“Suffering is Action”

The Denial of Divine Power in Sophoclean Tragedy

Introduction

“No man has the power to force the gods to speak against their will.” (Sophocles, 328-329)

Since the very beginning of humanity and human cultures, we; humans, are in need of something beyond our understanding to create a notion of sense from the things we do not understand properly. Whether they are called gods and goddesses of nature, our restrictive logic always tends to believe in something divine and more powerful than ourselves. The hunger for power and dominion dragged humanity for centuries, moreover, it still does. With our mortal capabilities, no matter the number of improvements in technology, politics, or society, humanity will still seek for is the divine figure and power to hold on to whenever they cannot make sense of things above their ideologies.

This dissertation aims to study the Greek notion of divine powers and their role in ancient Greek tragedies, mainly focusing on the Sophoclean side of tragedies. It is seen by modern interpreters, this notion of denial and inevitability of what we now know as “divine” is an important aspect of Sophocles’ tragedies. Sophocles, being one of the most well-known tragedians of ancient Greece, often allows for the idea of denial in his tragedies by various characters in various plots. Hence, after analyzing his literary works in consideration of the socio-political conditions of ancient times one question arises: What was the real reason for this denial? What exactly caused a playwright to deny the gods and goddesses of the time and made his wealthy, curious, and intelligent characters suffer? What did Sophocles intend to show both the ancient and modern readers of centuries? By analyzing Sophocles’ three main tragedies about the infamous swollen feet, the suffering king Oedipus and his fate, with the help of various literary works about the Greek idea of tragedies, this dissertation will try to explain the inevitability of divine powers and the suffering that dramatis personae confined to have due to their rejection.?

Chapter 2 of this dissertation will mainly focus on the Greek notion of tragedy. The history of tragedy as a form of literary work, the characteristics of tragedies, and tragic characters will be explored during the first part of the dissertation. Chapter 2.1 will study the notion of Aristotelian tragedy. The prodigy of philosophers, Aristotle’s book Poetics will be analyzed for further understanding of the Greek ideology in tragedies and tragic characters. Chapter 2.2 of the second chapter will change the aspect of the reader by diving into the German philosopher and Greek scholar Friedrich Nietzsche's book The Birth of Tragedy to define two important words introduced by him. The Apollonian and Dionysian will take place various times during this dissertation. The chaos and order, darkness and brightness. With the introduction of these important definitions, by collecting different perspectives from two main sources, the second chapter of this thesis will end with a decent amount of background knowledge towards tragedies in ancient Greece.

Chapter 3 aims to create a better understanding of the socio-political conditions during ancient times and Sophocles himself as a tragedian. The first part of the chapter studies the effects of the socio-political environment in Greece, how it influenced Sophocles as well as other tragedians, what was the system of the time and lastly, did it change anything in Sophocles’ mind? The second part of the chapter will introduce Sophocles himself, the son of a wealthy armor maker named Sophillus, he was an idealist tragedian who not only had a talent for writing tragedies but also left a significant mark on many different areas throughout his life.?

Chapter 4 is comprised of three subheadings and will delve deeper into the subject of the denial of the divine power in Sophoclean tragedy, more specifically, in Sophocles’ most famous trilogy; Oedipus Rex, Oedipus at Colonus, and lastly, Antigone. By analyzing different characters and their behaviors from these three tragedies, the chapters’ aim is to sample the denying behaviors of dramatis personae and their behaviors' consequences.?

The last chapter of this thesis will gather all the information provided by the previous chapters and conclude the work using a new perspective. The significance of this literary work mainly comes from one's humble motivation and interest in the culture in ancient Greece. The discordant harmony between ideas of men, who held the power and ability of thinking, and their rejection of their own creation is extremely predominant in ancient history. They not only changed their own culture and society but also enlightened many others with their way of thinking and expressing these ideas. By creating a new outlook for this rejecting revolt, the hope of this dissertation is to add a new enlightening way to perceive ancient Greece from a modern interpreter’s eyes.

Chapter 2

The Greek Notion of Tragedy

2.1. What is tragedy?

Being one of the oldest forms of literary works, tragedy is a type of drama that takes dignified men and women of all ages and creates a sorrowful fall of these characters. The word tragedy was not something scholars came across before the 5th century BCE. During ancient times in Greece, drama and more specifically, tragedy was a religious ritual for the gods and goddesses. “The Greeks identified tragedy (trag?idia) by its immediate festal context: a tragedy is a new play (or, equally, a new performance) at a given Attic festival associated with the god Dionysus, and such plays (or performances) were sooner or later listed in inscriptions and elsewhere on that basis,” (Silk, 7). Unfortunately from ancient times to the present, scholars don't have enough material to fittingly define the concept of Tragedy with one solid interpretation. Although there are a considerable amount of tragedies left, attributing meaning to them is limited to subjective interpretations. If the struggle in tragedies was expressed with one sentence, it would be this: “Do we not see the characters struggling against fate or heavenly powers that contrive for them disaster?” (Agard, 117). As Agard expressed, in every Tragedy a disaster is undoubtedly perceived by the tragic hero. Disaster; caused by a palpable sin of a dignified man, a predestined forlorn fall of a hero. Like Sophocles’ unfortunate king, Oedipus, who desired to serve his people more than anything yet he found himself in the middle of a plague puzzle which was a result of his actions alone. Exemplified by the likes of Medea who killed her children due to Gods’ merciless mind games, and Antigone who tried everything so that she could to bury her beloved brother. The constant struggle of these characters or these images of personas has shown the fact that tragedies that reached the modern day have more than what they are thought to have. Tragedies are not only plays made for the entertainment of people or religious rituals, but over time,? have become symbols of morality, power, and fall.?

Professor W.F. Trench talks about the general idea of Tragedy with a simple yet very explanatory sentence in Studies, December 1930: “Tragedy presents a general view of human life and destiny, and largely of its darker aspects. To this, it gives form by representing it to our intelligence, heart, and conscience as rational and moral.” As explained, the idea of tragedy evolved into something more, it became a symbol of human nature and doomed free will. To this day it cannot be determined what the notion of tragedy actually signified, however, the repetitive idea of one’s tragic fall and katharsis is clearly seen. This brings the subject to one of the most important sides of tragedies: what is katharsis, or with its modern name, what is purification? The word katharsis entered the literary world with Aristotle, a teacher, philosopher, and one of the most significant intellectuals of ancient Greece. The next chapter will analyze Aristotle’s Poetics; to build a strong base knowledge about the art of Tragedy, it is crucial to understand his view on the art of Tragedy and new definitions brought by him.?

2.2. Aristotelian Tragedy

In chapter 2.1, the idea of tragedy throughout the centuries was examined. During ancient times in Greece, the famous philosopher Aristotle drew the line about the tragedy in his book Poetics. In his words, poetry comes out from two causes and both of them are hidden in human nature (15). These two branches are called Comedy and Tragedy. Even though his ideas on Comedy are equally as important in poetry, the main focus of this chapter is the idea of Tragedy through his perspective. Tragedy, just like Comedy is an imitation of ideas and characters. The success of Tragedy has passed on through the years and was taken seriously, whereas Comedy had no palpable history and was not as significant. What was the difference between them? Why exactly have all tragedians and poets taken them seriously?? For Aristotle, epic poetry agrees with Tragedy in the sense that it is an imitation of higher typed characters (21). By higher characters, the philosopher is referring to characters with dignity; kings and queens who have fallen due to certain tragic plot or their ignorance. While epic poetry agrees that Tragedy is indeed a form of an idea that epic can accept, Tragedy has a more profound concept. Again, Aristotle lined something extremely significant to all tragedies, “For all the elements of an Epic poem are found in Tragedy, but the elements of a Tragedy are not all found in the Epic poem,” (23). Since Epic and Tragedy are different in Aristotle’s mind, what is Tragedy?

“Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions,” (Aristotle, 23). Being the prized student of Plato, Aristotle kept the idea of imitations in his thoughts as well. In his mind, the idea of the tragedy was solemnly an imitation of action (25), and even though it had characters who performed certain actions, they were always in the second place in terms of importance. Those characters have possessed certain distinctive qualities of both characters and thought, the idea (25). However Tragedy is not an imitation of characters, rather than, it is an imitation of actions. This leads to the six main parts of Tragedy. These parts are also introduced by Aristotle and it is said that they determine the quality of a tragic play. They are; Plot (μ?θο?), Character (?θη), Diction (λ?ξι?), Thought (δι?νοια), Spectacle (?ψι?) and lastly, Song (μελοποι?α) (25). These parts are also divided into three between themselves, two of them constituting the idea of imitation, one of them standing for the manner, and three of them being the objects of imitation.?

Now for further understanding of these elements, they will be further analyzed through Aristotle’s eyes. Before Aristotle’s Poetics, the names of The Elements of Tragedy weren’t known. They have always existed, all of them can be found in plays by famous tragedians, even before Aristotle’s time period. However Aristotle was the first to introduce the functions of these elements. . As mentioned above, for Aristotle, Tragedy is an imitation, however, it is not an imitation of men, but an imitation of action and of life. Clearly, life consists of action and is a mode of action, not a quality. Thus, separating the action and life is impossible (27). Both happiness and its reverse,? misery, are connected to actions, and characters’ actions determine these qualities. In Poetics, Aristotle named Plot as the first principle. He described it as the soul of tragedy (29). The tragic plot of a play brings out all the emotions of the audience. In her book Tragic Pleasures: Aristotle on Plot and Emotion, Belfiore states that plot in tragedies has the function of arousing the emotions of pity and fear, and of producing pleasure and katharsis by this means (3). The second principle of a Tragic play is Character. As repeatedly mentioned above, Tragedy is an imitation of an action, which brings us the idea that characters are mere imitations of those actions. Thus, it is quite understandable that Aristotle has placed the principle of Character in second place. The third place belongs to Thought in Poetics. Thought, as a principle in Poetics, is considered as the faculty of saying what is possible and pertinent in given circumstances (29). It is clearly known that Tragedies from Sophocles, Euripides, and other famous tragedians always have “between the lines” meanings. They can vary from being about social problems, politics to even religion. “Thought represents the intellectual faculty in conjunction with character, moral habit; and together the two provide the makeup of human psychology and the source of human action,” (Zatta,71). The connection between the character and thought is inseparable. One depends on the other, just like chaos and order. The fourth principle is Diction; the language. It is known that the artistic side of tragedies is extremely pleasant to both the eye and ear. The expressive power in the meaning of words is acknowledged and furthermore, the language of these words is similar to epic poetry. Song, the principle of rhythm is as important as other principles in Tragedy. “Song holds the chief place among the embellishments,” (Aristotle, 29). The grace of music and melody is often used in tragedies with a chorus. Just as Character and Thought -as principles are interconnected- Song cannot be separated from Diction since Diction takes up the harmony from rhythm. The last principle of Tragedy in Aristotle is Spectacle. It may have the least artistic side of all principles, it is equally valuable for all tragedians, especially Sophocles. As the art of poetry, Spectacle has few connections with grace, it stands for unity. The representations of actors can connect the play’s overall coherence.?

The idea of functions in these principles is not the only thing philosopher Aristotle introduced. He also brought to light another important factor in tragedies: unity. He declared that to qualify a tragic play as “good”, all tragedians must understand the importance of the “Unity of Three”. These are the unity of Action, the unity of Time, and lastly the Unity of Place. A good tragic play must fit this idea of union, it should start and finish at the same place, in a day -most of the time, you can take Sophocles’ Oedipus the King setting for time and place- and it should settle the sense of action. However, Aristotle also points out that, unity of the plot does not consist in the unity of the hero (Aristotle, 33). In Tragedies, heroes fall due to their mistakes in their virtues, and to call a tragic play good, tragedians do not need to connect the unity of their tragic character. The life of a man cannot be reduced to unity, the character derives from different decisions and actions.?

The idea of purification or purgation in emotions is mentioned above, however, Katharsis is not the last term Aristotle introduced.? The last term to analyze is Pathos, which means Suffering. The importance of Pathos comes from the word Recognition and its role in a tragic play. “Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune” (Aristotle, 41). In Sophocles’ play Oedipus the King, when Oedipus goes to Jocasta to ease his pain and get rid of his doubts about his past, his unaware ignorance vanishes with bitter truth and the Recognition brings the Pathos. “The recognition of persons” (Aristotle, 41). This recognition works with Reversal, which is the ultimate idea of turning from good to bad, brings out the emotional purgation, Katharsis. It raises clarifies all unanswered questions of the audience and eventually all emotions reach the point where they flow out.?

For Aristotle, a perfect tragedy must be arranged on a complex plan to give the needed Recognition, Reversal, and the climax, Katharsis (Aristotle, 45). Even after countless centuries, Aristotle’s idea on Tragedy has its effects on the Idea of Tragedy. The Unity of Three may have been broken however, as an introductory knowledge, his Poetics has been considered as one of the most important books in the history of Tragedy. The next subchapter of this thesis will further study the idea of Tragedy with a more recent view. The German philosopher Nietzsche’s book The Birth of Tragedy will introduce the new view on order and chaos. The power of gods and art in Tragedy.?

2.3. Nietzschean Tragedy

Chapter 2.2. have explained the notion of Tragedy in Aristotle’s Poetics. This chapter will explain the role belonged to gods of art, Apollo and Dionysus; which was introduced by the philosopher and Greek scholar Friedrich Nietzsche. Among his studies, The Birth of Tragedy reserves its place by being one of the most explanatory books about the notion of Tragedy. Tragedies in ancient Greece were highly dependant on their beliefs. Being polytheists, they had every form of god for their specific needs. The reason or the actuality of their belief is debatable, no one can explain why they created all those gods and what they actually needed, however, two specific gods from their infamous mythology have been attached to two main ideas of Tragedy by Nietzsche. The god of art, order, and health: Apollon and the god of art, wine, and chaos: Dionysus. What is the significance of these names in Greek tragedies? Why did ancient society choose to depend on Delphi and Apollo, why they murmured the name of Dionysus when they were happy? Nietzsche has explained them as the same with small differences. Cox, explains the main idea of the book The Birth of Tragedy with these words: “The Birth of Tragedy is driven by the famous contrast between Apollo and Dionysus, “the two art deities of the Greeks,” (498). It is known that the contrast between these two divine figures of art has affected the complete view of Tragedy. The god of plastic arts, Apollo has stood as the figure of order in Nietzsche’s eyes, and in reverse, Dionysus stood for the non-visual form of art, music. These deities have created the idea of impulses in the book. These impulses usually derive from the self struggle of a persona, the unending war of virtues. They are all organic and real, they belong to a living being.? “In this endless war between these impulses, Self can be achieved,” (Huskinson, 20). One’s self-exploration named these impulses from two gods of art as mentioned above.?

Throughout the history of Tragedy, these impulses considered: “In open conflict with each other and simultaneously provoking each other all the time to new and more powerful offspring, in order to perpetuate for themselves the contest of opposites,” (Nietzsche, 8). This contrasted view of two divine impulses created “The Attic tragedy,” (Nietzsche, 8) he continues. Dionysus is the so-called ‘foreigner’ god in Greek mythology. In myths, he is seen with satyrs and nymphs, who are also considered as symbols of chaotic joy, his famous rituals entered Attic through Thebes. Being one of the impulses of nature, his symbolical place as chaos in Tragedy has worked in harmony with the opposite side of Tragedy, Apollo. Before entering the idea of an impulse of order, we should underline that the Dionysian side of Tragedy is considered as the sphere of bare existence by Nietzsche. It is the sphere of irrational powers, the real existence without any embellishments and adornments. Since Dionysus stands out as the unbearable reality of humans and drives them into inevitable self-annihilation, the Apollonian sphere balances out the reality by adding missing embellishments to the colorless world of reality.?

Nietzsche absorbs the idea of pathos, the suffering caused by the Dionysian, and he links the idea of fear with his side of art with this sentence: “Dionysian music especially awoke in that world fear and terror,” (11). The reality appeared before the Apollonian and they saw it as something barbaric, something fearful. Greeks have created something unnatural -the gods and the divine power- out of their necessity. If they haven’t created those powers, they could not be able to survive says Nietzsche with these words: “How else could a people so emotionally sensitive, so spontaneously desiring, so singularly capable of suffering have endured their existence, unless the same qualities manifested themselves in their gods, around whom flowed a higher glory,” (12). The basic balance between chaos and order comes from their needs, Nietzsche says in his book. However, to understand the real origin of Tragedy we must seek the answers within the symbol of the god of wine and orgy, Dionysus. It is said that the origin of Attic Tragedy comes from the chorus, nothing but a chorus full of Satyrs. It is impossible to see and show the real story behind the Tragedy as a whole however for him; “Tragedy developed out of the tragic chorus and originally consisted only of a chorus and nothing else,” (20). Moreover, the power of chorus and naturally the power of Dionysus became more and more important, as it started to show the world that the ruling power of reality wasn’t in Apollonians’ hands. Even though his power has been seen as something violent, the influence of the chaos is undeniable. It can be clearly seen that those chaotic moments created every tragic play’s significance and importance in the literary world. It is also seen in Sophocles’s tragic plays repeatedly, characters who deny the power of the divine and eventually becoming the ones who fall. Let alone that, the creation of satyr chorus is something divine by itself as explained with these words: “For this chorus, the Greeks constructed a suspended hovering framework of an imaginary natural condition and on it placed imaginary natural beings,” (21). Whether it is merely due to Apollon and his strict order or Dionysus and his chaotic joy, Tragedy was born and changed the entire dynamic of drama and poetry.?

Even though Nietzsche made a clear distinction and a connection between the chaos, order, and their need for each other, he does not touch upon the subject of denial in tragedies. To have a clear idea of this denial, this dissertation will accept Aristotle’s Poetics and Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy as two main sources to further analyze the denial of tragic characters. In the course of the second chapter, we have explained an ancient and a more recent view about the notion of Tragedy in Greeks. Next chapter the subject will deepen on one of the most famous tragedians of ancient Greece, Sophocles, and the socio-political background of the era. By analyzing these two matters, this dissertation humbly aims to find a new perspective on the denial of divine powers.?

Chapter 3

A General Look at Ancient Greek World

3.1 Socio-Political Background of Ancient Greece

Can we consider Tragedy as a weapon of politics? In the second chapter, an in-depth analysis of the origin of Tragedy was done by two sources belonging to an ancient eye and a modern eye. To further understanding the system, this chapter’s first part will look into political and social conditions in ancient Greece. Literature has always been affected by the culture and politics of the era. It can be clearly seen in every literary work. Take William Blake’s poem The Chimney Sweeper, for instance, the poet shows the disgusting reality of a bloody revolution and children workers’ pain. Take Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the author has shown us the destructive nature of humanity by creating a dystopian country. Take Sophocles’ Antigone, who fights for her family and her own rights even though the failure has already been written by the divine.?

Even today, ancient Greece is considered one of the most systematic and democratic ancient societies. It is impossible to expect less from those who created the origins of democracy.? Their unique ways of ruling have affected not only social life but also tragedy and every art form. As for the word democracy through the history of ancient Greece, it is said that “The democracy existed in Athens roughly from the middle of the fifth century was a remarkable system, unprecedented, exhilarating, capable of mobilizing extraordinary citizen involvement, enthusiasm, and achievement, enormously productive and at the same time potentially greatly destructive,” (Raaflaub, 3). No matter what it is, every abstract concept needs balance to survive and become something beneficial for society. When interpreters see tragedians like Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus; it is seen that all of these famous tragedians always had a different profile and in some instances profiles in society. All of them were men with dignity, knowledge, potential, and power. They were not only tragedians or poets, they were politicians and philosophers who influenced the entire ancient Greece society with their ideas.?

Ancient Greece was ruled by the city-state system way before the democracy. All of those states had their kings and power, their cultures varied significantly from each other. This ruling system was called oligarchia, and it was known as the most convenient system for the families who held the power for centuries and used it for their own needs. When the word democracy started spreading, the conflict between democrats and oligarchs turned into something violent and it didn’t only affect the society but completely destroyed the balance in literature as well. Hence, it is normal for today’s interpreters to assume that the art of Tragedy definitely has been affected by these political and social changes of the era. From political reasons to religious rules, Tragedy, not only change itself over the course of centuries but also changed the behavior of society.?

Humans on the other hand somehow managed to create a patriarchal system for society. It wasn’t only the aristocrats' or working class’ fault; in reverse, philosophers did a huge impact on this social status difference. Plato in his book Republic, “Women and men have the same nature in respect to the guardianship of the state, save insofar as the one is weaker and the other is stronger,” (456A). As obvious as it is, ancient Greek society was ruled by a harsh system and the one who had the power to think, chose to follow this patriarchal path. The dictatorship may be the exact reason for suppressed female characters in tragedies, those who had no voice nor had the chance to live freely. It is not one’s right to say that all tragic heroines are weak mortals, nothing but mere figurines in plays; Sophocles have proven the opposite by creating a character like Antigone; who accepted her death for her own truth.?

Ancient Greece had a preposterous amount of political power due to its philosophers who sometimes didn’t feel ashamed for judging their own people to encourage them to seek more knowledge. Remember Socrates, who deliberately provoked Athenians to understand the concept of truth and knowledge. They surely have changed the centuries with the power of their minds. One of the best examples of those minds is Sophocles without a doubt. Next chapter, the main focus will be on Sophocles as a tragedian and one of the most idealist philosophers of ancient Greece.

3.2. Sophocles as a Tragedian

“Many modern readers of Greek Tragedy seem to feel a special affinity with Sophocles, and it is worthwhile to endeavor for this,” (Lloyd-Jones, 1) says Jones at the beginning of his book Sophocles. Lived around ninety long years, Sophocles was born in 496 BCE, Colonus, and he was the son of a wealthy armor maker named Sophillus. During ancient times, coming from a wealthy family meant education and knowledge, thus it will not be wrong to assume that Sophocles had the chance to get enough education and this chance played a huge impact in his success as a tragedian. He wrote around 123 plays and it is said that 96 of those plays have won first prize, Sophocles engraved his name to the history of tragedians with golden letters. He was best known for his tragedies however from being a religious chorus leader to a soldier, Sophocles had many other identities which shone through his life. The importance of education in the ancient era becomes significant since, without proper education, Sophocles wouldn’t be able to have the intellectual level and success he had. During his career as a successful tragedian, he had two important competitors: Euripides and Aeschylus. His success win over one of them at last, Aristotle has put Sophoclean tragedy above the Euripidean tragedy and oriented some attention to his style and new elements he provided for the entire art of Tragedy. The third actor, scene-painting, and many other theatrical developments are said to belong to nobody but Sophocles.??

Modern-day interpreters surely have more information about Sophocles than any other tragedians, however, the timeline of his plays is hard to define for certain. “It has usually, tough no means universally, been thought that Ajax is the earliest,” (Scodel, 48). Since no literary source can provide the real timeline, interpreters can only assume the order by using other tragedians’ writing systems and characteristics to decide. It is well known that most of his plays turned into ashes over centuries, the ones that reached the modern-day, however, still keep their diversity perfectly. Especially one characteristic of his dramas is very spectacular considering the social and political situation of that time, and that is the free will or the denial he gave to his characters. “Remark that Sophocles as a master dramatist never fails to interpose the psychology of human motives and human free-will,” (O’Neill, 428). Some scholars consider this will as arrogance or as a tragic flaw, some consider it as a rebellion against the system. Since Sophocles was a part of the system and a key point to many, it is unlikely to think the free will he attached to his characters is a symbol of revolt. On the contrary, it can be taken as the cruel reminder of something divine and more powerful. “They took the old stories, in which heaven and fate played so important role; they made perhaps a concession to popular opinion by preserving in the pattern the threads of divine intervention,” says Agard and continues; “They were primarily concerned with probing into the consequences of human purposes in conflict, with tracing catastrophes of human choice,” (Agard, 126). Those choices he gave to his tragic characters were his weapons to show the power of the divine to the ancient audience. His plays can be a subject to many critical writings and every scholar is going to have a different opinion about the same topics however one thing is clear that the power of his main characters and their inevitable fate will be one of the most significant and invariable characteristics of his plays.?

“Greek drama was, it is true, concerned with fate and with control by the gods; but it was more deeply concerned with the ways of men, the failures and achievements of human freedom,” (Agard, 126) This conflict of human’s free-will and divine powers can be best seen at his trilogy about the crippled king Oedipus. The next chapter humbly aims to show the idea of denial of divine powers to the readers by analyzing all three plays in the trilogy.?

Chapter 4

The Denial of Divine Power in Sophoclean Tragedy

The great tragedian Sophocles was known for his powerful characters. Mainly, he was known for his concern about men. Chapter three represented his identity as a tragedian. Still seeking for the reason of his deviant characters, chapter four focuses on some of his well-known characters and their behaviors towards deities of ancient Greece. The conflict between free will of men and the cruelty of Gods’ can be seen through the story of Oedipus prominently. “Few dramatists have managed, as he did, to construct and maintain a drama built around the inquiry into ramifications of an abstract question: the respective rights of; and the tensions between the Oikos and the polis in Antigone, or the irreconcilability of fate and free-will in the Oedipus Tyrannus,” (Wilson, 3). His success in creating such conflicts affected the overall idea of Tragedy over centuries. Characters like Oedipus, Antigone, and Ajax could have stayed with their first images in the audience’s eyes; virtuous heroes and heroines who followed the so-called truth with close eyes, however, their falling meant something more to those who saw themselves as these falling heroes. It not only created the famous katharsis, but also it showed the bitter side of blinded beliefs and the destructive consequences of ignorance and pride.?

4.1. Oedipus the King

“It is not your fate to fall because of me.

? It is up to Apollo to make that happen.” (Sophocles, 452-453)

The story of Oedipus’ fall starts with his desperate seeking of a cure for his country. When a horrible plague started terrorizing the glorious Thebes, Oedipus started looking for help from his people. As a king who had the will to do anything for those who need help, the little he knew that his past would bring his doom. To find a cure to the plague, Oedipus decided to get help from Delphoi and sent his brother-in-law Creon to Apollo’s eye. When Creon returned from his counseling with Delphoi, he brought both the cure and the curse to Oedipus. The Delphoi wanted him to solve the mysterious death of the previous king of Thebes. He was murdered by a group of men, men who included no other but Oedipus himself. As the play goes on, Oedipus ignores all warnings to stop seeking the truth and eventually finds out the awful prophecy oracles sung before he was born. The prophecy said that he would kill his father and marry his mother, and due to that right, after he was born, the previous king tied his legs up and sent him to his death. Oedipus, growing up unaware of his fate, ended up killing his father and becoming the king of Thebes.?

The vital point of his story is the fact that he followed his selfish needs to allay his curiosity. This is an important thing in dramatis personae in ancient Greece, all of them closed their eyes and ears to every warning and still followed their own will to find the truth. It is not one’s right to judge their reason, however, the general outlook of those situations gives some ideas of the inevitability of divine justice and powers. This ignorance of him gives two options to interpreters. One is that the reason Sophocles ended up giving this powerful will to his characters is a mere symbol of the power of mankind. Knowing the background of Sophocles, this idea seems unnatural and awry to his frame of mind. The second option is that he gave this senseless will to show humanity that no matter what they do; their ignorance, gluttony, and decisions will lead them to a tragic fall. In the play, Teiresias expresses the ignorance of his king like this: “You are all ignorant. I will not reveal the troubling things inside me, which I can call your grief as well,” (Sophocles, 391-392). Clearly seen, the only one who kept avoiding the bitter truth was no other but Oedipus himself. Through the play, various characters interact with him, yet nobody manages to prevent the bitter end.?

From the era of enlightenment and art, what Sophocles did to show his audience was spectacular. Not only he showed that the worst punishment is not death, rather, it is the destruction of one’s pride; he also proved the consequences of his strict beliefs and his reasons through the story of an unfortunate man. A virtuous but unfortunate man which a random person from the audience can put himself in his shoes and question his very existence. “At the conclusion of the Oedipus Tyrannus, Oedipus could have remained, a finished hero, blinded, blubbering, paralyzed in the ruin of his own folly,” (Wilson, 3). Yet Sophocles chose to take everything the king had and sent him away from his home.? The destruction of pride, mentioned above, with actions Sophocles, made his characters make, it's likely that he intended to prove how crucial it is to understand and accept the power of imperious Gods and their needs.

4.2. Oedipus at Colonus

“What gain can be had from a man with no eyes?” (Sophocles, 73)

The story of the exiled king of Thebes gains a new perspective with Oedipus at Colonus. As for the second analysis, Oedipus at Colonus is the most reliable choice in the trilogy. Chapter 4.1 eliminated one of two options about the reason behind the men’s free will and the denial. With regard to his political and social background, it is unlikely for Sophocles to say that human will is the real power and it has the one and only authority over one’s life; mentioned in the previous chapter, this free will can be considered as a symbol for the puissance of ancient deities.?

After his exile from his country, Oedipus started living as a beggar, he had nothing but her daughter Antigone to guide him. Blinded and lost; the old king of Thebes is seen at the very bottom in the beginning of the play. He and his daughter reached the Colonus, a city close to Athens. Even though he was banished from his country, Oedipus’ past keeps following him around the play. The play glorifies the death of Oedipus by putting him under the light once again. After his discovery about the past, Oedipus was withered with sorrow and pain. Already devastated, his second daughter Ismene appears in the play with those words: “Someday the men of Thebes will need to seek you out, alive or dead, to bring them benefits,” (Sophocles, 389-390). Ismene delivers the message from the new king of Thebes, Creon, and his son Eteocles. They summon Oedipus back to Thebes to prevent yet another curse like prophecy, however, he refuses their invitation and holds onto his sorrow, asking to live, suffer, and be buried in Colonus. It is clear that Oedipus has given up on himself, however, Ismene utters a significant sentence that raises questions: “The gods that brought you down are now restoring you,” (Sophocles, 394). What does exactly Ismene mean by restoring? Oedipus became a victim due to his sins and ignorance, he was not only blind but also exiled from his land. Why the god of order would utter his name again?? At this point in the play, as it happened in Oedipus King, we get two more options: Sophocles wanted to justify the gods and their cruelty by showing pity on a fallen hero, or he wanted to emphasize that only gods can change one’s fortune. Supposedly, only Oedipus’ blessing could save Thebes from what has been written. Thus, Oedipus decides to use his free will against the gods once again, however, his free will gives him worthy death. His death closes the action, but the effect of a man’s death survived for centuries. After all the pain Oedipus went through, his life ended with his own decision at last. Linforth believes in singularity in human actions, which can be seen in Oedipus at Colonus where the old beggar decided to wrap his sorrow to a body of an old man, Oedipus was one and only: “Presents a single instance of human fortune,” (Linforth). “Sophocles’ play, in turn, offers a magnificent portrayal of individual beaten but not broken, generally impenitent, vigorous in mind and will, and still liable to the extremes of the old passions that ruined and nearly destroyed him in his younger manifestation,” (Wilson, 21).

The next chapter will cohere the idea of denial by analyzing the daughter of the crippled king: Antigone. Like her father, she also went through the conflict of will and divine power, thus it is essential to look through those conflicts from an eye of a heroine.?

4.3. Antigone

“Creon, what more do you want than my death?” (Sophocles, 394)

It is no coincidence that the most famous king’s daughter also followed the footsteps of a tragic hero, influenced by his own father who embraced death during his last moments; Antigone is also a strong character to show the sin of pride, ignorance, and denial in Sophoclean tragedy. The previous chapter bids farewell to Oedipus with his death, what’s left is his confused daughter, drowned in sorrow caused by the death of her father and brothers. Antigone was not a fool character, on the contrary, she was a bright one: “The Antigone is certainly a play of antitheses and conflicts,” (Segal, 46). Being aware of the consequences of her actions, Antigone, as a character, goes through every obstacle to do his brother’s burial in the right way. Her stubborn commitment to her brother becomes her only flaw which causes her fall.?

After Antigone and Ismene’s two brothers, Eteocles and Polynices, killing each other for the throne; Creon becomes the new king of Thebes and decides to bury Eteocles with honor but lets Polynices rot in shame. Being a heroine of virtue and dignity, Antigone rejects the fate of his fallen brother and rises against the new king, Creon. During ancient times, revolt against a king had serious consequences and Antigone herself was very aware of everything, yet nothing made her stop. “In the face of Antigone’s resistance, all of Creon’s rationalism breaks down and is helpless,” (Segal, 48). Rationality and reason of one fights during the whole play. This fight is closely linked to the relationship between mankind and gods; mankind being the lower kind to gods, they had to live with their boundaries and rights. Antigone was highly against this injustice and her strong need to bury her brother exactly comes from this point: she needed to rebel from what is said to be real, what is said to be true. Again, Segal touched upon this subject of denial and fight between gods and mankind with these words: “To return Antigone’s crucial speech, it is significant that in discussing the divine laws, she makes a point of man’s not knowing their origin,” (49). For a tragic heroine, from an era which didn’t consider women as full humans, it is an extreme strength given to her. For modern interpreters seeing such a powerful female symbol can be seen as an achievement however even though Antigone managed to break Creon’s walls and logic, she ended up losing her fight for her law. The only difference that individuates her from her father is that she accepts the consequences of death and falls in a more complex way than her father did.?

Conclusion

The art of Tragedy kept evolving throughout centuries. It was used for many purposes: from entertainment to education, from acception to denial. No matter what the purpose of it was, it created a form of literature that had an embellished language, music, and harmony. Through this dissertation, analyzing Sophocles as a tragedian step by step, the significance of denial of deities and their powers in his tragedies were explained with a new perspective. Known from his background, Sophocles gave nonsensical free will to his heroes and heroines to show the audience the inevitability of divine powers. The ones who decide to fall and rise were all-powerful immortals in human forms. Repeatedly expressed in previous chapters, the origin of Tragedy can be seen as the need of ‘a belief’, a need of believing something beyond human understanding. Tragedians who held the power of influence on society used this ability to change very professionally during ancient Greece, moreover they didn’t stop with their ancient audience, they also influenced following centuries’ audience to start questioning themselves and their free-will as well. Can humans consider themselves free, or do we really live the life it has been written for us? By reading the struggle of Sophocles’ two heroes; Oedipus and Antigone, in-depth, this dissertation, The Denial of Divine Powers in Sophoclean Tragedy is an attempt to understand and create a modernist view on his tragedies.?

Working against the grain and prophecies of deities, king Oedipus and her daughter Antigone have shared similar yet different endings, written by the same gods.

Works Cited

Agard, Walter. The Classical Journal, Vol.29, No.2, pp. 117-126. CAMWS, November,1933.

Aristotle. Poetics. Trans. S.H. Butcher. Dover Publications, 1951.

Belfiore, Elizabeth S. Tragic Pleasures: Aristotle on Plot and Emotion. Vol. 182. Princeton University Press, 2014.

Calame, Claude. Tragedy and the tragic: Greek theatre and beyond. Ed. Michael Stephen Silk. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Cox, Christoph. "Nietzsche, Dionysus, and the Ontology of Music." A Companion to Nietzsche pp. 498-. 2006.

Doyle, Richard. Traditio, Vol 37. pp. 1-27. Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Finglass, P. J., editor. Sophocles: Oedipus the King. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Knox, Bernard. The Three Theban Plays: Antigone; Oedipus the King; Oedipus at Colonus. Penguin, 1984.

Linforth, Ivan Mortimer. Religion and Drama in" Oedipus at Colonus.". Vol. 14. University of California Press, 1951.

Lloyd-Jones, Hugh, ed. Sophocles. Vol. 1. Harvard University Press, 1994.

Maloney, Henry. The Clearing House, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 316-317. Taylor & Francis Ltd, January, 1957.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Birth of Tragedy. New York :Dover Publications, 1995.?

O’Neill, George. The Irish Monthly, Vol.72, No. 868, pp. 422-435. Irish Jesuit Province, October, 1945.?

Plato, Allan Bloom. The Republic of Plato. New York: Basic Books, 1991.

Raaflaub, Kurt A., Josiah Ober, and Robert Wallace. Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. University of California Press, 2007.

Richardson, W.F.. Classical Philology, Vol.63, No. 3, pp. 224-225. University of Chicago Press, July, 1968.

Scodel, Ruth. "Sophocles’ Biography." A Companion to Sophocles. Oxford, 2005.

Segal, Charles Paul. "Sophocles' Praise of Man and the Conflicts of the" Antigone"." Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics 3.2, pp. 46-66. 1964.

Trench, Wilbraham Fitzjohn. Hermathena, Vol. 26, No. 51, pp. 110-134. Trinity College Dublin, May, 1938.

Van Nortwick, Thomas. Late Sophocles. Ch. Late Sophocles. University of Michigan Press, 2015.

Van Nortwick, Thomas. Late Sophocles. Ch. Oedipus at Colonus: Spiritual Geography. University of Michigan Press, 2015.

Wilson, Joseph P. The Hero and The City: An Interpretation of Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus. University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Zatta, Claudia. ARISTOTLE'S ‘POETICS’ AND THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF TRAGIC HEROES. Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica, Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 67–94. 2012.