Juxtaposition In Oedipus
It is the purpose of this essay to perform a close reading of the extract Oedipus II.300-328, which will track the significance of the plague and its symbolic ramifications for the theme of fate. This extract does not examine Oedipus as a free agent, but how his past is fate-bound and that the plague is a physical and metaphorical manifestation of Oedipus’s inner state.
The plague is first presented as a disease ‘besetting’ (II.303) the city, and Oedipus is firmly established as a victim of unalterable fate. It is unalterable as there is no other course of action that will cause the plague to ‘cease’ (II.307) than the discovery of Laius’ murderer – Oedipus. Charles Segal proposes that Oedipus’ use of the plural noun: ‘men’ (II.308) to say …show more content…
Oedipus’ summoning and ironic commanding of Teiresias to divulge what ‘you know, although you cannot see’ (II.302) models how sight is not reflective of insight. Teiresias elaborates upon this dramatic irony by crying out: ‘Ah! What a burden knowledge is, when knowledge/ Can be of no avail!’ (II.316-7) His loud exclamation ‘ah’ emphasises the extent of this burden, which will later be transferred to Oedipus himself alongside his …show more content…
This collaborates effectively into Gilbert Murray’s argument that in Greek tragedy a surrogate is often sacrificed to ‘take on itself the violence from within the group’ to therefore deal with the crisis (the plague) through transference. Consequently, Oedipus symbolises a ‘surrogate victim whose sacrifice’ is needed to remove the ‘polluting presence’ for the continuation of the city. Hence, Oedipus’ claim that there is: ‘No finer task, than to give all one has/ In helping others’ (II.314-5), whilst he means for Teiresias to share his knowledge, the dramatic irony is that Oedipus will be the one who has to ‘give all’ he has. Segal elaborates this further by asserting that the plague is ‘both the casual agent of the process of purging disorder’ and ‘the sign that this process was under way’. Consequently, Oedipus in the necessary pursuit of the plague’s origins is also unfolding his own
The plague is first presented as a disease ‘besetting’ (II.303) the city, and Oedipus is firmly established as a victim of unalterable fate. It is unalterable as there is no other course of action that will cause the plague to ‘cease’ (II.307) than the discovery of Laius’ murderer – Oedipus. Charles Segal proposes that Oedipus’ use of the plural noun: ‘men’ (II.308) to say …show more content…
Oedipus’ summoning and ironic commanding of Teiresias to divulge what ‘you know, although you cannot see’ (II.302) models how sight is not reflective of insight. Teiresias elaborates upon this dramatic irony by crying out: ‘Ah! What a burden knowledge is, when knowledge/ Can be of no avail!’ (II.316-7) His loud exclamation ‘ah’ emphasises the extent of this burden, which will later be transferred to Oedipus himself alongside his …show more content…
This collaborates effectively into Gilbert Murray’s argument that in Greek tragedy a surrogate is often sacrificed to ‘take on itself the violence from within the group’ to therefore deal with the crisis (the plague) through transference. Consequently, Oedipus symbolises a ‘surrogate victim whose sacrifice’ is needed to remove the ‘polluting presence’ for the continuation of the city. Hence, Oedipus’ claim that there is: ‘No finer task, than to give all one has/ In helping others’ (II.314-5), whilst he means for Teiresias to share his knowledge, the dramatic irony is that Oedipus will be the one who has to ‘give all’ he has. Segal elaborates this further by asserting that the plague is ‘both the casual agent of the process of purging disorder’ and ‘the sign that this process was under way’. Consequently, Oedipus in the necessary pursuit of the plague’s origins is also unfolding his own