An Analysis of Oedipus Rex
... requests that he be exiled, which Creon grants him. The previous section is a very brief synopsis of the story, which is necessary in order to put the facts into a context in which they can be understood and analyzed. The facts that are beyond dispute are mostly ones that we witness in the action of the play. Oedipus is the King of Thebes and Thebes is experiencing a horrible famine at the opening of the play. But the next action of the play is not without doubt as to whether it happened. The role of Creon in all three plays is one in which his motives are very questionable. In Antigone, he become a tyrant in the modern day sense and rules the city-state for the sake of himself, a heinous act for an Athenian reader of Sophocles. In Oedipus at Colonus, Creon lies and attempts to deceive Oedipus, when that does not work he tries to forcefully kidnap Oedipus’ daughters Antigone and Ismene. Therefore when read in conjunction with the other plays and the whole Oedipus story, the initial reaction of Oedipus to blame Creon when he is accused of the murder of Lauis does not seem so irrational. It is possible that Creon never went to the Oracle at Delphi. Maybe Creon despite what he says does yearn for sole control of Thebes. Oedipus’ first reaction is a political one, that there is a plot to take the throne away from him, this knee-jerk reaction seems to suggest that scheming from the throne was not unheard of and maybe even a constant threat. Therefore if Creon yearned for the throne, he could have used this plague on Thebes in order to stage a revolt without ever having to lift a sword. It only took, beside himself, three other people to convince Oedipus that he had killed his father and married his mother. It is possible that Creon could have manipulated the events to capture the throne. This is not to say that Oedipus did not kill his father and marry his mother, but only to observe that it is possible that Creon did not go to the oracle and used the power of the Oracle to capture the throne of Thebes by setting a trap to make Oedipus expose himself. After all, it is not the act of killing his father and marrying his mother that causes him to lose the throne, but the fact that it was revealed in public. Therefore the fact that Creon went to the Oracle is only an assumption, a probable fact at best. This assumption also determines in what light you look at the characters of Tiresias, the messenger and the Shepherd. If they were part of a plot by Creon to seize the throne, their actions become seen in a different light and the facts of the play become much different. There is no one to substantiate the messenger saying that Polybus is dead and only the shepherd can substantiate the tale of finding Oedipus at Mount Cithaeron and giving him to Polybus. Therefore if you doubt the credibility of the messenger or the shepherd then the entire story is thrown into flux. What if the shepherd killed the child and left the palace because he could not stand the fact that a parent would kill a child for a prophecy that was false. If the child could be killed, then there was no reason to kill the child because then the prophecy was untrue. It is a probable fact that Jocasta and Lauis tried to have their first-born son killed. Jocasta admits as much and seems to have no reason to lie and the shepherd and the messenger seem to validate that story. Jocasta could have been making up the story to calm Oedipus’s fear, but that appears to be highly unlikely considering the other facts of the story. It is a probable fact that Oedipus did kill Lauis and that Lauis was his father. While it is technically possible for an event like the killing of Lauis to have happened twice at the crossing of three roads, it is highly unlikely. The shepherd left the palace as soon as Oedipus came, Oedipus admits killing a man that fits the description of Lauis and at the exact place and the approximate time that Lauis would have been there. Therefore it is very likely that Oedipus did in fact kill Lauis. It is also a probable fact that Lauis was Oedipus’ father, assuming that Jocasta was not having affairs. Although there is a possibility that the shepherd and messenger are lying, it seems there were rumors that Oedipus was not the King of Corinth’s true son, in Corinth before he fled. Oedipus did have scars on his ankle that indicate he may have been tied up as a child, as the child of Lauis was tied up. Both the messenger and the Shepherd have the same story and absent a Creon plot, it is unlikely that they would get together and concoct a lie. Oedipus also seems to be the right age. Therefore it is a probable fact that Oedipus is the son of Lauis, although there is less evidence that he is the son of Lauis than that he killed him. If it is true that Lauis is his father than it is true that Jocasta is his mother and there is no doubt that they were married and bore children together. It is a fact that Oedipus blinded himself when he saw the body of his wife. It is very clear that he took pins and repeatedly stuck them in his eyes. In Oedipus at Colonus, there is little doubt that Oedipus is blind. The fact that Oedipus is blind gives credence to the story of Tiresias, who prophesized that as a result of his actions Oedipus would walk out of the city blind. As important as what the facts actually are, is why the facts happened. Part and parcel with determining why events happened is determining who, if anyone, is responsible for certain events. There are two distinct parts to analyzing why the key events of the story happen. The first part is examining why the prophecy was fulfilled, in other words, who is responsible for Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother. The second part is why did all the facts came out when they did, or who is responsible for the way the facts came out and their consequences. While whole books could be written about this subject, there are a few main points in which this paper will focus on. The first part in analyzing the reason for Oedipus’ killing of his father and marrying his mother is deciding if Oedipus is responsible for his actions or if the gods demanded that this happen and Oedipus was an unwilling actor in this part of the story. In Oedipus at Colonus, Oedipus absolves himself of all guilt in his offences first claiming self defense saying “the man I murdered- he’d murder me! I am innocent! Pure in the eyes of the law.”( ln. 615) Then later in the ...