the play itself mentioning this would be helpful, but these readers must have carefully read the introduction to learn that the stage directions are not original.

The translation is also burdened with occasional footnotes that steer the reader towards Ahl’s thesis. For instance, on lines 407-408, where Teiresias begins his half of the agon by stating that Oedipus, despite being tyrant, must hear a speech to match his own, Ahl comments, “No one has denied Teiresias the right to speech” and characterizes this utterance as a “clever rhetorical ploy” by the seer (151). This ignores Oedipus’ repeated threats against Teiresias, such as l. 367 (“You think you’ll always get away with talk like this?”) — it seems pedantically literal to say that Teiresias’ right to speech has been maintained after such intimidation.

Similarly, a note at 1237, when the exangelos (called “Courtier” by Ahl) reports Jocasta’s death, Ahl adds a footnote to point out that this character “describes in indirect speech what he imagines were the thoughts subtending Jocasta’s actions, which some translators misleadingly transpose into direct speech” (183). Ahl gives no evidence for interpreting this indirect speech as the Courtier’s invention rather than reported speech of a type familiar to all intro Greek students. This is, however, significantly toned down from Sophocles’ Oedipus , in which Ahl went on to hypothesize that Jocasta might not be dead at all (22), a charge that distressed several reviewers. 6 Allegations of Jocasta’s survival are not made in the current work.

These notes are an unfortunate addition to an otherwise enjoyable translation. Ahl naturally chooses words to suit his interpretation, but for the most part remains close to the text. The word “insight” shows up quite often, e.g. l. 461-2, Teiresias’ parting shot: “if you catch me in a lie, claim then that, in the mantic art, I lack reasoned insight.” One might object to the rationalizing of prophecy, but since any translation loses the vision-symbolism from all the forms of ‘oida’ in the Greek, “insight” provides a motif that can give readers an example of what they’re missing, even if many instances of “insight” do not directly correspond with word-play in the original. 7 At l. 313, Ahl translates ‘miasma’ as “blight,” which neatly looks back to the descriptions of the plague. At l. 973, Oedipus says that new of Polybus’ death makes oracles meaningless, and Jocasta replies, “Wasn’t I telling you that palai ?” Ahl renders ‘palai’ as “for years,” instead of assuming, as most of us do, that she refers back to earlier in the play — although I do like the nagging wife/mother dimension of Ahl’s “years”!

As an example of the translation’s beauty, I quote my favorite lines, from the parodos (173-177): Look! For if you did, you’d see life after life surging like birds with powerful wings, more irresistibly than raging fire, to the sunset god’s edge of death.

As with the introduction, the translation’s treatment of Seneca is easier to handle. Footnotes and stage directions are far less tendentious, and Ahl’s theatrical experience leads to excellent suggestions for performing a play that includes the on-stage deaths of two cows and Jocasta. Ahl uses iambic pentameter for the dialogue, which helps the expansion of Seneca’s dense, rhetorical Latin into poetic English. Although his line numbering here matches the Latin rather than English text, this translation is less wedded to conforming to its original blow-for-blow, but all the same powerful and faithful to the spirit of Seneca’s dark universe: e.g. l. 93-94, of the Sphinx: cruentos vatis infandae tuli / rictus et albens ossibus sparsis solum is rendered “I faced her bloodstained jaws, / this prophetess too hideous to describe, / the soil beneath her white with scattered bones,” and l. 960-1: violentus audax vultus, iratus ferox / iamiam eruentis becomes “His expression screamed ferocity, / the rashness of violence, / flushed with madness.” Indeed, I found the description of the blinding almost overwhelming. This vivid, modern yet close translation will, I hope, lead to more student readers and theatrical audiences for this play.

Two Faces is a hard book to sum up, but the title is accurate. One face presents Ahl’s iconoclastic interpretation of the OT , which bleeds into his translation drop by drop, tempered by some really lovely poetry. The other face gives a less controversial reading of Seneca’s Oedipus , although even there unorthodoxy occasionally shines through. I do not think I would assign this book to a Greek lit survey or myth course, but I can see profitable discussions arising from it for a course reading the OT in Greek. I will certainly assign this translation of Seneca at some point, and I would buy tickets to stagings of either translation.

I did not find any egregious typos in the book, but, in this coda reserved for quibbling, I will add that the modus operandi for accenting transliterated Greek words eluded me entirely. Some words have accents consistently, some never have them, and some have them some of the time, but not always. So, on p. 26, moira and tyche are discussed and given no accent. On p. 33 all the Greek words have accents: dóxa, pseudés, alétheia, and léthe. On p. 37, ‘Patroklous atla’ has no accent (the spelling mirrors a vase’s inscription), but from the same vase, (e)poíesen and égrapsen both do. A footnote on OT l. 873 gives moîra with accent. And so forth. Since there are so many words in both Greek and Latin in the Introduction, I wonder if this inconsistency might confuse readers with no knowledge of the ancient languages. But, this is a book for celebrating inconsistencies, so I’m going to keep looking for a pattern!

1 . Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

2 . Goldhill: Arion 1996-1997 4.2: 155-171; Segal: CW 1992-1993 86: 155.

3 . As a side note, despite the book’s “trust no one” stance, Ahl repeats the oft-debunked urban legend of a Japanese shop displaying a crucified Santa. Claiming that modern Christian culture suppresses the inconsistencies of its pagan inheritances, Ahl notes “the bizarre results when these (inconsistencies) elude outsiders from a polytheistic culture” (34-5). As the crucified Santa, however, is the product of Western culture pondering exactly this process (both convoluted Christmas traditions and Japanese re-mixes of them), it would seem there is more awareness of these inconsistencies than Ahl allows. The only documented instances of actual displays of Santa on the cross are American protests of Christmas commercialism. Readers are referred to Snopes .

4 . This seems to respond to points made in Murnaghan’s review of the earlier work: CPh 1993 88: 162-167.

5 . Fitch, “Sense-pauses and relative dating in Seneca, Sophocles and Shakespeare” ( AJP 1981 102: 289-307). Admittedly, 22 BCE is earlier than 54 CE, but I don’t think we’re meant to look that far back.

6 . On this point see Goldhill (op. cit.), 160-161.

7 . As readers of his Metaformations (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985) know, Ahl is an accomplished word-player.

Building a Thesis Statement

The heart of any essay is its thesis statement; the heart of any thesis statement is the subject-verb-object core of the main clause.  Take the following steps to build your thesis statement from the heart outward.

1.       Build the core.   Choose a noun (or short noun phrase) that describes the main subject of your essay.  Make sure it covers the whole of your subject, but no more.  Then choose a verb that describes both precisely and comprehensively what your subject does in your essay.  Then choose a noun that is the main recipient of the action.  Put the three together in that order. Your objective is to put as much information as possible in the core.  For instance, here’s the core of a thesis sentence in an essay about Oedipus Rex . “ Oedipus Rex explains fate.”

2.       Add to it. Add clauses or phrases to your core to make it a full, descriptive, and interesting sentence.  You can add material before or after the core to concede something, to explain a cause and effect relationship, or to explain a consequence.  For instance, here’s the Oedipus Rex thesis with material added before and after: “At first glance, Sophocles’ most famous play appears to make its hero the victim of circumstance; nevertheless, Oedipus Rex explains fate as a function of character, not fortune.”

3.       Sharpen it. Look for vague, weak, or otherwise unsatisfactory words, phrases, and clauses in your thesis and make them more specific through either substitution or modification.  For instance, here’s the Oedipus Rex thesis sharpened: “Although Sophocles’ most famous play subjects its hero to deception, bad luck, and the crimes of his parents, Oedipus Rex nevertheless reveals fate to be primarily a function of character, not fortune.”

4.       Make your categories with key words. Look at the key works in the sharpened version: “ hero ,” “ deception,” bad luck,” “crimes,” “fate,” “character,” and “ fortune.”   The key words in italics are all potential sections for the body of the essay, especially if you design your thesis to analyze your subject according to defined categories. Not every thesis will list the main sections of your essay perfectly neatly, but almost every thesis will suggest useful divisions in your essay.

5.       Create a title by writing a noun phrase that contains a clear description of your subject and indicates something about your approach and thesis.  “Sophocles’ Idea of Fate” isn’t bad, but “Sophocles’ Idea of Fate in Oedipus Rex ” is better, and “Doomed by Character: Sophocles’ Idea of Fate in Oedipus Rex ” is even better than that.

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Oedipus — The tragedy of Oedipus

The Tragedy of Oedipus

• Categories: Oedipus Oedipus Rex

About this sample

Words: 974 |

Published: Dec 18, 2018

Words: 974 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Hook examples for "oedipus" essay, "oedipus" essay example.

• An Unavoidable Fate: Step into the world of ancient Greece, where the gods wield power over mortal lives. Join me as we unravel the timeless tragedy of Oedipus and the inexorable grip of fate that leads to his downfall.
• An Intriguing Quote: Sophocles wrote, "Fate has terrible power." Let's delve into how the concept of fate and Oedipus's unwavering quest for truth drive the narrative, ultimately culminating in a tragic revelation.
• The Complexity of Self-Discovery: Explore with me the theme of self-discovery as we follow Oedipus's relentless pursuit of the truth about his identity. Together, we'll dissect the consequences of his actions in the face of an inevitable destiny.
• The Tragic Hero's Journey: Oedipus is the quintessential tragic hero. Join me in analyzing his noble qualities, tragic flaws, and the catastrophic consequences of his choices, all of which contribute to the profound impact of his story.
• A Timeless Tale of Hubris and Irony: Despite its ancient origins, Oedipus's story remains relevant today. Explore with me how themes of hubris, irony, and the human struggle against destiny continue to resonate with modern readers and thinkers.

Works Cited

• Jankowski, T. (2013). Oedipus Rex: a classic example of a tragic hero. Student Pulse, 5(05), 1-3.
• Kinyua, K. (2019). Oedipus Rex as a tragic hero : a critical analysis. Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 1(1), 30-36.
• Knox, B. M. (1979). The hero and the chorus in Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus. Greece & Rome, 26(2), 104-117.
• Laios, K. (2018). Oedipus Rex and the tragic hero. Humanitas, 1(1), 23-38.
• McDonald, M. (2015). Oedipus Rex: a tragic hero revisited. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 135, 39-51.
• Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. (1953). The dramatic festivals of Athens (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Podlecki, A. J. (1966). The political background of the Oedipus Tyrannus. American Journal of Philology, 87(3), 225-244.
• Segal, C. (1982). Oedipus Tyrannus: tragic heroism and the limits of knowledge. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 29(1), 93-105.
• Sophocles. (1954). Oedipus Rex. In R. Fagles (Trans.), The Three Theban Plays (pp. 33-99). Penguin.
• Webster-Merriam. (2022). Hubris. In Webster-Merriam Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hubris

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 424 words

3 pages / 1401 words

2 pages / 706 words

3.5 pages / 1575 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Oedipus

The play "Oedipus the King" is a tragedy written by Sophocles around 429 BC. The play tells the story of Oedipus, the King of Thebes, who unwittingly fulfills a prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. The [...]

When examining the characters of Oedipus and Creon in ancient Greek literature, one cannot help but notice the stark differences and intriguing similarities between the two. Both characters are prominent figures in various plays [...]

The concept of hubris, or excessive pride, is a recurring theme in ancient Greek literature and is particularly prominent in the tragedy Oedipus by Sophocles. In this play, Oedipus, the protagonist, exhibits hubris as he [...]

In the timeless Greek tragedy, "Oedipus Rex," Sophocles delves into the intricate workings of the human psyche, particularly the cathartic release of fear. The protagonist, Oedipus, grapples with a series of harrowing [...]

In conclusion, Jocasta's character traits in Oedipus The King are multi-faceted and complex. Her assertiveness, compassion, intelligence, and loyalty all contribute to the depth and richness of the play. Jocasta is not merely a [...]

In conclusion, the theme of blindness in Sophocles' Oedipus Rex is a rich and multifaceted aspect of the narrative that serves both narrative and symbolic functions. By examining the paradox of Oedipus' blindness, the role of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Oedipus the King Essay

Introduction, man versus man conflict, man versus nature, man versus himself, works cited.

‘Oedipus the King’ is a play written by Sophocles in Ancient Greek at around 430 B.C. set in a fabulous past of the ancient Greek. Throughout the play, the king is determined to understand several issues about the community and himself.

As a result, he seeks help from the Theban chorus; Tiresias, the blind prophet; Creon, his brother in-law; Jocasta, the Oedipus wife and the shepherd. Throughout the play, conflict stands out as the main theme as exposited by exploring the three elements of conflict from the play viz. man versus man, man versus himself and man versus nature.

A conflict exists between the king and the prophet Tiresias. The play begins by investigation into the cause of death of Laius, the former Theban king. When the Oedipus King seeks advice from the prophet Tiresias, to his surprise, the prophet tells him that Oedipus was responsible for the murderer of Laius.

In disbelief, the King becomes annoyed with Tiresias and they end up into a heated argument. The king blames the prophet for accusing him for the murder (Sophocles 306). While the King maintains his innocence, Tiresias holds that the murderer of Laius is a Theban citizen whom they have a blood relationship. The manner in which Tiresias leaves the palace evidences unhidden conflict between him and the Oedipus King.

In addition, the king is in conflict with his brother in-law, Creon. When the prophet accuses Oedipus for the murder, the king blames Creon for masterminding the accusations. The king believes that Creon is determined to undermine him. As a result, the king calls for Creon’s execution.

Another conflict exists between Jocasta and the prophets. Jocasta believes that prophets are liars and the king should take none of their advice. “Listen and I’ll convince thee that no truth in these prophets” (Sophocles 316). This quote reveals that Jocasta does not believe in prophets any more. There is also conflict between the king and the shepherd. When the shepherd refuses to give information on murder, the king threatens to execute him.

Theban community is in conflict with nature. Oedipus king is determined to fight the plague, which has affected the community. As Sophocles indicates in the Creon’s conversation with the king, the leadership of Theban community is investigating the cause of the plague: “Let me report then all what god declared.

King Phoebus bids us straightly extirpate Fell pollution that infests the land, and no more harbor an inveterate sore” (Sophocles 315). From this quotation, it is clear that the people of Theban are determined to fight to the end the plague that runs through the community.

As illustrated on the first scene, the priest and the Theban choir have also visited the palace to seek aid for the plague. The king gives them hope by noting that “but I grieve at once both for the general, myself and you” (Sophocles 267). To grieve in ancient Greek meant cooperation with the suffering. Plague is a natural disease and therefore fighting it evidences this kind of conflict.

The king is in conflict with himself. The community expects exemplary behavior from their king, especially in such ancient setting. As the play illustrates, the king killed his father and slept with his mother. The king’s behavior is in conflict with the character of Oedipus king. It is therefore vivid that the king is in conflict with himself.

The shepherd is also in conflict with himself. Once requested to come and testify on the murder of Laius, he agrees and in fact provides some information to the king; however, after sometime, he begs to leave without further questions (Sophocles 300). This illustrates the shepherd’s conflict with himself.

The major conflict arises when the prophet accuses the Oedipus for the murder of the former king. Since the entire play revolves about the murder, it is therefore justifiable that conflict is the major theme in the play ‘Oedipus the King’. King’s conflict with the prophet and Creon illustrates man versus man conflict while the community’s battle with the plague evidences the man versus nature conflict. The king’s behavior is in conflict with what is expected of him thus underscoring the man versus man conflict.

Sophocles. “Oedipus the King.” The Collection. Trans. Francis Storr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, September 10). Oedipus the King. https://ivypanda.com/essays/oedipus-the-king-3/

"Oedipus the King." IvyPanda , 10 Sept. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/oedipus-the-king-3/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Oedipus the King'. 10 September.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Oedipus the King." September 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/oedipus-the-king-3/.

1. IvyPanda . "Oedipus the King." September 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/oedipus-the-king-3/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Oedipus the King." September 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/oedipus-the-king-3/.

• Oedipus the King - Characters and Performance
• Oedipus the King by Sophocles Literature Analysis
• "When Children Grieve" Overview and Analysis
• A Play "Hamlet" by William Shakespear
• Othello as the Outsider
• Neil Simon’s Brighton Beach Memoirs
• "The Sound of a Voice" by Henry Hwang
• The Function of the Soliloquies in Hamlet