Oedipus, defined through paradoxes and archetypes.
...rom the plague. Although Oedipus does not die for the good of his people, his character is sacrificed. Oedipus slowly discovers the truth behind his fate through his wife and mother Jocasta; this discovery is the evidence that leads to Oedipus becoming the sacrificial scapegoat. Jocasta comes into the scene and Oedipus tells her that Teiresias said he was responsible for killing Laius. When this is said Jocasta tries to reassure Oedipus by telling him the story behind Laius' death, at a place where three roads meet. This is where the evidence of Oedipus as an archetypal sacrificial scapegoat begins. The killing of his father happened on his quest, and Oedipus carried out his fate while trying to avoid it. Therefore, when Jocasta explains to him why she thinks it is impossible for him to have killed Laius, things are becoming devastatingly clear to Oedipus. Jocasta says, "An oracle came to Laius from the Pythian Priests that he would die at the hands of his child and mine. Yet the story we heard was that the robbers murdered Laius in the place where three roads met," (Sophocles 17). Both Oedipus’ life and his kingdom were filled with riddles, paradoxes, and mysteries. Oedipus’ beginning and ending at Thebes both happened from the riddle of the oracle. Without his parent’s confrontation with the oracle, Oedipus would not have been cast away from Thebes in the first place. Yet without the riddle of the sphinx, Oedipus would not have arrived at his royal position. In a way, the riddles represent a much more broader and significant part of man’s trials. Oedipus’ own encounter with the sphinx shows his insight upon life. Oedipus is an example for man from all his experiences in each stage: early childhood, mid-life climax, and downfall after tragedy. He gains knowledge into the definition of life at each step. Although it may seem universal for all men to live through this cycle, Oedipus’ dealings with riddles also plague him with tragedy, ignorance, and innocence. When Oedipus finally admits to the murder of a man resembling Laius, he is quite clear about one thing. No one survived; he killed the old man and his entire party. Yet he never questions the discrepancy, and accepts that the slave who escaped is telling the truth. Thus a central paradox: if Oedipus is telling the truth, the witness is lying; if the witness is telling the truth, Oedipus cannot be Lauis's murderer. This feature of the tragic hero as exemplified in Oedipus makes the tragic character a great paradox. Unlike most, the tragic hero emerges as anything but a social person. He apparently may begin that way, seemingly motivated by a genuine desire to help the community. What emerges in the course of the action is that he is actually far more concerned with his own sense of himself, his own demands for justice on his own terms. Like any other man, Oedipus also has certain character flaws. At times, he shows too much arrogance. He believes that he is able to understand and conquer all, yet this may be one of the reasons for his downfall. In combination with this flaw, one finds ignorance in him too. Oedipus unknowingly curses himself when he speaks of punishment for the murderer. He also blindly accuses Creon of being an enemy, “You’re quick to speak, but I am slow to grasp you, for I have found you dangerous, and my foe.” (Sophocles 32). In both these situations, he acts without evidence. Even though he commits these violations when he is hot-headed, he displays irrational thought, something everyone can do at one time or another. However, Oedipus is quite different. He is acting in the interests of the community, but his primary motivation does not come from any sense of ethical correctness or accepted norms of behaviour. He answers only to himself, and he is not willing to compromise his quest for the truth in the name of any social principle that others, like Creon or Jocasta, m...