The encounter at the crossroads in Sophocles'<i>Oedipus Tyrannus</i>

Gregory, Justina

doi:10.2307/631650

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Oedipus himself admits, he moved one step further in the escalation of violence. "He paid not an equal but a greater payback (810) (13) ." The penalty Laius paid was greater than the outrage he had committed.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

^|^ldquo;Not an equal, but a greater payback^|^rdquo;

Kitano

2013

CTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I examine the character of Oedipus' action narrated on the stage, namely, the Vorgeschichte of the stage action. Two realms of action are considered separately:first, Corinth and Delphi, where the words of the drunk at the banquet was at issue, and second, the crossroads, where fatal meeting between Laios and his young son occurred.As for the first realm, I argue that what the drunk said was not only false, but implied a grave abuse against the assumed mother of Oedipus, Merope, and Oedipus had good intellectual and moral reason for not taking him seriously and not connecting Pythian oracle with the libel.As for the second, I argue that his story of the crossroads is full of indeterminacies which made it impossible to determine the culpability of his action. What is more, whether Oedipus was morally culpable or not is irrelevant to the tragic outcome at the crossroads as far as he followed the principle of exceeding, one of the basic virtues of the heroic tradition.However, to conclude that it is this heroic principle of exceeding that is denounced in this tragedy because it is inconsistent with the democratic principle of classical Athens is to oversimplify the matter implied in this tragedy. This principle was still felt positively for a spectator who could imagine himself to be in such a situation as a crossroads where it is not sure one can rely on any legal authority. Oedipus was, in this sense, "like us" and that is why his fall caused "pity" of the spectator.

show abstract

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

^|^ldquo;Not an equal, but a greater payback^|^rdquo;

Kitano

2013

CTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Without any provocation, two of them, probably three, try to shove him off the road as if he were a slave (cf. Gregory 1995). I say "probably three" because, as Dawe (1982Dawe ( :174 = 2006 showed, the ἡγεμών and the driver are almost certainly different persons (the former being the herald, who evidently walked ahead of the carriage and who was the first person Oedipus saw) and both of them, as well as "the old man himself", are described as trying to push Oedipus aside.…”

Section: Alan Sommersteinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sófocles y la culpabilidad de Edipo

Sommerstein

2011

Cuad. Filol. Clas. Estud. Griegos e Indoeur.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article, in response to Harris (2010), reconsiders whether Oedipus, on his own account in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus (798-813) of his encounter with Laius, would have been regarded by fifth-century Athenians as legally guilty of homicide (either wilful or unwilful), and concludes that he would not, because he was responding to a potentially lethal attack. There is no inconsistency between the treatment of this issue in Oedipus Tyrannus and its treatment in Oedipus at Colonus.Key words: Sophocles, Oedipus, homicide, law, Athens RESUMENEste artículo, en respuesta a Harris (2010), replantea la cuestión de si Edipo, a partir de su propia narración del enfrentamiento con Layo en el Edipo Rey (798-813) de Sófocles, habría sido considerado legalmente culpable de homicidio (voluntario o involuntario) por los atenienses del siglo V, habida cuenta de que su acción era la respuesta a una agresión potencialmente letal, y se llega a la conclusion de que no lo sería. No hay ninguna incoherencia entre el tratamiento de este asunto en Edipo Rey y en Edipo en Colono.

show abstract

“…29 Griffith 1992: 200 and1996: 49. 30 Gregory 1995: 145. See Schmitt 1988: 22 on the importance to Oedipus of avoiding shame.…”

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

A.2. Apollo and his purpose in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus

Lawrence

2010

SHT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apollo actively intervenes in the fulfilment of Oedipus' destiny through oracles and immanently in the onstage action. Rather than to punish him for any offence, the god's purpose appears to be to impress upon Oedipus his existential insignificance. In the context of an ordered but absurd universe, Sophocles emphasises the paradox of the moral greatness of a man whose 'official' existential value is less than zero.With the partial exception of Athena in the Ajax, Sophocles' gods are largely inscrutable. In no play is this inscrutability more problematical than in the Tyrannus, and the resulting difficulties for the interpreter are well stated by R. Parker (1999), who warns us about drawing inferences where the poet is silent.Sensitive critics have always been struck by these silences of Sophocles' text, of which the most famous is doubtless the apparent silence in Oedipus Tyrannus about the ultimate motivation for the destiny prophesied for Laius and Oedipus. In a sense the central problem for any study of Sophocles' presentation of the divine is that of responding to these silences: at all events, it is at this point that the paths of even the best critics diverge. Does Sophocles leave the divine will unexplained because to reason about it would be a distraction from the true human centre of the plays? Or is the point rather the ultimate incomprehensibility to mortals of the divine world? And if so, if the ways of the gods are incomprehensible, is that because those ways are good, but human comprehension weak? Or because mortals seek justice where none is to be found? 1 Apollo never appears in person in the Tyrannus, though he declares his condition for the salvation of Thebes in the oracle that requires the discovery of Laius' killer while he predicts the parricide in the original oracle to Laius and both the parricide and the incest in the later oracle given to Oedipus. More controversy surrounds whether Apollo (A) merely declares Oedipus' destiny 2 or (B) positively activates it through the circumstances of the various oracles and perhaps also by intervening further during the course of the onstage action. Then there is the question of the god's overall purpose. Does he actively will the destiny he predicts? -which would seem more likely in the case of (B), though not excluded on either scenario. Further, if Apollo wills and approves of Oedipus' destiny, is he motivated by a hostile desire to punish him, as Athena punishes Ajax -and, if so, for what actual or foreseen 3 offence? -or out of

show abstract

The encounter at the crossroads in Sophocles'Oedipus Tyrannus

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

^|^ldquo;Not an equal, but a greater payback^|^rdquo;

^|^ldquo;Not an equal, but a greater payback^|^rdquo;

Sófocles y la culpabilidad de Edipo

A.2. Apollo and his purpose in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About