IB English A Literature

In this Bernard Knox’s introduction on Antigone has a kind of summary on the book, I found it very interesting because he helps us get an idea of what we should expect reading Antigone and gives us some background information, most of all the part when he says that people through time has taken Antigone as an example on her rebellion against higher authority because she did not agree and also to protect and defend family, she did what she thought was right. 

this introduction was very helpful and interesting, I agree with most of what Bernard Knox says and the play in general is very interesting.

The tragic hero could not be Creon since during the play he changes his mind. Commonly in Greek history, a hero is someone who sticks to their beliefs. King Creon along the play changes his mind, also, in my opinion, he can not be the hero since he is being a king and whatever he says, must be done. Also, any mistake he made can be solved with an apology, unlike lower class people who would get punished. On the other side, Antigone faces lots of trouble and performs certain actions to do what she thought was correct. She knew the consequences and disagreed with a very important authority. During that period of time, women were the ones responsible to bury their loved ones, and Antigone told herself that she would do it no matter the consequences or actions she had to do.

For the first look, it seems easy to name the main character of the play “Antigone”. The character whose name is giving to the play must be in the center of attention. On the other hand, this play is a strong case where debates can be found, as both characters Antigone and Creon have a tragic hero and main character features. The definition of a tragic hero is a character who is usually destined to die as a result of a fatal error. Antigone stands for her beliefs, she insists on god law. She would give her life for someone she loved. In this case the readers can see Antigone as a classic tragic hero and a clear main character. Later on the play, Creon can be seen as another tragic hero and main character as he fit in this criteria.

Reading Bernard Knox’s essay on Greece and Theater, the readers can notice a lot of information that the author provides us. In my opinion, Knox’s description is remarkably accurate. What I found very interesting how there are different interpretations of Antigone. One of the most interesting is one that pictures Antigone as a strong character who is loyal to her beliefs, as an example she sees the gods as a bigger authority than her king Creon himself. Antigone is willing to bury her uncle despite whoever tries to stop her, even if she has to risk her life.

In ancient Greece, the idea of the theatre is really different from what we call theatre nowadays. Even though today’s theatres has many similarities with the Greek. The easiest example is the difference between special effects, setting, and location.  Ancient Greek theatres had a huge accent on the importance of drama and religion, it was basically based on religious contexts. The plays back in the day were a completely public act, and most of the population of each city assisted. Now, these acts are private, and a very little amount of people get to assist.

The introduction gives a quick summary of the Ideas present later in the book. I think it is really interesting how the use of this play was to complain about the present issues in their city (polis).

Something really interesting is a discussion about morality. King Creon does not want to give Polynices a proper burial. The gods at the same time imply that everyone must receive a proper burial. It is very interesting because nowadays, everyone no matter how bad receive a burial. This decision on the play is particularly dangerous. A king is ordering something while the gods are asking for something else.

This text represents how theater was different for the greeks than it is for us nowadays. Plays were part of religious practice and attending these was some sort of tradition. The point of the plays was to worship the god Dionysus.

Plays were a public and popular act. Most citizens attended and usually the theater was very crowded, thousands of people would attend at the same time. Unlike now, which are pretty private acts.

The text gives a very detailed description of one of the most common traditions of the greek culture. It is really interesting how this tradition has drastically changed over time. Especially how previously it was a religious act and now it is a simple way of entertainment.

I agree that by setting up Antigone as a political context, it will draw attention to the problem of the city-state. Polis was ruled by Creon, his desire to rule came true, but his motives show that he rules for himself as he questions his son’s loyalty and exposing a corpse, this violates the divine law of the gods. I have learned that by setting up a political context it will be made me be aware of political issues in my daily life.

This writing explains that theater back then was different from ours because it was not for entertainment, it was part of a religious festival, attending a greek play was an act of worship. Religion back then was very different than now, attending these plays was worshipping the god Ddionysus, a god who was better known for sexuality and madness, so is very different than god right now.

It was also different because plays were a big thing, when a play was going to happen every citizen was attending, as many as 15,000 people attended, so I think about this and realize that participants of the play had to scream for all the 15,000 people to hear everything and now it is much easier.

Reading this introduction has helped me have an image in my head about how the plays I read were presented, I also have valuable information about the overall greek custom and living.

Within Sophocles’ Antigone, I found his discussion about loyalty particularly thought-provoking. Within the play, the concept of clash that occurs between loyalty towards the state and that towards gods and nature is displayed through a direct scenario: the state law issued by king Creon states that no one is to give a proper burial to the body of Polynices, and the nature and gods law is that everyone deserves a proper burial in order to return to the earth and reach Hades for the next life. The difference in the thoughts of Antigone and Creon is exactly the greater theme of man law against god law embodied in a short play. Sophocles proves he stands on the side of God’s law, which is a representation of the natural cycle of decomposition and the birth of new life, through the ending of the play in which Creon was proved wrong.

In p13 it mentioned Greece is still a “poor country”,  despite the civilization in Greece it is still not enough to make Greece rich. The historian Herodotus quote, “Have always been bedfellows” so nothing can change the fate of Greece’s poverty? I learned that Greece’s history is grim, oftentimes there are fleeing the country.

In the introduction to “Antigone” by Karl Knox, there are lots of different aspects of what he says that I agree with and a lot that I don’t. Th one that stuck out to me the most and that I disagreed with most was when he said that everyone feels sympathy Antigone and that she is the person who we should care for the most. Secondly, he is involving religions and beliefs and that is not for everyone like it used to be.

“It is important to remember this since the natural intinction of all modern readers and playgoers is to sympathize fully with Antigone, the rebel and mater.” [38]

I don’t agree with this because its saying all readers, and as we learnt in TOK, that is generalizing, and so when he does that, it already uses value. Also, it is directed at me because I am a modern reader and it’s saying that I should fully sympathize with Antigone. I do sympathize for her but not for all the reasons that she is upset. I sympathize her for loss of her brother, but not because that he did not get a proper burial. I respect the religions but it is not mine and so I can not relate, and therefore I can not fully sympathize for her. Also, I am also feeling sorrow for Ismene, the sister of Antigone because she had gone through the same thing her sister did, and then her sister was going to put her life out to give their brother a proper burial and so now she not only has one siblings death on her mind, but two.

In Bernard Knox’s introduction to Sophocles’ The Three Theban Plays, he explains the concept of philosophical thought and artistic movements increasing in popularity during Sophocles’ time. You can tell by just briefly reading Sophocles’ work, that these factors had a major impact on his style of theatre. I agree with most of what Knox had to say, however his introduction still doesn’t seem to have a lot of modern concepts, as in, within the last 20 years or so. Close to the beginning of his introduction he refers to Greece as a “poor country” which is no longer economically correct:

… Greece was (and still is) a poor country.(p.13)

Knox followed this quotation by evidence from other Greek writings such as Odysseus and Apollo. However in more recent years,  Greece has a much more steadily increasing economy, making Knox’s statement simply untrue or possibly just out of date.

Knox’s introduction to Antigone gives us a lot of information on what to expect when we begin reading Antigone, he give us a lot of information about Antigone and in which mostly I agree with. For example I do agree with him when he says that Antigone is set in a political context when he says that “Antigone´s dedicated loyalty to the family is, however, more than a private code of conduct; in the context of the fifth-century Athens her challenge to the authority of the city-state and defense of blood relationship had strong political overtones.

Reading Bernard Knox’s essay on Greece and Theater, one particular aspect he mentioned caught interest in me. It was how Greece theaters were established. The theaters were built using stone and marble, opening forwards in a fan shape as well as ascending for audience seats. This design allowed for over 14 thousand people to be able to fit in one of the larger theaters, I must say I found this quite astonishing to be achieved by such an ancient civilization with limited technology.  The fan shape and ascending structure also acted as the amplifier of sound in Greece theaters, allowing the actor’s voices to reach even the furthest of the audience. I was intrigued by the fact that such effort and thought is put into the construction of theaters, merely for an act of entertainment. However, my questions were soon answered, as I found that the Greeks did not view plays and theater as mere entertainment, but also a symbol of community, equality, and gathering. The significance of theaters towards Greek culture made a connection with their effort in theater design and really made a great impact on human culture as a whole considering how similar modern and Greece theater is.

The part that I found the most interesting about in Greece and the Theater by Bernard Knox’s is how he compares artistic achievement and philosophical thought with the concept of theater and then explains that we could never imagine civilized life without plays or theaters. He also explains how plays and theaters first took place in Greece, and then he gives you an introduction to the story of Antigone.

In Bernard Know’s essay on “Greece And The  Theatre, the part I found most interesting was the size of the theatre, focussing more on the fact that its 14 to 15 thousand people attending the plays. It is so hard to imagine what that would be like and what the atmosphere would be like. Putting that amount into perspective would be 2 times the amount of people at a sold out Royals game. I also found that the purpose of the plays were a lot different than what we have. Now, when we watch a movie or a play it is for the purpose of entertainment, but, entertainment for ones self. I think that with the amount of people that would go to the plays for more of a community event or gathering. As there are lots of people there, you would be sitting back farther and it6 would be hard to see. Also, when we go to a play now, the actors can be a lot quieter and they don’t have to yell. We have amplifiers and microphones now and so we can whisper and someone in the back row could hear perfectly. Having so many people attending the play, the actors would have to be very loud and project their voices as much as they can. That would be hard for showing emoting, unless that it was passion or something up beat and then they could really let go. It is hard to imagine what it would be like to be at one of those plays in the front row but I  have a 12 year old sister and so I can kink of imaging and feel their pain.

The introduction to Antigone has a lot of information in it. some of which I agree with other parts not so much. For example it claims that modern readers all feel for Antigone. This may be the case for an audience that is more experienced with reading and has more experiences that would tie into the play. I didn’t quite feel anything towards the play. This might also be due to the way things are now a days, somethings aren’t as important to me as they might have been if I was born in a different time and some things are more important. For example if something happened to someone but they deserved It, that is their fault and I wouldn’t necessarily jump to their rescue.

Greece and the theatre talks a lot how the mountains separate the cities almost completely because it was too hard to travel through in the weather. I find this interesting because the separation caused the towns, that we would no say are pretty close, to have different style and culture. Recently I travelled to Kelowna which took us 5 hours of driving and the behaviours of people and the town was so similar. Thinking that two places that close could be so different seems so foreign to me. The other part of that which I found interesting was that they used to fight with the other cities and to stop that they put a lot of there energy into sports because it was still competition but it was a lot less harmful. We still play a lot of sports however sometimes it causes more hatred between cities. (For example riots after hockey games.) It makes me wonder if we didn’t have competition would we go back to fighting or if it wouldn’t change much since we have technology to keep us entertained.

The essay “Greece And The Theater”, written by Bernard Knox, uncovers the aspects of ancient Greek theater. What interests me reading this essay was that it differentiates from what we call the theater in the modern days. For what we know of theater today, it is mainly for entertainment purposes. With Greek theater, it was part of a religious festival, people would attend as an act of worship. Dionysus, the god of wine, was celebrated through these plays. The fact that there were around fifteen thousand spectators who would attend these plays fascinates me, showing how significant the theater was to civilians. 

For those who are aware of the story about Antigone might be uncertain of my sanity for my statement. Antigone, the brave young girl who does the favor of burying her abhorred brother, Polynices, faces a penalty of paying a price, her life. Creon, as a “stepfather” to Antigone, lends no mercy and demands her death. The tragedy of the beloved character quickly concludes the readers of Creon being the Antagonist. As this conclusion is valid, I see an alternative for this misunderstood character, Creon. Being a king, it is required to obey the law of the state in any case. As for Creon, he strongly believes that Polynices is unworthy of having a proper burial, the reason being his disloyalty by attacking Thebes. Meanwhile, Eteocles who dies fighting for Thebes has proven his devotion to his land and is honored with a proper burial. 

Though Creon’s actions may seem wrong to most, however, these are his morale and he stands by them. In Creon’s eyes, he is doing the right thing to obey the law and do whatever is best for his land. Not honoring a person who betrays Thebes is a proper choice for him to decide. Afterall, Creon has been tormented for his doing, resulting in his son and wife being dead, leaving him with no loved ones by his side. What a pathetic end for Creon. 

In Bernard Knox’s introduction to Sophocles’ Antigone is brief but heavily packed with information. I agree with most said by Knox but what I found most interesting was the mention of Jean Anouilh’s interpretation of Antigone, produced in February of 1944, and how it was connected to what was relevant to that time period. Anouilh’s interpretation was based on World War II as that was going on during that time. The main heroine in Antigone is Antigone herself. In Anouilh’s interpretation of the Greek classic, Antigone is cast as the French resistance.

This is clear from the frequent threats of torture leveled at the heroine…(p.36)

In this quotation, you can see the similarity between the original version of Antigone and Anouilh’s version. The “threats of torture” that is being referred to here can very clearly be found in both versions of the play. I find this connection interesting because I usually do not connect Greek plays to real life events like WWII so you have to have some level of creativity to be able to analyze and connect the two.

I found Bernard Knox’s introduction to the iconic greek tragedy “Antigone” quite very interesting, especially his mentioning of many rebels throughout history projecting Antigone as a symbol of rebellion and standing for rights. An example of this he mentioned was how the play was used to symbolize the French rebellion against Nazi Germany forces during World War Two. Direct referencing to French dramatist Jean Anouilh and his interpretation of “Antigone” helped me gain a clearer understanding of just exactly how significant Sophocles’ play plays on impacting the sole concept of rebellion.

Another interesting point noted in the introduction is how Bernard Knox interprets Antigone’s attitude towards her family. He mentioned that Antigone has only rebelled against Creon because it is for her brother, and not for her husband or child. He mentioned that this is because husband and children could be replaced, while now with both her parents dead, she would never have another brother. This is why she stands so steady on her rebellion, as there would never be another chance to fight for her brother if she turns down at this time.

I agree with nearly everything that Bernard Knox said in the introduction to Antigone. One aspect that I found very interesting was when he talked about how in German occupied Paris in 1944, Jean Anouilh produced his version of Antigone, where Antigone represents the French resistance movement. Antigone represents the French because all of the things that happen to Antigone in the play are exactly the same as what the German Nazi military police did to the French, like the Gestapo would interrogate people, the Nazi military police would expose the executed bodies of French resistance fighters as a deterrent, and the French fascist terror squads, the miliciens, represented Creon’s guards, who had low social origins, were callously brutal, and used vulgar language. The miliciens were even more feared and hated than the Gestapo. It was very clever of him to present the play at this time, because it was a little bit of a revolution against the German occupiers, and they probably did not even realize it.

I would agree with much of what is said in this text except for the part near the beginning where it is mentioned that all modern readers would sympathize Antigone over anyone else. I do say some of that is true but by using the word all, it leaves out any other possible options.

“It is important to remember this since the natural instinct of all modern readers and playgoers is to sympathize fully with Antigone , the rebel and Martyr.” pg 38  (read from introduction)

I can say right now that this is untrue, yes I did feel some sympathy for Antigone but I felt more for Creon. Everyone makes mistakes and he made a big one but he payed well for the price of it. Almost to  much. He feels he has no reason to live and that has to be the worst feeling in the world.

An aspect of Greece and the Theater that I found interesting was when Bernard Knox wrote an ancient civilization reached such heights of intellectual and artistic achievement that every succeeding period of Western culture, from the Roman empire to the twentieth century, has been heavily in its debt, whether acknowledged or not (13). I think he is correct to say this, because the ancient Greeks wrote some of the first plays, and they are plays that people still remember and perform to this day. They also had incredible playwrights, like Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides. What I learned from reading this general introduction is that people had to work really hard to make the Greek theatres, by hauling rock with their bare hands, and that the theatres could hold 14 to 15 thousand spectators.

The first thing i found interesting in this piece of writing is the olive. It is quite neat that they were not only used for food. it reminds me of coconut oil actually because it is used for cooking, and many home remedies.

“The inferior oil from
the second or third pressings served as a sort of soap, rubbed
into the pores and scraped off with a bronze tool, and as a fuel for
the small clay lamps which were the ancient Greeks only re-
source against the darkness.” pg 16

The second thing that was interesting was reading about Dionysus, who was the “life-spirit of all green vegetation” and more then just an aristocratic religious figure, he was a popular.

In my opinion, there are more than one tragic heros in the book “Antigone”. I am going to define “tragic hero” as a person who has suffered from doing something good. The first tragic hero in the story is Antigone. She wanted to bury her brother because she wants to give him a good burial and follow what the law of the gods are, and as a result of doing that, she gets sentenced to death. The second tragic hero in the story was Ismene. She loved her sister and wanted to be with her as she was the only family she had as her father and both brothers died. When Antigone first told Ismene that she was going to bury the body of their brother, she did not go and tell anyone but just tried to get her sister to rethink her choice. When Antigone talked to Creon, and got sentenced to death, she went to Creon and tried to take some of the blame for her sister in order to help her, Creon didn’t listen but then later he changed his mind, but by that time, Antigone had killed herself, and Ismene was left without her sister and family. Antigone would be like a hero from a movie, and Ismene would be a hero who doesn’t wear a cape.

In the play Antigone, I think it does match Aristotle’s description of a tragedy. The viewer is made to feel a lot of pity for Antigone, because Creon will not bury her brother, and also fear about what Creon will do to her after she buries her brother. The conflict which I think best describes Antigone is loyalty to the state vs. loyalty to family, because Creon is the leader of Thebes, but he is also Antigone’s uncle. He makes the rule that nobody is allowed to bury Polynices, and Antigone probably wants to obey him, but she also wants to bury her brother out of respect for him. This seems like a very hard decision for her to make.

In Sophocles’ play Antigone, the protagonist Antigone, daughter of Oedipus is on a mission to bury her brother but her uncle, King Creon, refuses to let her because her brother is not worthy of a proper burial. Creon is much too loyal to his kingdom than to his own family. Near the end of the play, Antigone commits suicide by hanging herself and after seeing the horror of his wife hanging herself, Haemon kills himself too. Creon of course was not at all phased that Antigone, the one who he presumably considers to be troublesome after her attempt at breaking the law he created. however, he also did not seem phased that his only son killed himself. Queen Eurydice, the wife of Creon, however took the death of her only son very personally and also killed herself. In conclusion, in a way, Creon drove almost his entire family to death by being too loyal to the health of his kingdom and his wealth rather than making healthy connections with his family. Morals are usually found in plays, typically in ones surrounding family. In Antigone you can find the main moral being taught is that you may have everything in the world, you may even be a king, but even that will never be enough to survive if you don’t have your family.

The first question I decided to write about is “Can you make the case that Ismene was right, and Antigone wrong?

As soon as we start reading through the story and we get to this part, we might think to ourselves if Ismene right for not helping her sister Antigone, however, there is a strong argument in this question because Ismene is indeed doing the right thing by following the king’s law. But some people may also argue that it was Antigone who was right because of what she wanted to do for his brother.

The second question I chose is Men vs. women. I think that in the story of Antigone there is a huge contrast among the behavior of women and their role in society. Creon believes that men are the main actors and the most important people in society and that women come second, however, Antigone tries to change this opinion and statement acting as one of the most important characters in the story and she challenges men around her.

The main character of the play is Creon, he is the one who has more script and he is the one who controls everything. Creon has a lot of tragedy because all his family dies because of his decisions.

While comparing the law of the state and the law of the gods, in the play Antigone you get a good representation of this, Creon being the one who states the law of not letting anyone burry Eteocles body and Antigone obeying the gods laws being everyone deserve a proper burial and because of her breaking Creon’s law and respecting the gods law she gives his brother’s body a proper burial and she is sentenced to death.

Creon is the main focus of the play, every one reports to him, and we find out most of the information on what is happening that we don’t experience directly from people telling Creon about it. For example when Antigone buries the body, we find out this happens on page (?) because one of the men, from the group that was supposed to be guarding the body, reports the news to Creon. With this in mind, I don’t think he is the most important character in the play. His leadership is anti-climatic and if it wasn’t for the emotion driven action of Antigone and other family members, the play would be extremely boring.  Yes, Creon is the protagonist of the play but he is not the cause for the excitement in the play.

4. Can you make the case that Ismene was right, and Antigone wrong?

Ismene’s rational approach shows that there are alternative methods of solving the issue, by reminding Antigone that their family’s deaths caused their suffering and don’t want to happen again, in her defense, “Now look at the two of us, left so alone…” (s70, p62), hoping that Antigone will come to her senses. Antigone glorifies her actions leading to her death, but in the process, she caused a chain reaction of two more deaths. As we can see here, “And even if I die in the act, that death will be a glory” (s86, p63), she understands her consequences, but never the people around her. Even when her sister questions her actions, in her response, “Why rush to extremes? It’s madness, madness” (s80-81, p62), conveying her concern for her. Despite their differences, Ismene supports her sister as seen here, “Then go if you must, but rest assured, wild, irrational as you are, my sister, you are truly dear to the ones who love you” (s114-116, p64), which shows there are other ways to be loyal. Ismene proves that if Antigone had thought this out, she could prevent her unglorified death along with the others.

The main character of the play Antigone is Creon, Antigone’s uncle. He is an important character because he is a strong king and he enforces his rules. It is hard for him to rule when his whole family dies.

Ai, dead, lost to the world, not through your stupidity, no, my own. [124]

This is Creon weeping and grieving for his dead son and his son’s lover Antigone. Antigone was sent away to a cave to die by Creon. This is harsh but Creon has to enforce his rule. I think that this makes him a stronger character because he faces a lot of adversity and difficulties while he is king.

Who is the tragic hero?

In Antigone, Antigone herself is the tragic hero. By the end of the book, her life, Haemon’s and Creon’s wife all killed themselves. Antigone is the hero because she said herself:

“And even if i die in the act, that death will be a glory”

This is basically her saying that even if she dies while attempting to bury Polenyces then she will still do her best to go through with it.

Oedipus, a book wrote by Sophocles describes the life of Oedipus, a mortal who has to deal with some prophecies.  The character, during the book, makes some mistakes here and there. The first mistake could be how he left his home after hearing the prophecy. The future king had his doubts if his parents were his biological parents, but as he runs away from his home and he didn’t go over or at least think about the situation ( what if the oracle is wrong, or Oedipus misunderstood his words). He just ran away without any second thoughts. Most likely for the readers, the individual misunderstood the prophecy of the oracle, and as a result, he made this come true as sleeping with his own mother and killing his own father. Another mistake we could see through the play is his passionate personal characteristics. Oedipus is acting before thinking without realizing that all actions have consequences. He kills man who was rude to him and married someone’s wife who was way older than a future king. Oedipus is being blind thought the play, that is the common mistake he has made, as he doesn’t realize what he has to do and what is going to be right.

In the play Oedipus the King, the main prophecy that we hear is that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother. This prophecy pretty much determines what will happen to Oedipus, because no matter what you do, you cannot change a prophecy. This is proven through so many stories in Greek mythology, when the hero receives a prophecy and tries to keep it from coming true. It always ends up coming true one way or another, no matter what the hero does. Oedipus panics when the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi gives him this prophecy, and he leaves home right away. The first person who he tells the prophecy to is his wife, Jocasta, who he does not realize is his mother, ” I set out for Delphi, and the god Apollo spurned me, sent me away, denied the facts I came for, but first he flashed before my eyes a future great with pain, terror, disaster- I can hear him cry, “you are fated to couple with your mother, you will bring a breed of children into the light no man can bear to see- you will kill your father, the one who gave you life!” “(p. 216, line 1090). This quote is important because it seems like Jocasta is the first person who Oedipus trusts enough to tell the prophecy to, and this also where he tells her about the man he murdered, who is Laius, but neither of them realize that it was. This is the part of the play where the prophecy really starts to come true.

The answer to this question depends on how you look at the situation, Oedipus killed his father and married his mother not knowing they were his family, so that was not his fault, you may also say it was his destiny because someone predicted what was going to happen before it actually happened making him a cursed man “you are fated to couple with your mother, you will bring a breed of children into the light no man can bear to see- you will kill your father, the one who gave you life!” (P. 205 s. 873-875). Therefore you can say he is a good man because he did not meant to do those things.

There is also another way to see the situation, being he actually killed someone, whoever it was does not matter, so that proves he is nos a good man.

The answer to this depends on what you think is good and bad, I personally think he is a good man, he did not have an idea of the situation and when he found out he felt very bad and guilty, at such extent that he took his eyes out himself “he rips off her brooches, the long gold pins holding her robes-and lifting them high, looking straight up into the points, he digs them down the sockets of his eyes, crying” (page. 237 s. 1402-1405).

In Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, the protagonist named Oedipus is destined to kill his father and marry his mother. As he got older this prophecy began to come true. This prophecy started because Oedipus wants to find the truth about who his parents are. On his way to go see the blind prophet, Tiresias, he kills Laius, His biological father, which causes the prophecy to be true. Tiresias tells him that he knows the truth about who Oedipus’ parents are but wishes he did not, knowing Oedipus is the one who killed Laius, his own father. Later on in the book, Jocasta and Oedipus are talking about an argument Oedipus and Creon got into:

Jocasta: Tell me clearly, how did the quarrel start?

Oedipus: He says I murdered Laius – I am guilty. (p.200)

In this quotation you can see that Oedipus started to second guess himself. He is begining to believe Creon’s prophet. With all the information given to us in the book, it proves the answer to the big question is that the prochecy determines what happens to Oedipus. In Greek stories, typically the prophecies come to be true and they determine what will happen to the mortal and you can see the same happening in the story of Oedipus. However, I think the prophecies both predict and determine what will happen to to the protagonist.

We have started a new poem written by Sophocles called “Oedipus”. The story is about Oedipus, who heard prophesy about him marrying his mother and killing his own father. To avoid it, he runs away from his home town and he ends up in another place where he met a man who was rude to him, so as a real strong man Oedipus killed him. Later on, he married a woman who could be POTENTIALLY (based on her age) his mother. As we can see Oedipus is a great example of doing something without thinking about it. If this young man discusses everything with his parents, as he had doubts if they were his biological parents. If he didn’t just randomly kill an innocent man or married women he knew for the  2 hours the most, students in Gg. 11 wouldn’t have to read and suffer while reading a great ancient Greek famous poem. Oedipus makes lots of mistakes while his journey and life experience, but we all can judge people while looking at them, but what if we were in his place, most likely we wouldn’t act wisely as we think we would.

Oedipus, like most people, does not have any “faults” in his personality or character, but there are certain things that could be seen as a resultant of some of his traits. With every “good” trait, there can be a bad side of that. If you are someone who is very happy all the time, someone could say your personality or characteristics is very happy and bright. If you are always happy, when a situation that requires seriousness, being happy won’t help the situation. One of Oedipus’ traits that can be seen as a “flaw” would be his rash decision making. Oedipus is very rash about what decides and he will jump to the first conclusion that he can see. Oedipus needs to think more about what he concludes to before he does something because he is not just an ordinary man, he is a king. But on the contrary, he does not need a lot of time to come up with an idea and he can act fast and on his feet.

Nothing! You, you scum of the earth, you’d enrage a heart of stone! You won’t talk? Nothing moves you? Out with it. once and for all! [178. 380-383]

Seconds before this state of Oedipus’ temper, he was so kind to Tiresias. All of that changed when Tiresias denied Oedipus the knowledge of what he sees, and he gets called the scum of the earth.

Another one of Oedipus’ traits that could be seen as a flaw is his quick temper. he gets very upset in an instant and he becomes very angry easily. Although this is normally seen as “bad” or a flaw, having a short temper like that can scare others and it could be used as a way to intimidate others. It makes him seem very passionate about such thing and seem like it is “the end of the world” when it goes wrong. This could make people want to do it good and fast and make him not upset, as he is the king.

Throughout the Theban play, Oedipus Rex (or Oedipus the King), the protagonist Oedipus displays a very complex character. His complexity shown very much through his actions in his tales: he kills his father and marries his mother, on top of that giving birth to multiple children. That alone should let him be considered as an antihero, but his character is never limited to that.

In Oedipus Rex, He is undoubtedly a good king. When his country faces plague and disaster, he reacts in such a fashion: “But my spirit grieves for the city, for myself and all of you. I wasn’t asleep, dreaming. You haven’t wakened me—I have wept through the nights, you must know that, groping, laboring over many paths of thought.”(p.162) He genuinely considers for his people and strives to come up with a solution to their problems. When hearing the solution to the problem being to banish the murderer of Laius, he swears to bring prosperity back to the land: “I’ll start again—I’ll bring all to light myself!”(p.167)

However, aside from unknowingly killing his father and perform incest with his mother, he is also easily irritated and unable to trust people. An example of this is when Tiresias refuses to tell the truth, but eventually is made to speak and reveals that Oedipus himself is the killer of Laius. Oedipus is brought to rage and quickly suspects in his mind Creon, whom he had trusted deeply before but immediately turns against for suspicion that Creon is working against him for the throne.

Overall, as previously mentioned, Oedipus’ character is very complex. It would be very hard to settle him definitely as a good or bad man, as it would be for all humans. He does have many wrongs, but these faults do not cover his virtues.

The question that I decided to choose was is Oedipus a good man? The answer to this question may be very con fusing because Oedipus is indeed a good man, however if he is a good man then how come he have killed his father and marry his mother?

Oedipus is the central figure and the tragic hero in the story. His pursuit of knowledge and his fate shape both his own downfall and Jocasta’s. In many ways, Oedipus is a classic hero. As the story Introduces Oedipus, he is very calm trying to find out who killed the previous King of Thebes which was Laius who we know as readers is Oedipus father. Some people may think that Oedipus is not a good man because he is a murderer, however, I believe that he was actually a good man because it wasn’t his intention to kill him, it was his fate and destiny that every child born to Jocasta and Laius was going to grow to kill Laius and marry Jocasta so it wasn’t really his choice to kill him, therefore, Oedipus is a good man.

I believe that prophecies predict rather than describe the future. A prediction means stating what will happen but not explaining it in great detail. How can one describe the future, as it has not happened yet? In the play by Sophocles, Oedipus the King, Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother. That is the prophecy that is predicted by Apollo. Oedipus says this:

Apollo told me once-it is my fate-I must make love with my own mother, shed my father’s blood with my own hands. [216]

This is the prophecy foretold to Oedipus in Delphi. Oedipus is so afraid after hearing this, that he runs away from Corinth where his adoptive parents are. He ends up killing his biological father and marrying his biological mother anyway. Prophecies cannot describe the future, they can only predict what might happen.

The prophecies of Oedipus being the murderer of his own father, Laius, marrying his own mother, Jocasta, being blinded and be in exile of his own land, Thebes, has led him to great pain. Each of these predictions takes place as foreseen. However, there is no concrete proof that these prophecies are what must happen. 

“You are fated to couple with your mother… you will kill your father…” (p. 205) Apollo declares. In the act of responding, he runs away and abandons Corinth, his adoptive parents’ land and comes across his birth father, where they have a miscommunication and Laius meets his death. Despite Apollo’s words, Oedipus chooses to run away from the problem instead of trying to be more conscious of his actions. The hot-headed Oedipus strikes his father out of fury, not considering the supposed fate of his. All his actions and decisions determine how his characteristics are at fault when it comes to his ill-fated ending. Nonetheless, personalities can be changed from having the will to do so, it is he who does not want to face the challenges he will encounter in order to change his fate.

In Oedipus the King translated by Robert Fagles, Oedipus becomes king by solving the riddle from the Sphinx (pg. 161) and is a hero in Thebes. shortly before this, the king had been murdered and his wife, Jocasta, was looking to re-marry who would then be the king. Oedipus marries Jocasta and takes rule over Thebes, unaware that he was the one to kill the king.  The people of Thebes did not demand a search for the kings murders and they dropped the situation until Apollo orders them to investigate and punish the one who killed the king.  Oedipus agrees to find the one guilty and punish him. (pg. 171) Further along Oedipus starts getting suspicious that Tiresias is conspiring against him with Creon, Jocasta’s brother. Once Oedipus realizes that t is not a conspiracy, he looks into the possibility that it could be him. He sends for the one survivor that witnessed the murder but his memory has faded. On page 230 The shepard, who witnessed the murder pieced together the puzzle. Oedipus had no clue that he killed the King or that the King was his birth father. However Oedipus did know that he killed someone and he didn’t say anything about it. Even if they weren’t royalty, killing is unacceptable and you should still be held accountable. Because of that, no Oedipus is not a good person, rather one with little morals.

Is Oedipus a good man?

There are two ways to look at this question, one being because he killed a man not knowing it so therefore he isn’t guilty. The other way is the fact that he killed a man, no matter the circumstances proves him not a good man.

Oedipus: ” oh no no,
I think I’ve just called down a dreadful curse
upon myself-I simply didn’t know” pg 203 lines 819-821

This quoting made by Oedipus is important because he says to himself that he is guilty. It all depends on what you define as “guilt” though. He might be feeling guilt that he murdered his father, or maybe because he murdered someone in the first place. But for reasons like that he never seemed sad or stressed before he found out it was Laius just means that it didn’t affect him to kill someone he didn’t know.