Oedipus The King Conflict Analysis
The play Oedipus the King by Sophocles is a drama of a heroic archetype struggling to find answers which creates conflicts of man vs. man, man vs. himself, and man vs. supernatural and in the end reveals his real identity thus fulfilling his prophecy.
Man vs. Man Oedipus meets Teirias he then meets with his brother in law Creon for yet another man vs. man conflict. The conflict again Creon is Oedipus who still is unaware of who he really is again is trying to seek answers to find out who murdered King Laois. Teirias left Oedipus on not such good terms thus leaving Oedipus to think someone was trying to create a conspiracy against him. And for that very reason he accused his brother in law of plotting against him. The action …show more content…
to think of a brother in law seem like Oedipus’ personal arrogance would make him think this especially after his meeting with Teirias who leaves him nothing else to believe. Oedipus is distraught with Creon whom he believes whole heartedly want to become king. In this man vs. man conflict, the two argue over evidence and theoretical knowledge about who killed King Laios. The first accusation in the confrontation is Oedipus declares to Creon “That you plotted to kill me, plotted to steal my throne!” (Sophocles 1220) Oedipus is distrustful of Creon calling him “A fool who coud not see your slippery game” and he believes wholeheartedly that Creon was making his way to the throne by eliminating King Laios and now him. In the Journal, The Two Conflicts, Two Dramas by Lesser points his “his own hostility to the man he accuses of hostility to him is openly avowed; he tells Creon he will be satisfied with nothing less than death” (Lesser 183). The confrontation escalates to one of judgement and distrust. Creon is taken back with the allegations about how distrustful Oedipus is against him without any facts proving his guilt. In an effort to protect his character against Oedipus, the man vs. man confrontation continues with Creon speaking out against allegation’s in an attempt to prove how judgment without the facts. Creon argues it is as hypothetical for Oedipus to say he killed King Laois as it is for him to say he killed him. The nature of the confrontation is irrational forming judgements against each other without evidence. Creon is questioning of how friends and brother-in-law would even consider a horrific task of killing a king or overthrowing him. The argument over evidence escalates and Oedipus demands Creon to be put to death over treason. Creon is right and retaliates against the arrogant Oedipus along with his sister Jocasta both knowing it wasn’t Creon who killed the King. The questions Jocasta about what she knew about King Laius. Oedipus is still clueless and in the Oedipus is King: Two Dramas, the Two Conflicts when the author highlights “We might suppose that he would be struck by the way the prophecy made to Jocasta and Laius dovetails, with the one made to him” (185). Based on the quote, Oedipus begins to think more about what happened before he arrived in Thebes. And the striving for self-knowledge is what is invaluable to the protagonist since he has no idea had killed the King.
Man vs. Self It is detrimental to think others around Oedipus knew and cover-up of the truth. The arguments are both strong however, and would you consider Oedipus as arrogant. The real situation is he honestly is unaware of his past which is brought out by each man vs. man conflict. Is this what you would consider ignorance? Absolutely not. Oedipus is not ignorant; he is extremely knowledgeable and persistent in facts which fuel his interest to continues to build on his knowledge to find answers to his questions. Shockingly, the message in the book is quite different which is revealed in this quote as man vs. himself he looks to find the real answers. First, in Oedipus’ quest for self-knowledge, when he says “I will not listen; the truth must be made known” (Sophocles 1232). The quest for self- knowledge begins after his confrontations with Teirais and Creon. It is Tieras who retaliates stating “I say you live in hideous sham with those Most dear to you. You cannot see the evil” (Sophocles 1216). Oedipus personal arrogance toward a man who is blind is disturbing since the blind man is providing him with minimal information to the questions he is asking. Teirias who is well aware of what is going on and what Oedipus is trying draw out of him is cautious to tell him too much. The question is was Oedipus personal arrogance toward Teirias necessary and was it evident that Oedipus was actually giving him a hard time for not telling him any information. Teirias was a selfish blind man who knew about Oedipus situation and thus calling him a wise old blind man leads me to believe he was not wise at all. He was actually manipulative and vindictive not to share the information which Oedipus needed during this confrontation. And if Teirias knew information which could of changed the course of Oedipus’s life, why didn’t he make him aware of his past. Teirias led the reader to believe Oedipus was aggressive toward him thus the article identified him as arrogant due to this aggression. Teirias was the one who was deceitful by not telling Oedipus the truth. Even though he is blind the irony Oedipus, begins to think about what he has been told when Jocasta chimes in after the confrontations with Teiaris and Creon. In the article, Oedipus, The Two Dramas, The Two Conflicts by Simon O.
Lesser believes in his self-examination of his soul “He remains completely blind to the possibility of any kinship between himself and Laius” (Lesser 185). Oedipus recalls his journey to Thebes and killing several men on the cross roads. The problem is Oedipus is insecure about what actually happened at the crossroads in which he murdered someone which is the exact same place King Lauirus was killed. In deep thought, he tells Jocosta “Think of it: I have touched you with these hands, these hands that killed your husband” (Sophocles, Line 296 – 297). Oedipus in this case is not blind to what has happened to King Laurius seeking proof to verify that it was not him who committed the murder. Oedipus fear is heightened thinking about what the herdsman will say about when he arrives upon the request of Oedipus who is seeking to confirm he is not the murder. The article by Lesser the quote “As Mortan Kaplan observes, he behaves like a patient in analysis resisting an insight which is dangling in the air, crying to be voiced; he strives to expiate the truth or at any rate to defer the moment when he must face and accept it.” (Lesser 187). The play reveals his fear but yearning to know the truth which is why he called on the shepherd. If Oedipus did not want to hear the truth, he would of never asked the shepherd to come to the palace for questioning. Oedipus was an honest and honorable man willing to face the consequences which were before him thus making him an archetype to shed light on the killer of King Lauris. The light was also shed on his prophecy
too. The messenger is another character who arrives before the herdsman tells Oedipus that king Polypas died. Basically the messengers spills the beans providing all of the missing pieces to which the climax is reached and answers to the questions are complete. [NEED QUOTES from articles]
Man vs. Supernatural The belief in the supernatural is what brought the fate to Oedipus to his parents and his immediate family. Believing in the supernatural is like believing in fate and in the case Oedipus’ real parents; they attempted to kill their newborn baby because they believed in a prophecy which was not real. The shepherd saved the baby and the fate of Oedipus unfolds throughout the play as he fights the theory of man vs. supernatural. Thus the argument in the article called “Life in Victory” by Laura Jepsen who believes Oedipus was “was a admirable king, acting with honorable intent”. Jenson states that Oedipus in his situation with the oracle and living out his prophecy is a “destiny that allows him not personal choice” (Jepsen 3). Obviously, the author believes in the supernatural and how fate can come into play regardless of whether you are a good person or not. In the same article, the superstitious is questioned by Jensen’s colleague, Professor Bowers argues from a rational Christian standpoint “The distinction is that Oedipus, in the trip of his fate, is not personally responsible for his action in the Christian sense” (Jepsen 3). Professor Bowers is convinced Oedipus was not cursed and the oracle set forth by Apollo. He believes the fate of Oedipus is based on his own decisions. Jensen and Bowers have two different points of views from a supernatural standpoint and through the eyes of religion. The curse of Oedipus is a struggle of a man who faces the supernatural jinx of Apollo, a Greek God placed an oracle on King Laios telling him if he had a son, his son would kill his father and marry his mother. The belief in the supernatural of this actually happening is questionable and the supernatural ends up being the dictator of fate for Oedipus. The oracle would be placed on King Laios and Jocasta’s at the birth. Of course, a son was born and petrified of the oracle they “pierced the baby’s ankles and left him to die on the mountainside” (Sophocles 1224). In doing this they thought the baby was dead but in all reality alive and well with the Queen and King of Corinth. The irony is he leaves what he thinks is his mom and dad to save them from the prophecy in which Oedipus’ fate from the supernatural prediction comes to fruition without his awareness. Oedipus murders four of five men during his journey to Thebes one of them being his real father. Unknowingly, he continues his journey, solves the riddle of the sphinx, and marries the Queen of Thebes who is recently widowed. The queen is his mother. The odd of the sequence of events and not knowing the truth leaves Oedipus unknowingly completing his prophecy.
Conclusion
Sophocles in Oedipus is King, accomplishes in his writing about the conflicts of man vs. man, man vs. himself, and man vs. supernatural for Oedipus, the heroic archetype overcoming the supernatural which is the catalyst to the prophecy set forth by Apollo. The carelessness which is set forth in the beginning of the play by his biological parents who believe in the supernatural is the fate they set forth for themselves and their son. Attempting to kill their son by abandoning him is a cowardly act on their behalf. Only for the shepherd who is his savior rescues the baby to bring happiness to another King and Queen who also fall into the fate of Apollo by not being honest with him on who he was and where he came from. As a young adult, Oedipus falls into the same trap believing in the prophecy set forth by Apollo. His prophecy may have never come true if he did not believe in the supernatural like his biological parents.
Man vs. Man Oedipus meets Teirias he then meets with his brother in law Creon for yet another man vs. man conflict. The conflict again Creon is Oedipus who still is unaware of who he really is again is trying to seek answers to find out who murdered King Laois. Teirias left Oedipus on not such good terms thus leaving Oedipus to think someone was trying to create a conspiracy against him. And for that very reason he accused his brother in law of plotting against him. The action …show more content…
to think of a brother in law seem like Oedipus’ personal arrogance would make him think this especially after his meeting with Teirias who leaves him nothing else to believe. Oedipus is distraught with Creon whom he believes whole heartedly want to become king. In this man vs. man conflict, the two argue over evidence and theoretical knowledge about who killed King Laios. The first accusation in the confrontation is Oedipus declares to Creon “That you plotted to kill me, plotted to steal my throne!” (Sophocles 1220) Oedipus is distrustful of Creon calling him “A fool who coud not see your slippery game” and he believes wholeheartedly that Creon was making his way to the throne by eliminating King Laios and now him. In the Journal, The Two Conflicts, Two Dramas by Lesser points his “his own hostility to the man he accuses of hostility to him is openly avowed; he tells Creon he will be satisfied with nothing less than death” (Lesser 183). The confrontation escalates to one of judgement and distrust. Creon is taken back with the allegations about how distrustful Oedipus is against him without any facts proving his guilt. In an effort to protect his character against Oedipus, the man vs. man confrontation continues with Creon speaking out against allegation’s in an attempt to prove how judgment without the facts. Creon argues it is as hypothetical for Oedipus to say he killed King Laois as it is for him to say he killed him. The nature of the confrontation is irrational forming judgements against each other without evidence. Creon is questioning of how friends and brother-in-law would even consider a horrific task of killing a king or overthrowing him. The argument over evidence escalates and Oedipus demands Creon to be put to death over treason. Creon is right and retaliates against the arrogant Oedipus along with his sister Jocasta both knowing it wasn’t Creon who killed the King. The questions Jocasta about what she knew about King Laius. Oedipus is still clueless and in the Oedipus is King: Two Dramas, the Two Conflicts when the author highlights “We might suppose that he would be struck by the way the prophecy made to Jocasta and Laius dovetails, with the one made to him” (185). Based on the quote, Oedipus begins to think more about what happened before he arrived in Thebes. And the striving for self-knowledge is what is invaluable to the protagonist since he has no idea had killed the King.
Man vs. Self It is detrimental to think others around Oedipus knew and cover-up of the truth. The arguments are both strong however, and would you consider Oedipus as arrogant. The real situation is he honestly is unaware of his past which is brought out by each man vs. man conflict. Is this what you would consider ignorance? Absolutely not. Oedipus is not ignorant; he is extremely knowledgeable and persistent in facts which fuel his interest to continues to build on his knowledge to find answers to his questions. Shockingly, the message in the book is quite different which is revealed in this quote as man vs. himself he looks to find the real answers. First, in Oedipus’ quest for self-knowledge, when he says “I will not listen; the truth must be made known” (Sophocles 1232). The quest for self- knowledge begins after his confrontations with Teirais and Creon. It is Tieras who retaliates stating “I say you live in hideous sham with those Most dear to you. You cannot see the evil” (Sophocles 1216). Oedipus personal arrogance toward a man who is blind is disturbing since the blind man is providing him with minimal information to the questions he is asking. Teirias who is well aware of what is going on and what Oedipus is trying draw out of him is cautious to tell him too much. The question is was Oedipus personal arrogance toward Teirias necessary and was it evident that Oedipus was actually giving him a hard time for not telling him any information. Teirias was a selfish blind man who knew about Oedipus situation and thus calling him a wise old blind man leads me to believe he was not wise at all. He was actually manipulative and vindictive not to share the information which Oedipus needed during this confrontation. And if Teirias knew information which could of changed the course of Oedipus’s life, why didn’t he make him aware of his past. Teirias led the reader to believe Oedipus was aggressive toward him thus the article identified him as arrogant due to this aggression. Teirias was the one who was deceitful by not telling Oedipus the truth. Even though he is blind the irony Oedipus, begins to think about what he has been told when Jocasta chimes in after the confrontations with Teiaris and Creon. In the article, Oedipus, The Two Dramas, The Two Conflicts by Simon O.
Lesser believes in his self-examination of his soul “He remains completely blind to the possibility of any kinship between himself and Laius” (Lesser 185). Oedipus recalls his journey to Thebes and killing several men on the cross roads. The problem is Oedipus is insecure about what actually happened at the crossroads in which he murdered someone which is the exact same place King Lauirus was killed. In deep thought, he tells Jocosta “Think of it: I have touched you with these hands, these hands that killed your husband” (Sophocles, Line 296 – 297). Oedipus in this case is not blind to what has happened to King Laurius seeking proof to verify that it was not him who committed the murder. Oedipus fear is heightened thinking about what the herdsman will say about when he arrives upon the request of Oedipus who is seeking to confirm he is not the murder. The article by Lesser the quote “As Mortan Kaplan observes, he behaves like a patient in analysis resisting an insight which is dangling in the air, crying to be voiced; he strives to expiate the truth or at any rate to defer the moment when he must face and accept it.” (Lesser 187). The play reveals his fear but yearning to know the truth which is why he called on the shepherd. If Oedipus did not want to hear the truth, he would of never asked the shepherd to come to the palace for questioning. Oedipus was an honest and honorable man willing to face the consequences which were before him thus making him an archetype to shed light on the killer of King Lauris. The light was also shed on his prophecy
too. The messenger is another character who arrives before the herdsman tells Oedipus that king Polypas died. Basically the messengers spills the beans providing all of the missing pieces to which the climax is reached and answers to the questions are complete. [NEED QUOTES from articles]
Man vs. Supernatural The belief in the supernatural is what brought the fate to Oedipus to his parents and his immediate family. Believing in the supernatural is like believing in fate and in the case Oedipus’ real parents; they attempted to kill their newborn baby because they believed in a prophecy which was not real. The shepherd saved the baby and the fate of Oedipus unfolds throughout the play as he fights the theory of man vs. supernatural. Thus the argument in the article called “Life in Victory” by Laura Jepsen who believes Oedipus was “was a admirable king, acting with honorable intent”. Jenson states that Oedipus in his situation with the oracle and living out his prophecy is a “destiny that allows him not personal choice” (Jepsen 3). Obviously, the author believes in the supernatural and how fate can come into play regardless of whether you are a good person or not. In the same article, the superstitious is questioned by Jensen’s colleague, Professor Bowers argues from a rational Christian standpoint “The distinction is that Oedipus, in the trip of his fate, is not personally responsible for his action in the Christian sense” (Jepsen 3). Professor Bowers is convinced Oedipus was not cursed and the oracle set forth by Apollo. He believes the fate of Oedipus is based on his own decisions. Jensen and Bowers have two different points of views from a supernatural standpoint and through the eyes of religion. The curse of Oedipus is a struggle of a man who faces the supernatural jinx of Apollo, a Greek God placed an oracle on King Laios telling him if he had a son, his son would kill his father and marry his mother. The belief in the supernatural of this actually happening is questionable and the supernatural ends up being the dictator of fate for Oedipus. The oracle would be placed on King Laios and Jocasta’s at the birth. Of course, a son was born and petrified of the oracle they “pierced the baby’s ankles and left him to die on the mountainside” (Sophocles 1224). In doing this they thought the baby was dead but in all reality alive and well with the Queen and King of Corinth. The irony is he leaves what he thinks is his mom and dad to save them from the prophecy in which Oedipus’ fate from the supernatural prediction comes to fruition without his awareness. Oedipus murders four of five men during his journey to Thebes one of them being his real father. Unknowingly, he continues his journey, solves the riddle of the sphinx, and marries the Queen of Thebes who is recently widowed. The queen is his mother. The odd of the sequence of events and not knowing the truth leaves Oedipus unknowingly completing his prophecy.
Conclusion
Sophocles in Oedipus is King, accomplishes in his writing about the conflicts of man vs. man, man vs. himself, and man vs. supernatural for Oedipus, the heroic archetype overcoming the supernatural which is the catalyst to the prophecy set forth by Apollo. The carelessness which is set forth in the beginning of the play by his biological parents who believe in the supernatural is the fate they set forth for themselves and their son. Attempting to kill their son by abandoning him is a cowardly act on their behalf. Only for the shepherd who is his savior rescues the baby to bring happiness to another King and Queen who also fall into the fate of Apollo by not being honest with him on who he was and where he came from. As a young adult, Oedipus falls into the same trap believing in the prophecy set forth by Apollo. His prophecy may have never come true if he did not believe in the supernatural like his biological parents.