Oedipus Tyrannus Research Articles

Oedipus and the Fabrication of the Father: Oedipus Tyrannus in Modern Criticism and Philosophy

Oedipus and the Fabrication of the Father: Oedipus Tyrannus in Modern Criticism and Philosophy

Oedipus and the fabrication of the father: Oedipus tyrannus in modern criticism and philosophy

Oedipus and the fabrication of the father: Oedipus tyrannus in modern criticism and philosophy

The argument of the second stasimon of Oedipus Tyrannus

The Second Stasimon of Oedipus Tyrannus has over the years drawn forth many divergent interpretations. So Carey's recent attempt to clear the cluttered paths towards it of accumulated debris must be warmly welcomed. We may now regard it as untenable to see criticism of Oedipus behind the reference to tyranny. We should not look for hostile comment upon Jokasta and Oedipus for what they have said in the preceding scene about the Laius oracle. At 873, we should accept the paradosis, recognising that it is not impossible for the word τύραννος to mean ‘tyrant’ in tragic texts. We should reject Scodel's attempt to introduce the idea of stasis into the argument, and interpret ὔβρις φυτεύει τύραννον as an account of what motivates the tyrant to take power (cf. Bacchylides 15.59–60 [Snell] and A. Ag. 1346f, 1612f., 1633 for this idea4).

Disauthorizing Prophecy: The Ideological Mapping of Oedipus Tyrannus

Our starting point is the story of how Themistocles tried, at first without success, to convince his fellow Athenians that victory against the Persians lay in sea power. In Plutarch's life (10.1), we are told that he lost hope of bringing them over by rational arguments (&AvOpcoivoit Xoyiagoi?), and resorted to signs from heaven and prophecies (arlgeixc 8ugo6vux wi c xpqtoFo), contriving machinery as someone would in performing a tragedy (&$)airp ?V tpoycp&a Flxvi v pa). The statesman, frustrated by the failure of rational discourse, finds success in theatrical smoke and mirrors, Themistocles probably not the first and certainly not the last. The story illustrates the power of non-rational over rational representation and uses theater as its most apt metaphor. I invite you to imagine, if you will, a sophist-someone like Critias or Gorgias or even, perhaps, Protagoras or Socrates-sitting in the theater of Dionysus during a not altogether dissimilar representation: the enactment of Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus. Imagine his sense of futility in the face of this powerful anti-sophist statement. Imagine his frustration at lacking the chance to respond in a social context equally inclusive, equally compelling. I should like to take that frustrated sophist's part today, respectfully disregarding, for the while, the many other valid ways there may be to read Oedipus Tyrannus. I shall, of course, be adding a particular contemporary perspective. That is inevitable. But in this case it is also deliberate. Deliberate, for two reasons. First, because when I reflect on the particular contemporary perspective I am least uncomfortable with, and look for something like it in the age of Sophocles, I find myself sitting with that frustrated sophist in the theater of Dionysus. And second, because that play is of course still read, still held in highest esteem in the courts of aesthetic judgment, still firmly fixed in the canon of those texts we wish the well-schooled to have read, and that, not as historical museum piece merely, but because it still delivers a message we think it valuable to hear.

Language, Oedipus, and Chinatown

What the detective story represents, of which social formations and tendencies it is the expression, this we all know.... [It embodies] certain aspects of bourgeois ideology ..., serving as one of the most pointed forms of expression of private-property ideology (Eisenstein 128). [Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus] portrays the gradual discovery of the deed of Oedipus, long since accomplished, and brings it slowly to light by skillfully prolonged inquiry, constantly fed by new evidence; it has thus a certain resemblance to a course of psychoanalysis (Freud 340).

Addressing Oedipus

In Oedipus Tyrannus the other characters regularly call Oedipus ‘tyrannos’. My question is what we should call him. Etymologically the obvious translation is tyrant. But the word tyrant suggests a wickedness of heart, or at any rate a total disregard for the wishes of others, that is far from characteristic of the Oedipus that Sophocles portrays. Moreover Oedipus was elected ‘tyrannos’ and refers to his post as ‘tyrannis’. These are two further obstacles since no-one purposely chooses a tyrant to rule over them and in English tyrantship is not a plausible name for a government office. For these reasons – or so one imagines – translators and commentators avoid the etymological derivative. But they do not pursue the logic of usage to the point of adopting any of the standard modern terms for an elected head of state such as president. Instead the title they confer on Oedipus, virtually without exception, is king.

The Endless End of the Oedipus Rex

In a recent paper I have studied the power play of notions such as tukhē (‘chance’) and telos (‘finality’) in the Oedipus Tyrannus, and in particular I have tried to show how these two principles are responsible for shaping different and overlapping narratives in the text. While the narrative of telos corresponds broadly speaking to the voice of Apollo the Father, the narrative of tukhē accommodates itself in the void and absence of the Father's voice. The encroachment of these two narratives upon one another not only outlines different visions of paternity—which is the central theme in the play—but also creates suspense and imprints an indecisive direction into the action of the play. In particular the narratives spun around tukhē, i.e. those that emphasize the mere accidentality of events, their mere human causation without any ultimate goal, resist the teleological thrust of the play, its divine finality—the necessary accomplishment of the oracles and of the prophecies— and accordingly also the ‘closure’ of the play. By closure of the play I understand the end of the play in accordance with the teleological premises that have been created during the action.

The Oedipus Papers

ABSTRACT This book is a series of 27 chapters by almost as many authors dealing with the various aspects and interpretations of the Oedipus complex. As is fitting, it begins with a part of Freud's Interpretation of Dreams. Freud himself as well as others felt that the Oedipus complex formed the cornerstone of the foundations of psychoanalysis itself. Evidence of this view actually arose when Freud wrote to Fleiss about a year and a half after the death of Fleiss' father and subsequently wrote about it in the Interpretation of Dreams in 1900. In his readings Freud had come across Sophocles' three works on Oedipus, Antigone, Oedipus Tyrannus, and Oedipus at Colonus. The main thrust of Freud's thinking was on Oedipus Tyrannus.To most people the story of Oedipus is simple. He was an infant who was abandoned by his parents, was adopted into another family, reached manhood, and subsequently killed

On the Text of Sophocles "Oedipus Tyrannus" 1524-30

1The scholiast ad 1523 asserts a-rdprco; exet i-b 6paLa. r yp dvotreta, yva. lines are rejected by, e.g., Franz Ritter, Zu Sophokles tragSdien, Philologus 17 (1861) 422-436, at 424-428, and Sophokles' K6nig Oidipus (Leipzig 1870); Henricus van Herwerden, ed., Sophoclis Rex (Traiecti ad Rhenum 1866); W. Teuffel, den Schluss des sophokleischen Koenig Oedipus, RhM 29 (1874) 505-509; Franz Mayerh6fer, Uber die Schliisse der erhaltenen griechischen Trag6dien (Erlangen 1908) 16-21; A. C. Pearson, ed., Sophoclis Fabulae (Oxford 1924) (who in his apparatus criticus cites the similar judgment of Bruhn); Oddone Longo, Sofocle: Edipo Re (Florence 1972). lines are defended by: P. W. L. Graffunder, den ausgang des 'K6nig Oedipus' von NJbb 132 (1885) 405; William M. Calder III, Oedipus Tyrannus 1515-30, CP 57 (1962) 219-229, at 225 f.; Walter PStscher, Sophokles, Oidipus Tyrannos 1524-30, Emerita 38 (1970) 149-161, at 161; D. A. Hester, Very Much the Safest Plan or, Last Words in Antichthon 7 (1973) 8-13, at 11 f.; Brian Arkins, The Final Lines of Sophocles, King (1524-30), CQ NS 38 (1988) 555-558. original ending of the play might conceivably have been at 1523, although the absence of closing words by the Chorus makes that seem uxnlikely. (Cf., however, Soph. Trach. 1264-73, which are unfortunately dogged by a controversy over attribution.) On the conclusions of tragedies, see esp. Deborah H. Roberts, Parting Words: Final Lines in Sophocles and Euripides, CQ NS 37 (1987) 51-64, and Sophoclean Endings: Another Story, Arethusa 21 (1988) 177-196. On the problem of interpolation, see esp. Denys L. Page, Actors' Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Oxford 1934), and the response of Richard Hamilton, Objective Evidence for Actors' Interpolations in

¿Un modelo literario de la descripción de la peste de Atenas?

In this paper the author tries to suggest that behind the Thucydidean description of the pest lies a literary model, the Sophoclean description of the pest at Thebes ( Oedipus Tyrannus ).

Where three roads meet: a neglected detail in the Oedipus Tyrannus

‘There is surely more than geography involved in the extraordinary stress laid in the play on the importance of the branching road.’ So writes the latest editor of Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus, R. D. Dawe, who proceeds to mention the ‘sexual significance … (the junction of the human trunk and legs)’ which ‘people tell us’ is to be discerned behind the references to the cross-roads where Oedipus met and killed his father. Dawe finds it difficult to make up his mind whether quasi-Freudian symbolism is properly to be attributed to Sophocles, and in adopting an equivocal position he cites only one further factor, that ‘the imagery of crossroads is common enough representing a point where a crucial decision has to be made’.

Oral Composition in the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles

A STAGE PLAY is by definition composed for performance by action and elocution. To argue for composition may seem to be arguing for the obvious. The orality of Greek drama, however, if it exists, goes deeper than a mere management of stage conventions. It would mean that what had to be spoken on the Greek stage in the fifth century before Christ was molded in a very special way. There are of course compositional rules common to all drama qua drama. But I shall argue that there were certain rules operating in classic Greek drama which were peculiar to it, and which stage production of later periods from the Hellenistic age to the present has, in the nature of things, been unable to share. The surviving plays have come down to us as texts carefully read, copied, and transmitted over hazardous centuries and now at last printed in books. It is surely as texts that they deserve to be estimated, that is, as creations by authors. So runs the consensus of scholars, critics, translators, and adapters, to whom it would not occur that something like the oralism now accepted as inherent in the Homeric poems would survive in a Greek tragedy and be detectable there, let alone one so tightly constructed as the Oedipus Tyrannus. These plays were written down at the time of composition, else we would not have them. They were composed, so we usually think, with that kind of economy that is expected of the written word, and so rank as literate composition. But suppose the case is more complicated than that? Allowing their share in literacy, does one also perceive a share in preliteracy? Historically speaking, these are admittedly unique productions. It has not occurred to any postclassical playwright to put anything quite like them on stage, or if he has tried this he has failed. Even as we translate, imitate, or adapt, we are aware of our modern distance from them. Could it be that the uniqueness of their nature derives from a uniqueness in their cultural position, poised midway between previous centuries of oral composition and coming centuries of composition? The case for orality as a genre of verbal composition specifically

The Oedipvs of Seneca: An Imperial Tragedy

Aristotle in the Poetics repeatedly turned to the Oedipus Tyrannus for what he believed to be the finest examples of plot, structure, characterisation, and moral content in tragedy. Seneca's Oedipus contrasts with Sophocles' to a quite extraordinary degree; and it is these same elements, so much admired in Sophocles, which in Seneca are handled so differently. It is evident that Seneca was not in any sense trying to emulate Sophocles, or to meet the requirements of tragedy as laid down by Aristotle. What Seneca makes of his plot, characterisation and theme, derives only in the merest externals from Greek dramatic tradition; the nature of this Latin drama springs from sources often personal to Seneca, usually contemporary with him, and certainly Roman. We take the Oedipus as instructive example of Seneca's imperial tragedies, because its unlikeness to the Greek play often called Seneca's ‘model’ is so extreme and to many critics so disconcerting.

The duality and delusion of Calderón's Semíramis

The duality and delusion of Calderón's Semíramis

Errata: The Beauty of the Beast: Presence/Absence and the Vicissitudes of the Sphinx in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus and Oedipus at Colonus

Errata: The Beauty of the Beast: Presence/Absence and the Vicissitudes of the Sphinx in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus and Oedipus at Colonus

The Beauty of the Beast: Presence/Absence and the Vicissitudes of the Sphinx in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus and Oedipus at Colonus

The Beauty of the Beast: Presence/Absence and the Vicissitudes of the Sphinx in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus and Oedipus at Colonus

The Date of the "Trachiniae"

THERE IS NO EXTERNAL EVIDENCE AT ALL for the date of the Trachiniae and no internal evidence that is decisive. The resulting disagreement has been overstated in his own inimitable way by Kitto: About the Trachiniae, naturally, everything has been said, that Sophocles wrote it young, before he had learned his trade, that he wrote it old, when he had forgotten it, and that he did not write it at all.' There seems a consensus that the Trachiniae, in its dramatic form, is less developed than most of Sophocles. I do not intend to review here the arguments that have been adduced in a number of excellent studies,2 except to note that on the basis of them a general presumption of can be claimed, though earliness is a vague term. Johansen, almost twenty years ago, said that writers on Sophoclean style and language, if they discuss chronological problems, are unanimous in assigning an early date to Trach.3 The criterion of style and language did not, at least in Johansen's account, include metrics, and there were later suggestions on metrical grounds that a date near the Oedipus Tyrannus was indicated. But nothing conclusive was claimed for them, and one remembers that previous attempts to establish an earlier date on metrical grounds had likewise proved indecisive.4 In general it can be said that, although internal considerations are not the strongest evidence, still they are all we have and, with most of what weight they possess, they come down on the side of early composition. I am going to suggest in this essay that early composition means ca 450 B.C. First, I shall consider the argument that the Trachiniae's archaic style may be due to deliberate reversion by Sophocles late in his career.

A note on two manuscripts of Sophocles

In my review of R. D. Dawe's Studies in the text of Sophocles (JHS xcvi [1976] 171 ff.), I reached the conclusion that scholars now possess all the information about manuscripts that is needed in order to constitute the text of the Ajax, Electra and Oedipus Tyrannus, subject to two provisos.The first of these concerns the Jena manuscript (Bos. q. 7), a copy written late in the fifteenth century and containing only the first two plays. Reports of interesting readings found in it were given by Purgold in 1802, and since collations were not always undertaken very carefully at that date it seemed worth while to examine the book again to see whether the reports were correct. Thanks to the good offices of the University Library in Jena I was able to collate a microfilm, and am now in a position to state that Purgold did his work well. The interesting readings cited by subsequent editors are correctly reported, and so far as I can see there are no others of striking merit.The other manuscript which seemed to deserve further investigation is in Milan (Ambrosianus E 103 sup.). It is usually assigned to the fourteenth century, and if this date were certain it would not deserve any special attention. In my opinion the script is of a type that must almost certainly be placed before the year 1300, probably c 1275, and in that case the book might be of some interest, since it could be early enough to escape the reproach of offering a text affected by Palaeologan scholars. I have now collated the text from a microfilm kindly supplied by the Ambrosian Library. A very small number of valuable readings came to light.

Oedipus and Teiresias

Research Article| January 01 1975 Oedipus and Teiresias Steven Lattimore Steven Lattimore Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar California Studies in Classical Antiquity (1975) 8: 105–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/25010685 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Steven Lattimore; Oedipus and Teiresias. California Studies in Classical Antiquity 1 January 1975; 8 105–111. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25010685 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentClassical Antiquity Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1976 The Regents of the University of California Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Oracle, Edict, and Curse in Oedipus Tyrannus

Apollo's oracle gives specific instructions concerning the treatment of the murderer of Laius. Oedipus issues an edict of excommunication and bindshimself under a curse. I wish to examine the relationship between these three pronouncements as they occur initially and as they are used throughout the play. The basis of what I have to say is tentative in that it consists in a particular interpretation of Oedipus' addres, 216 ff., and in the assumption that Sophocles employed a distinction between an edict, that is a secular command of the kingas governing authority, and a curse which, once pronounced, is felt to operate independently. However, both the interpretation and the assumption are farfrom arbitrary, and if they are acceptable the resulting analysis reveals whatmight be called Sophocles' creative use of past episodes. The terms of the oraclegive way to an edict of excommunication, and this in turn, becomes the contentof a curse which initially had a different content.