Oedipus the King: A Model Reflection of
Classical Ideology
Chanchal Chauhan
Every
work of art and literature
reflects the ideas of a dominant class prevalent in the time and place
of an era. The classical
literature reflects the ideology of the ruling classes of the age in
which
these were created. The social system of the age was known as the
master-slave
society. The world-view reflected in all the works of those days may be
termed
as classical ideology. The essence of this ideology can be understood
by
comparing ‘Classicism’ and ‘Romanticism’ as done by T E Hulme who
explained the difference between the two
by saying that classicism teaches us, ‘man cannot transcend his
limitations’
while romanticism revolts against this ideology of the ruling classes
who try
to keep the slaves under their control by teaching them the philosophy
of
‘fate’ and determinism that form the core of this ideology. Romanticism
liberates mankind from from all kinds of shackles created by rulers in
a class society. We see that Prometheus is bound in Aeschylus's play
while he is liberated in Shelley's Prometheus Unbound Any hero or heroine
of the classical literature who attempts to transcend the given destiny or role assigned by fate
ultimately falls. All the plots of that age were woven round this message, be it
the story of Icarus, Prometheus or Oedipus. Later, we find the same ideology
was adopted by ruling classes during the Christian era too. It gradually took
the shape of the theory of ‘the chain of being’ by the time of Bolingbroke and
given a crude poetic form by a neo-classical English poet, Alexander Pope in the 18th century The
writers of English creativity such as Shakespeare, Marlowe and even Milton
based their works on this philosophy of classicism that man cannot transcend
his limitations. All the tragic figures of these writers fall because they try
to transcend their limitations, be it Dr. Faustus, Hamlet or Adam and Eve of the Paradise Lost
The superstructure created by the
ruling classes of the Greek civilisation instilled fear in the minds
of their subjects that every body has a predetermined role to play in the
universe. Any person who tries to violate that established system has to suffer
and meet a tragic end. Sophocles is not above this ideology of his age and
creates a plot asserting the ethos set up by the rulers of the
civilisation.
Other critics treat this social aspect as ‘the work of fate’. Every thread of
the story is woven in such a way as reinforces the message of the classical
ideology that man cannot transcend his limitations. The oracle had told Oedipus's
parents early of their son's fate. The parents tried their best to transcend
those limitations that their son carried since his birth. To save themselves
from the ignominy and their subjects from any miasma they planned to do away
with the child so that the oracle may not prove to be right. They do not know
that their plan would fail and all that would happen which was destined to be. The first
attempt of the parents failed. When Oedipus later heard of his fate, he too
decided to transcend his limitations and ran away only to return to the
clutches of his predetermined destiny at Thebes, his birth town. Oedipus finds
out later that his actions only pushed him to commit the same sins that were
bound to happen. So there was no escape. It is reflective of the norms of a
slave society of Sophocles’s age when a slave had no way out to escape the
clutches of his masters.
Some critics hold the view that the
story; however ultimately has no moral lesson. Those who look at the text from
formalist angle may find that the working of fate restores order. It is, in
fact, an assertion of classical ideology as we see that human beings tried to
change the fate of Oedipus, but failed. Oedipus failed in the same way as
Icarus failed and fell. Prometheus tried to transcend the limitations, he too
invites the wrath of the masters of his destiny.. The classical literature
needs be explained from this angle too.
The Question of Justice in Oedipus
the King
If we look at the story of the play,
Oedipus the King, we may rightly think that there was no justice done
and man is treated just a tool in the hands of some invisible force known as
fate. King Laius and Queen Jocasta, shudder to hear the prophecy of the
Delphic oracle, so they had the young Oedipus left on Mount Cithaeron to die.
In Greek society, killing a blood relation and committing incest were the most
heinous sins that, according to a common belief, could lead to some kind of
horrifying miasma such as the darkening of the sun or fall of stars or any
other kind of such disaster affecting the well-being of the whole population.
The parents of the child, therefore, try to save themselves and their subjects
from this future disaster that was destined to happen if the child lives and
grows in the family. From modern outlook, this was but natural to avoid a
disastrous consequence. However, the classical ideology was given the artistic
form to justify the ways of gods to men. In reality, the attempt of the writers
of the classical age was to justify the class rule of masters over the slaves.
The fate in Sophocles’s play leads Oedipus to the destiny
carved out by his fate. He was destined to kill his father and thus the sin is
committed without knowing what he did and then without knowing the reality he
marries his own mother. Oedipus, seemingly a good person, thus, commits the
sins as were told by Delphic oracles and he is not aware of those sins. The
original sin was committed by King Laius and Jocasta who deliberately attempted
to let their child Oedipus die. It was, of course, done to save the whole
community from any future catastrophe in the form of any miasma, but the sin,
however, was committed. If Thebes suffers, it may equally be because of the
sins committed by King Laius. But Sophocles does not employ ambiguity;
classical ideology forces him to lead Oedipus the king to the tragic end. If he
does any wrong, it is his attempt to escape the destiny predetermined by fate.
In the slavery system one is supposed to surrender to the will of masters. It
is during the Elizabethan period, the era of rising capitalism that this type
of justice was lamented upon, ‘As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods,/They
kill us for their sport.(Shakespeare, King Lear Act 4,
scene 1, 36–37) or in 19th century by Thomas Hardy at the end of his
famous novel, Tess of the d’Urbervilles (“Justice” was done, and the
President of the Immortals (in Aeschylean phrase) had ended his sport with
Tess.)
Some
critics labour hard to prove Oedipus's guilt. According to them
Oedipus was the most guilty of them all. They find in him a tendency of
considering himself as almost a god, assuming that since he alone had solved
the sphinx's riddle, he was the one of the gods' favorites. He was all
the time impetuous to judge, and be judged on his own terms. They allege
that he calls on Tiresias to tell him what he should do, and when he doesn't
like what he hears, Oedipus says, ‘Your words are nothing – futile’, and
accuses Creon of plotting with Tiresias to hatch a plan to overthrow him. These
accusations go against Aristotle’s theory of tragic hero who has to be noble
one and only then he can arouse pity and fear leading to catharsis. Aristotle based
his theory on the elements of this very play and treated it as a model.