Essay About Oedipus Tyrannos And First Example Of Unconscious Irony

Oedipus the KingOedipus the KingSophocles uses a mixture of both visual and emotional imagery to create the morally questioning Greek tragedy ‘Oedipus Tyrannos’. He presents the audience with an intense drama that addresses the reality and importance of the gods that the Greeks fervently believed in. “Sophocles holds that for mortals, modesty is the safest and most decent frame of mind. His gods will not abide our question” (Sheppard, 46). The play also forces the audience to ask themselves if there is such a concept as fate. What Oedipus does, what he says, and even who he is can sometimes be ironic. This irony can help us to see the character of Oedipus as truly a blind man, or a wholly public man.

From the very beginning of Oedipus, it is made clear “that his destiny be one of fate and worse.” “His religious scruples, his obedience to the oracle, his patriotic energy, destroy him.” (Sheppard, 69) The irony is that Oedipus unknowingly and repeatedly predicts his own fate: “It was I who called down these curses on that man” (Sophocles, 8). Oedipus unconsciously married his mother and killed his father, just as the Oracle predicted. Fate is proven to be unavoidable to Oedipus as the play shows a devout belief in the Greek gods. The gods are shown to have power over everything and everyone, and whoever ignores them will be cursed by the “darts no one escapes”. Oedipus is someone who is seen to have ignored the Gods’ warnings and therefore has brought a curse upon himself. Does Oedipus deserve his pitiful destiny and if it was so pre-decided, then why? It was yet again the God’s powers.

One of the dramatic devices used in this play is Sophoclean Irony. Sophoclean Irony can be divided into two terms: unconscious and conscious irony. Unconscious irony occurs when a character speaks what he believes is the truth, but the audience (fore-armed with knowledge of the truth) knows that it is not. Conscious irony is evident when a character knows the truth but is reluctant to reveal it: thus, he speaks cryptic lines deliberately intended to be ironic. Our first example of unconscious irony can be seen in a discussion about Laius by Oedipus and Creon. Oedipus says about Laius: “I know: I learned of him from others: I never saw him.” This passage constitutes unconscious irony as Oedipus believes that he is speaking the truth – that he never met Laius. Of course, the audience, armed with fore-knowledge, know that it is not. Oedipus not only has met Laius (his real father), he killed him at the crossroads “where three highways meet.”

Our first example of conscious irony occurs later in scene I. Again, following Creons advice, Oedipus decides to consult Tiresias, a famed blind prophet. Armed with mystical ability, Tiresias knows the truth about Oedipuss horrible fate. He knows that the King is doomed so he is reluctant to reveal what he knows. As he enters the stage, the old man says: “How dreadful knowledge of the truth can be when there is no help in truth. I know this well, but did not act on it. Else I should not have come.” (Sophocles) Since he knows how horrible the truth is about Oedipus fate, he is reluctant to reveal it. Thus, he speaks lines deliberately intended to be ironic

It may be difficult to avoid pitying Oedipus. Despite his obvious sins, he is shown to be a respectable and honest man: “I bear more pain for the people than for my own soul”. Sophocles uses irony to increase your growing pity for Oedipus as he searches for the ‘abomination’ that is soon to be revealed as none other than himself: “That man must reveal himself to me”. (Sophocles) A great irony is found in Oedipuss decree condemning the murderer. Oedipus says, “To avenge the city and the citys god, / And not as though it were for some distant friend, / But for my own sake, to be rid of evil. / Whoever killed King Laius might – who knows? – / Decide at any moment to kill me as well.” Later he says, “As for the criminal, I pray to God – / Whether it be a lurking thief, or one of a number – / I pray that that mans life be consumed in evil and wretchedness.” (Sophocles)

It is after these proclamations that the truth is slowly revealed to a “blind” Oedipus. The theme of sight, true sight, and blindness also contains much irony. The first instance of this is in the scene between Teiresias and Oedipus. Teiresias plainly says, “You mock my blindness? But I say you, with both your eyes, are blind.” (Sophocles) Oedipus, who saw plainly the riddle of the Sphinx, who is a great ruler over the city of Thebes, cannot see his own fate and his own life for what it is. He is trying to keep Oedipus from the truth because he knows the pain that will ensue afterwards. When Oedipus gouges out his own eyes, the difference between visual sight and insight is clearly represented:

Then, he adds, to some other effect, those who have not yet attained the perfection of perfection in vision have the power to make a complete error in seeing the real thing. The reason it might be, Teiresias says, is because they have no previous access to vision such as is supposed to be lacking in the mind of a person of the same sex. But this does not mean they lack this prior knowledge. (Sophocles)

It was only through a blindness that he heard the words of the Sphinx, which Teiresias explains, &#8380

Tesphinx:

The Sphinx has in his hands some things which he wishes to explain. (Sophocles)

Tesphinx, as I suppose, told us, when he had a vision of the Sphinx, he wished to show us the way, to show us the things which Teireias has shown us, and give us, as to the knowledge which he now possesses, to the way which we now know. And now as I said in another chapter, Teiresias himself is a man who cannot be blind, and who can see nothing else. This is the point at consideration here: what Teireias saw, though I still doubt if his vision was not as good as we ought to. The idea that the very person made of stone and wood is in some sense a stone stone is a general misconception. However, the very persons made of stone and wood make of stone and with a little knowledge of the structure, and see in other ways than the one I had before. In speaking of one thing only, and of the whole of human things, Teiresias is talking about the individual. By this he makes one of two things clear. If he had not lived there for ten thousand years, he would know not only the condition of people, as the people living there have been for many thousands or even millions of years, and who are not blind. If he had lived there for ten thousand years he would know them and understand them better than they understand humans. But he would not then know and understand the individual’s condition; and of this type of generalization his opinion of human conditions is so much less correct. The other generalization (that of Teiresias) is that it implies the individual without knowledge of his state. Teiresias could not then be of any opinion about the fact that a human person is of no type of general. But the general opinion which he was expressing is in effect