Just thought Iād put some notes together, the kinds of things Iāve been thinking about as I mull over the play and get to know it better. They are in no particular order.
⢠Iāve been trying to understand why I find this play somewhat repellent, and perhaps why I havenāt approached it before. I suppose that there is something disturbing to me about what I sense is a sort of ancient Greek version of original sin. The idea that this particular child at least is
born a sinner, born doomed. He is fated not only to sufferāas are all menābut to do terrible things even as he thinks he is doing right. What should we learn from this? That the gods are to be feared? That when we search for the transgressor, the source of our sorrow, we must search first the house of our own soul?
Or is it that we learn from Oedipus the true price of self-knowledgeāthat to be human is to be both entirely innocent and entirely guilty, the holy/accursed thing that so few of us ever have the courage to confront in the mirror? Is the point that by the end of the play, Oedipus finally must acknowledge himself, for the first time, as being truly and simply humanāthe solution to the riddleāno longer exempt, no longer exceptional, except in the sense of being the most radical example of the constraint of being human? I am still quite flummoxed by this and expect to be thrashing it out for some time.
⢠Iād like to focus on telling the story so that itās more of an effective mystery. Time after time in the Sophocles, Oedipus is presented with so much information that it seems impossible he doesnāt put the mystery together. The denial is so great as to defy credulity.
The first moment that would demand rethinking would be Tiresiasā contribution to the story, such that heās not quite so explicit, so spang on the head about what will happen to Oedipus. What seems most important about what he tells Oedipus about the future is (a) that Oedipus is in fact the blind man and that his blindness will be manifest in time, and (b) that he is the monster he seeks.
Similarly, Iād like to look at Jocastaās contribution to the revelation and think in terms of honing down the information she gives, perhaps to the single revelation of the killing taking place at a crossroads. Otherwise thereās just too much of what she says that Oedipus simply canāt hear and believably still fail to put it together. Iāll be looking throughout for such opportunities, but these are the obvious ones at the moment.
⢠Considering the business of contemporary relevanceāhow does this play speak to our times? Well, how did it speak to its own times?
Oedipus was born of the dreadful combination of a plague year and a war year. The plague is attributed to Ares, the god the gods would exile if they could, who presided over ādeath breeding death,ā both war and pestilence. The play was, we think, written in 430 B.C., the plague year that was the second year of the Peloponnesian War, the war that would prove in time to be the undoing of the Athenian people and their civilization. The way the plague is describedāthis consuming, rampant image of death moving through the cityāmakes one think at the same time of what the war was doing to Athens. This must have had resonance for the audience, as it will have resonance for us, in the second year of what looks to be an unending war, as will the idea of a political leader who is, knowingly or not, the cause of his peopleās suffering.
⢠Numbers thread through the text. The three roads, the riddle of the Sphinx. But it is a rather crude mathāno numbers over four, the number needed for a childās locomotionāand that rudimentary, brutal math matches the blunt riddle of his life. The basic math of a normal life keeps eluding him. There should be two womenāmother and wifeārather than one. The puzzle of his existence keeps confounding him, because it is so obviously wrong, I suppose. One plus one keeps equaling one in his case. It happens again and again. He is the investigator of a crime, the prosecutor and the judge, but then he also turns out to be the criminal he has been pursuing and has already condemned. Similarly, he turns out to be both the physician and the disease he is attempting to eradicate. There is something about numbers counted out of sequence that may be of use. Oedipus is presented as a mathematician working out the fact that he is himself the solution to his own horrible problem.
⢠I am increasingly fascinated by the phenomenon of the crossroadsāthe place where all the various paths of a life, all the possibilities, converge in one fate. I think it may have something to do with the perception of the female sexual organs, that site of mystery and origin, the place where the line between the legs meets the V of the pubis.
There is a Pan-African notion of the trickster, a figure who is always l...