Oedipus the King

My Extended Essay:

Finished and sent off and done and WOO HOO! That  up there is my front page of my EE, it’s 4000 words!! Talk about cutting it close!! Haha!

Anyway, let’s not focus on the Shakespeare part of this, but instead on the Sophocles. The Greeks. The object of my passion.

My essay led me down many fascinating alleys of interpretation and discussion. What intrigued me most of all about my research was the moment when I discovered why Oedipus was bestowed with his terrible fate.

Exploring the Oedipus story (I only studied one from the trilogy), I learned about their theatre traditions, their acting methods, their style dramatic conventions and their worship of Dionysus through tragedy and comedy.

For anyone who’s heard of or has studied the tale of Oedipus, that pitiful man, would have at some point pondered what exactly did he to deserve it, and why did the gods allow it?

He was a smart man that saved Thebes from the Sphinx, proving his wits by solving her riddle. To prevent killing his parents he left his beloved home, unaware that he was adopted. He followed social protocol, marrying the widowed queen as was his duty to. When his people were suffering from a terrible plague he did all the right things: sent someone to the oracle in Delphi, had more prayers, and finally set out on a quest to personally find and punish the person who had brought this misfortune upon Thebes. Even when he discovered himself to be the murderer and victim of incest, he stuck to his word and punished himself, plucking his eyes from their sockets and banishing himself from Thebes.

Despite his hardships he remained pious and respectful.

Some critics say that his downfall is punishment for his murdering his own father and for fathering children by his mother (and his slight hubris), that it doesn’t matter that he is unaware of these facts, he deserves his punishment through divine justice anyway. But a lot more critics think that this isn’t enough, personally I agree with this. His crimes are not proportionate to his punishment. (Furthermore, his fate was determined from birth, how is it fair to punish a man so harshly for being victim of his immutable and tragically unforgivable fate?)

So I did some more research.

And what I found astounded me. Two words: Generational Crime.

Oedipus is the son of King Laius and Queen Jocasta. The King was given a prophesy from the oracle saying that he’d be killed by his son. As a result of this, the royal couple chose to expose (kill*) their baby son on the mountain side, so as to avoid the prophesy coming true. As “luck” would have it, Oedipus was saved by a shepherd and brought to the childless King and Queen Corinth who adopted him as their own.

When Oedipus began to suspect that he was adopted his “parents” denied it (oh the ominous dramatic irony), he went to see the oracle. The oracle ignores his question and simply tells him the infamous prophesy that he will kill his father and marry his mother. Horrified, Oedipus (now no longer doubting the Corinthean King and Queen are his parents, despite never being told this categorically) fled Corinth to avoid this new prophesy coming true.

On his way, he met an old man and a fight started. Oedipus killed everyone except for one man that fled. He then solves the Sphinx’s riddle and, hailed as a hero, is given the hand of their Queen… his biological mother.

Thus the tragedy is complete.

Where is the generational crime I hear you ask?

Well it’s not here. This is the beauty of Greek Theatre. The brilliance of Sophocles’ version of Oedipus.

The crime that damns Oedipus to his fate does not happen in the play. It precedes it.

Perhaps the real antagonist of Oedipus’ tragedy is in fact his father: King Laius.

As a youth, Laius was smuggled out of the city of Thebes for his protection while the Thebans attacked the two men that then had usurped the throne. The plan had been to keep Laius safe while they disposed of the two usurpers, then reinstall Laius to the throne as their true King.

Laius was taken to the King of Pisa, King Pelops*. King Pelops graciously took him and looked after him until he was ready to go back to Thebes. There are some sources that tell of a terrible event that took place in the kind King’s household.

King Pelops had a son called Chrysippus and he is widely regarded as a divine hero of Elis (birthplace of the original Olympic Games) in Greek mythology. Laius supposedly tutored him, and escorted him to the Nemean Games (somewhat similar to the Olympic Games) where Chrysippus was to compete. However, Laius didn’t take him to the Games, instead he abducted and raped Chrysippus.

I know I posted earlier about homosexual relationships between boys and their tutors being acceptable in Ancient Greece, but rape is still rape. In abusing the King’s son, Laius broke countless Ancient social laws or ideals (I can’t think of a better word for it…) such as xenia*. As Zeus, the King of the gods and one of the most powerful gods of Olympus, was also the protector of travellers, Laius probably chose the absolute worst god to have pissed off- to put it in layman’s terms.

Oedipus’ accursed fate probably derived from this incident.

Laius is responsible for a catalogue of Greek sins such as breaking xenia, breaking the laws of marriage in raping Chrysippus, and ignoring the oracle that told him to not have children (the prophesy varies quite a lot from text to text), but a philosophical question that could be raised from all of this is: if Oedipus’ retched fate is the result of generational crime and his culpability is completely removed because of this, how can we assume that Laius wan’t also subject to a tragic fate? After all, some scholars say that the entire line of Cadmus (consisting of Laius and Oedipus) was cursed, therefore suggesting that maybe Laius can’t be to blame for his actions either, or at least he is as responsible as Oedipus is for his fate (how can Laius have free-will but not his son? How would the gods decide who had free-will or not?).

Perhaps what is sadder than this is that Laius not only (maybe) succeeds in cursing his lineage (many of his descendants had very bad fortunes, it’s undecided whether this is the fault of Oedipus’ downfall or of Laius’), but he also resigns poor Chrysippus to a lamentable end. One Ancient author claimed that as a result of his shame at his abduction and rape, Chrysippus committed suicide by falling on his sword.

Euripidies, another famous playwright, allegedly wrote about the abduction in one of his lost tragedies.

*Expose: Exposing children in the Ancient world was quite common up until somewhere in the Roman Empire (if my dates are right…). The Romans were allowed to expose children up until 374 AD (and even then, parents were rarely punished for doing so…). To expose an infant, although definitely being a form of infanticide by today’s standards, was not a see as murder in the Ancient world because- they would argue- the child could be saved by another family, or pitied by the gods and therefore kept alive. On the other hand, the child could die of natural causes, in which case the parents held no responsibility.

It seems horrific to us, but parents that couldn’t support the child didn’t have much of a choice. The father had a lot more control in the household than they generally do in Western families today- they had (for a while, at least) absolute power. If they didn’t accept the child their wives presented to them, the child would be exposed. In the Roman world, fathers could even have their unwanted children sold into slavery!

*King Pelops: Another reason why Greek Mythology is so great. There is so much interplay! Besides the entire Peloponnese Islands being named in honour of him– Pelops is also an extremely significant character insofar as the beginning of the original Olympic Games! Pelops was the mythological founder of the chariot race.

Maybe I’ll post about him later, I have previously studied the original Olympic Games in quite some detail and all the myths involved there are fascinating! Yes, I think I shall do my next “informative” post about Pelops. He is such an interesting character!

* Xenia: An Ancient ideal that, in layman’s terms, basically dictates that all hosts must provide hospice to their supplicants (guests or people that come to them in need of their help).

Perhaps another post shall be about this? Let me know if you’re interested! 🙂

Plato’s Soulmate Concept

“According to Greek mythology, humans were originally created with 4 arms, 4 legs and a head with 2 faces. Fearing their power, Zeus split them into two separate parts, condemning them to spend their lives in search for other halves.”
–Plato’s The Symposium

To me, this notion is poetic and beautiful. Our soulmates are literally our other halves. I’ve yet to meet anyone that’s even close to that. Oh well. In the immortal words of Snow White: “Someday My Prince Will Come”.

So how does it all come about? Plato introduces this myth through the character of Aristophanes in his text “The Symposium”.

Aristophanes describes a ‘primal people’ that had “double bodies, with faces and limbs turned away from one another” (Wikipedia). They each consisted of three genders: male (from the Sun), female (from the Earth), and androgynous (from the Moon). His speech is an explanation of why people in love say they feel ‘whole’ when they have found their love partner.

These original people were very powerful, powerful enough to pose a threat to the gods! So when they tried to climb to the top of Mt. Olympus, Zeus considered bolting them to smithereens but found that he didn’t want to lose their worship, so instead he chose to cripple them by slicing them in half, separating the genders, and effectively creating man and woman.

Apollo was ordered to do the “clean up job” on what was left of the people. He turned their faces, pulled their skin tight and stitched them up, but he was commanded to not heal their navels (hence we have belly buttons) so that these people would always be reminded of this event.

As a result of this, ever since people were no longer whole, we’ve run around searching for our “other half”, or our “soulmate”, because we are truly trying to recover our primal nature.

Homosexuals (gay or lesbian) are explained as people who were split in half, but both halves happened to be the same gender.

Plato then, through Aristophanes, critiques the view that homosexuals are shameless (gay men was not as stigmatised as it is today… more on that later though). He argues that “many heterosexuals are adulterous men and unfaithful wives”, claiming that when a person truly finds their other half that they never want to be separated from them ever again, it is as inexplicable as it is undeniable- the feeling is “like a riddle”.

The conclusion of Aristophanes speech is cautionary, he warns that men should not neglect their duty to worship the gods and they should always fear them (that is, they shouldn’t fall into hubris), as the result of ignoring his advice could lead to Zeus “wielding the axe again” and having their noses split in half. To find wholeness (and avoid only having half a nose), mankind must “work with the god of Love”.

(Just a disclaimer: Most of this has been paraphrased from wikipedia,  just letting you know in case you were hoping to find new information or insights… when I go to Uni, hopefully I’ll learn so much more and be able to make original posts!)

It’s really sweet isn’t it? This is partly why I love Greece, or Ancient Greece, so much. Their culture is just so rich and fantastical!

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece wasn’t viewed in the same way as it is today. Back then, it was perfectly ok for an older man and a boy to be lovers, the only negative response a gay couple would stem from to adult men being lovers, and even then, the negativity was only directed at the *ehem* passive man in the relationship. To be the passive man was a demeaning role and stood outside the social norm.

Expanding on the notion of boys and older men, boys were considered men when he was able to grow a full beard, furthermore, being in a relationship with a boy under 12 years old was seen as inappropriate.

To the Greeks, homosexuality was an integral part of a man’s life, even in the military! For instance, in the ‘Sacred Band of Thebes’, there was an entire unit reserved specifically for men and their beloved youths.

“Pammenes’ opinion, according to Plutarch, was that

“Homer’s Nestor was not well skilled in ordering an army when he advised the Greeks to rank tribe and tribe… he should have joined lovers and their beloved. For men of the same tribe little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship grounded upon love is never to be broken.”                “

-Wikipedia

Today, homosexuality in the military is a great source of controversy and debate. Modern history has seen pure discrimination have many gay men and lesbian women rejected or discharged from the army. Of course, this is still evolving and we’re moving away from rejections based on sexual orientation, and “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies and hopefully into a place in history where men and women can be openly gay without repercussions.

Comparing this drama with the Ancient history of the Greeks we can see how their opinions differed wildly with today’s. The bonds between homosexual couples in the military were seen positively and this can be seen reflected in Greek mythology, such as Achilles and Patroclus in the “Iliad”. It was said that having a lover in the army would boost morale and desire to protect one another. To give up one’s own life for his lover was seen as a heroic, noble and selfless thing to do.

It is my personal opinion that there is so much that we can still learn about and from the Ancient Greeks. So much of our society and conventions stem from their glorious era and yet, despite being more advanced than they were, we seem to err where they had it right.

Although I don’t intend to join the army, nor do I have much to do in politics (now that I’m 18 I really should start caring more…), I am bisexual and so any news in the LGBT community does interest me.

To me, the gender of your lover doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what colour, gender, income, or appearance your lover has, as long as they make you happy, make you smile, make you a better person, and they genuinely want to spend the rest of their life with you. The way they treat you, the way they look at you, the way they make you feel, those are the important things in a relationship. Money changes and looks degrade as time passes. What is left at the end of the long years is their personality.

A person shouldn’t marry someone else because they’re hot, or rich. A person should marry for love, and because they love each other’s personalities. A soulmate- if such a romantic notion could exist- should be someone that you can wake up in the middle of the night with and not think oh god, now the light is out, why did I marry this person?

Gotta love the Greeks. Can’t wait to visit the country and see the sights. I can’t wait to learn more about their culture and traditions. I’m pretty sure some/most of this post has been inaccurate in places, most of it is research off the internet combined with things I’ve picked up over the years, but when I go to Uni, when I really study the Greeks in all their marvel, then I will be content as a fed-cat, dozing in the golden sunlight.