THE INHUMANE PIETY OF OEDIPUS AND THE HUMANE RATIONALISM OF SOPHOCLES
But doesn't the end of the play vindicate Oedipus's claim to be a noble human being? Once he concludes that he has committed regicide, patricide, and incest, doesn't he punish himself and demand that Creon and the Thebans punish him, in compliance with the Delphic Oracle's commands concerning the salvation of Thebes from the plague, rather than defending himself on the grounds that he committed these crimes unwittingly and hence involuntarily?[31] Indeed, isn't Oedipus so horrified by the harm that he has done his loved ones that he punishes himself well beyond what was commanded by the Delphic Oracle by blinding himself (1327—31)? Doesn't Oedipus's punishment of himself show that he is noble, devoted above all, not to himself but to his family and city?
Oedipus himself suggests that his punishment of himself is a noble act.
In response to the chorus's criticism of him for blinding himself, Oedipus first suggests that what he has done has been for the “best,” and defends his action (1367—90). He then laments his birth, his patricide, and above all his incestuous marriage, which he calls the “basest” of deeds possible among human beings (1391—1408). At that point he breaks off by saying: “But indeed it is not noble to speak of what it is not noble to do, so, as quickly as possible, in the name of the gods, hide me somewhere outside [Thebes], or kill me, or cast me out into the sea, where you will never see me more” (1409—12). Oedipus evidently refers, not to his punishment of himself, but to his patricide and especially his incest, the “basest” of crimes, when he says that it is not noble to speak of what it is not noble to do. He suggests, then, that his punishment of himself is not only “best” but also noble. Indeed, it would seem that Oedipus emphasizes earlier that, while Apollo was responsible for his (Oedipus's) evils and his suffering, he, Oedipus, was solely responsible for blinding himself, because he wants to emphasize that he alone was responsible for this noble deed (1327—31).If, however, one subscribes to Oedipus's earlier definition of nobility, if, that is, “To benefit a man from what one has and can do is the noblest of toils,” then it seems that Oedipus's actions at the end of the play cannot be deemed noble (314—5). In the first place, we never learn whether the plague destroying Thebes ends after, and as a result of, Oedipus's punishment of himself. More importantly, Oedipus never even refers to the plague or expresses a wish or hope of ending it during the second half of the play. Accordingly, the end of the play does not show that Oedipus is nobly devoted to the city, for it does not show that he benefited, or even sought to benefit, the city by punishing himself.[32]
Nor does the end of the play prove Oedipus to be noble with respect to his family. Indeed, it shows that he positively harms his family. It is important to remember that Oedipus's first action, upon learning that he is guilty of incest and patricide, is to try to kill Jocasta, the woman he has loved as a wife and as the mother of his children for some fifteen years. He bursts into his home and shouts to his servants demanding to be given a sword and to know where Jocasta is. Then, crying terribly, with a sword in hand, he breaks into Jocasta's bedroom, evidently with the intention of killing her. And even though Jocasta hangs herself before he can kill her, it must be said that Oedipus does, in truth, seem at least indirectly responsible for her death. For even though Jocasta speaks as though she may intend to kill herself when she discovers that Oedipus is her son, and flees his presence, it is only when the distraught Jocasta hears Oedipus raging and threatening her with violence that she actually kills herself (see 1237—66, 1071—2). Yet Oedipus never blames himself at all for his mother's death. It is true that he blinds himself once he discovers that she is dead (1266—79). But he evidently planned to blind himself even before he entered the house (1183—5).
One of the most striking paradoxes of the play is that, whereas Oedipus blames himself for committing patricide and incest, even though he did so unwittingly and hence involuntarily, he never blames himself for matricide, for causing his mother's death, even though he does so knowingly and hence, it would seem, voluntarily. Oedipus evidently blames Jocasta and seeks to punish her for having committed incest. The incest, and not Jocasta's attempted infanticide, is what Oedipus speaks of as he looks for her, according to the second messenger: “For he roams about demanding that we furnish him with a sword, and where he would find a wife no wife, a mother's double field for him and his children” (1257—9). Even after Jocasta dies, Oedipus refers to her as “evil” and “impious” (1397, 1360). But such blame of Jocasta is clearly unjust since she, like Oedipus, committed incest unwittingly and hence involuntarily. Indeed, her incest is even more excusable than his since, unlike Oedipus, she was never told by an oracle that she would commit the crime of incest and hence never had even a remote reason, as Oedipus did, to avoid marrying anyone who could even conceivably lead her to commit the crime of incest (compare 711—14, 720—2, 851—8, 1173—6 with 785—93).[33] Oedipus unjustly seeks to killJocasta, apparently drives her to her death, and persists in blaming her unjustly even after her death, and therefore cannot be said to act nobly toward her.
Furthermore, Oedipus needlessly harms his daughters, not only by causing their mother's death, but also by blinding himself. Oedipus clearly cares for his daughters and, in a vivid and heart-rending speech, he expresses great sorrow and pity for the disgrace and desolation that will be their plight. Moreover, he beseeches Creon to care for them: “Son of Menoiceus, since you alone are left as father for these two — for both of us who bred them have perished — do not overlook them, beggars, without a man, your own kin, wandering, nor make these ones equal in my evils.
But pity them, seeing them so young, destitute of all, except your part” (1503—9). Yet Oedipus needlessly worsens his daughters' plight by driving Jocasta to suicide and by blinding himself. Once Oedipus's crimes were revealed, he would, given the punishment he decreed for Laius's killer, have had to go into exile. But he either could have left his daughters under Jocasta's care in Thebes or he could have taken his family with him into exile, but with a man — a relatively young man in his late thirties — to protect them. Instead, by driving Jocasta to suicide and by blinding himself, Oedipus leaves his daughters with no choice but either to rely on their uncle for protection, perhaps for the rest of their lives, or to follow their disgraced and blind father into exile. By Oedipus's own account, it would be better for his daughters to stay in Thebes with Creon. But, to make matters worse, in his last words of the play, Oedipus selfishly begs Creon to let his daughters stay with him forever and hence to join him and take care of him in his long, hard exile (1522). The end of the play, then, does not vindicate Oedipus's claim to be noble either with respect to his family or his city.Why does Oedipus respond to his discovery that he has committed incest and patricide by trying to kill Jocasta and then blinding himself? These actions do not appear to be a necessary part of his downfall.[34] Once Oedipus discovers and reveals his unwitting regicide, patricide, and incest, clearly he can no longer rule Thebes or even live there. He can, however, return to his earlier life as a wanderer, either alone while Jocasta and his children are with Creon in Thebes, or together with his family. As a still relatively young man Oedipus can presumably fend for himself and provide for his family and might even perhaps find his fortune, as he did once he left Corinth. The discovery and revelation of his unwitting crimes by themselves would thus seem to destroy Oedipus in his capacity as ruler of Thebes, but not in his capacity as the protector of his family or simply as a man who can fend for himself in the world.
But then Oedipus tries to kill Jocasta — apparently thereby driving her to suicide — and blinds himself. By taking these actions, Oedipus makes it impossible for him to protect his family or take care of himself, and hence seems to ruin his family — at least his wife and daughters — and himself completely. Why, then, does he try to kill Jocasta and then blind himself?Perhaps the most obvious explanation for Oedipus's impulse to punish Jocasta and himself is his sheer horror at their incest. After all, even though Jocasta argues that, if blind chance — rather than provident gods — governs human affairs, humans need not fear committing incest or other acts that violate purportedly divine law, she herself becomes horrified, deranged, and suicidal when she discovers her own incest (see 977—83, 1060—72, 1241—50). Oedipus goes so far as to call incest the “basest” of deeds that are possible among human beings, and hence worse even than patricide (1408). And, as we have seen, he also suggests that his punishment of himself for committing incest is a noble deed. Oedipus evidently believes that incest is so monstrous a crime that nobility and justice demand that it be punished to the greatest extent possible, under any circumstances, even if the crime has been committed involuntarily (see Dodds 1968, 23—5). Moreover, perhaps by punishing this atrocious violation of the most sacred laws so ferociously, Oedipus seeks to atone, not only for having committed such a crime, but also for having sought to rule tyrannically, on the basis of human reason alone rather than on the basis of convention and law. Once he sees with brutal clarity what it means to rule and to live free of laws — namely, that one must be willing, at least, to disobey even the most sacred law against incest — perhaps Oedipus recoils in horror and zealously punishes this horrible crime.
But why does incest inspire such horror? What makes incest so horrible, as Oedipus repeatedly stresses, is that it destroys relations within the family by confusing those relations: “Marriage, marriage, you begot us and, having begotten us, again raised up the same seed, and you displayed fathers, brothers, children, kindred blood, brides, wives, mothers, as many of the basest deeds as are possible among human beings” (1403—8); “For what of evils is missing? Your father has slain his father.
She who bore him he sowed, there where he himself was begotten, and he acquired you from the same place he himself was born” (1496—9; see 1361—2, 1480—5). With these words, Oedipus echoes Teiresias's earlier, enigmatic characterization of the incest between Oedipus and Jocasta: “I say that unawares you are consorting most basely with your dearest ones, nor do you see where you are evil.... And unawares you are hateful to your own, beneath, upon, and above the earth, and the double-lashing, terrible-footed curse of your mother and your father will someday drive you out of this land, you who now see correctly, but then will see in darkness... You do not perceive a multitude of other evils which will make you equal to yourself and your children....................................................... The man whom you have been seekingfor a long time... will be shown to have been for his children at once brother and father, and to the woman who bore him son and husband, and of his father a fellow sower and killer” (364—5, 415—19, 424-5, 449-51, 457-6o).
As a result of incest, the relations between husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister, which should be clear, single, and above all pure, become confused, double, and impure.[35] Oedipus is both husband and son to Jocasta and father and brother to Antigone and Ismene. The incest renders him a hybrid or monstrous being - a kind of two-headed beast - with respect to his family: to Jocasta, half-husband, half-son; to Antigone and Ismene, half-father and half-brother. Following Teiresias, Oedipus suggests that this monstrous confusion of relations is not only physical but psychic.[36] Since Oedipus is biologically both husband and son to Jocasta and father and brother to Antigone and Ismene, he cannot love them, or be loved by them, as, respectively, husband and father. The confusion of his physical relations renders his love for them, and theirs for him, confused, monstrous, and base. As Teiresias suggests, the discovery of the incest renders Oedipus “hateful” to those who are “dearest” to him (366—7, 415—19). What makes incest so uniquely horrible, then — even more so than patricide — is that it seems to overturn and pervert the entire natural order of the family, according to which relations within the family are pure, clear, and single, in which one is, simply, son to one's parents, father to one's children, brother to one's siblings. Perhaps Oedipus reacts to this crime with such violence and horror because the crime itself is simply monstrous and deserves to be punished as harshly as possible. Indeed, so monstrously unnatural does incest appear that the chorus believes that incest should be physically impossible, and wonders how such an act could be permitted by nature: “Dear, glorious Oedipus, for whom the same great haven sufficed for child and father to enter as bridegroom! How in the world? How were the furrows ploughed by your father able to bear you, wretch, in silence for so long?” (1207—12).[37]
Yet, as the play shows, such incest is indeed possible. Oedipus truly is husband and son to Jocasta, father and brother to Antigone and Ismene, and — inasmuch as he longed to be ruler first of Corinth and then of Thebes — son and rival to his father. Furthermore, and more importantly, Sophocles does not present Oedipus's relations with his family as horrible or monstrous or base. Before he discovers that Jocasta is his mother, Oedipus genuinely seems to love her and to be loved by her in turn. Moreover, even after he discovers that Antigone and Ismene are his sisters as well as his daughters, he still loves them, in his way, if not simply as a father or brother, then at least as one who cares for them, pities them, and begs others to help them. Sophocles' portrayal of Oedipus's relations with his family invites one to ask: Are familial relations pure, clear, and distinctive by nature or is their purity, clarity, and distinctiveness primarily the product of law and convention? Does love within the family necessarily require purity, clarity, and distinctiveness in order to be genuine? More simply, by portraying Oedipus's relations with Jocasta, Antigone, and Ismene as loving rather than as tawdry or monstrous, Sophocles undercuts the indignation and revulsion his readers would abstractly feel toward the crime of incest. In this way, Sophocles even encourages us to feel, if not horror, at least sadness and dismay, at Oedipus's zeal to punish the crime of incest. For by punishing Jocasta and himself, doesn't Oedipus needlessly harm those who are blameless and who, at any rate, have already been sufficiently harmed?
Sophocles' play also invites one to wonder whether, especially in the case of incest, there is not a crucial distinction between a conscious and an unwitting act. For if what makes incest so monstrous is that it confuses familial relations, it would seem that this would be so only of conscious incest. But Jocasta and Oedipus do not know that they are mother and son when they are wed. Indeed, in the strictest sense, they are mother and son only biologically and not at all psychologically or morally. There is no indication that their love for one another is anything other than the love between wife and husband. Their relations do not seem at all ambiguous or confused or impure.[38] In this way, too, it does not seem reasonable that Oedipus should feel such horror and revulsion and punish Jocasta and himself as he does for having committed incest unawares.
If Oedipus were to follow reason, it would seem that he would not punish or blame either Jocasta or himself for the crimes they committed unwittingly, as he himself argues in Oedipus at Colonus (270—4, 521—3, 546—8, 962—99). Oedipus's own response to the discovery that he has killed his father and slept with his mother points to such a rational conclusion. He declares: “Light, for the last time I look to you, I who have been shown to have been born from those from whom I ought not, to have mingled with those with whom I ought not, to have killed those whom I should not” (Oedipus the Tyrant 1183—5).
Oedipus's words here indicate most clearly that, since he committed his crimes unwittingly and hence involuntarily, his resolution to punish himself for his crimes is, from the perspective of reason, unjust. For he blames himself here not only for incest and patricide but for having been born. Oedipus thereby tacitly acknowledges that he is as little responsible for his patricide and incest as for his having been born. Indeed, Oedipus has made every effort he could, not only to avoid committing those crimes, but also to lead a noble life. And yet he has been led, either by blind chance or cruel gods, to commit the basest of crimes (1403—7). All of this suggests, as the plague suggests, that human beings are playthings of chance or indifferent gods and hence that it is impossible for human beings to live nobly or to win the favor and protection of the gods. Reason would seem to dictate that Oedipus resign himself to the power of chance or of the gods, a power that is so great that it can lead human beings to commit the basest of crimes against their will. Reason would seem to dictate that he face and accept the weakness of nobility in the world and the indifference of the world to nobility. Yet, however sad and bleak such a conclusion might seem, the rational course in this case would also seem effectively to serve the interests of both Oedipus and his family. For it would enable him at least to provide for himself and for his family as well, albeit as an exile.
The Second Messenger makes this crucial point and thereby shows that he is the character who comes closest to speaking for the poet in the play. For he is the only character in the play who draws a clear distinction between the “involuntary” evils Oedipus suffers, such as having unwittingly committed incest and patricide, and the “selfinflicted” evils, such as blinding himself (see especially 1227—31 and 1280—5; see also Jebb 1966, 129). The messenger points out that Oedipus was “justly” prosperous when he ruled Thebes before, and acknowledges that the involuntary evils he committed brought an end to such prosperity (1280—5). But he also declares that “Of woes, those that give the most pain are the ones which are manifestly self-inflicted” (1230—1). The messenger stresses here that Oedipus's self-inflicted evils were wholly unnecessary, that they are much more harmful than the involuntary evils he has committed, and that it is these evils that seal his ruin. For if Oedipus had not blinded himself, he at least would have been able to care for himself and his family. Why then does Oedipus reject the rational course and thereby ruin not only his family but also, it seems, himself?
It might seem that Oedipus rejects reason because of his dedication to nobility. For even if his punishment of himself is harmful to his loved ones, is it not at least a clear sign of his nobility insofar as, by blinding himself, he willingly punishes himself for his crimes, sacrifices his well-being, and thereby shows that he is superior to mere selfinterest? But why, then, does he not simply kill himself once he discovers that he has committed incest and patricide? The chorus is surprised that he does not, “for you are better off no longer existing than living blind” (1368). But Oedipus emphatically rejects the chorus's suggestion that human beings cease to exist once they die, just as he had rejected Jocasta's suggestion that Polybus ceased to exist when he died. Instead, Oedipus affirms the existence of an afterlife and explains his decision to blind himself primarily on the grounds that there is an afterlife: “That these things are not thus worked out in the best way, do not instruct me, nor advise me any longer. For I do not know, seeing with what eyes, how I could look upon my father, once I was in Hades, nor upon my wretched mother, against both of whom the deeds wrought by me are too bad for hanging” (1369—74; compare 971—2 with 955—6). In this, his principal explanation for blinding himself rather than killing himself, Oedipus expresses the fear of seeing his parents in Hades, since his crimes against them deserve terrible punishments, punishments worse than death (see also 269—72). But Oedipus, then, presumably fears not only meeting his parents but also suffering terrible punishments in Hades. He refuses to commit suicide now lest he suffer not only the pain of facing his parents in Hades, but also the greater pain of suffering there terrible punishments inflicted by the gods for his crimes, crimes that are, in his view, the basest of deeds possible among humans and crimes that have rendered him most hateful to the gods.
Oedipus evidently believes that, by blinding himself rather than killing himself, he is not selflessly sacrificing his self-interest but rather acting in his self-interest by at least postponing the punishments awaiting him in Hades. Yet he will eventually die and go to Hades. Even at the end of this very speech to the chorus, he urges them to exile him or even to kill him, and thereby implies that he no longer fears so much the divine punishments awaiting him in Hades (1409—12). Oedipus must hope, then, that, by blinding himself, he has appeased the gods. He must hope that, by making the apparently noble sacrifice of his sight and hence his well-being, he has preempted the gods' punishment, won the gods' favor, and hence served his self-interest. Yet it is not clear that this hope is well-founded. For even if one were to assume, contrary to the evidence in the play, that the gods are benevolent beings, it is not clear that the sacrifice that Oedipus makes in the hope of being rewarded is a genuine sacrifice and hence deserving of divine rewards.
A key to understanding why Oedipus tries to kill Jocasta and then blinds himself is that both actions were prophesied by oracles and soothsayers. When Teiresias told Oedipus that he would discover that he had committed patricide and incest, he also told Oedipus that he would blind himself (415—19, 454—6). Furthermore, the herdsman reveals that Jocasta ordered him to kill the baby Oedipus because of an oracle that he would grow up to kill both of his parents (1171—6). Oedipus reacts to this news by immediately attempting to fulfill the oracle and kill his mother. Oedipus, then, responds to the discovery that he has committed incest and patricide, not by seeking to destroy himself but rather by seeking to avoid the gods' wrath and win their favor, above all in Hades. Whereas before he had prayed that, for those Thebans who are just, “May Justice, your ally, and all the gods benefit you forever,” Oedipus now seeks to punish Jocasta and himself so as to secure for himself such eternal rewards (273—5). He seeks now to become the avenger of what the chorus suggests are the eternal, divine laws and thereby seeks to win the favor of Zeus, who is the “lord of all things” and whose rule is “deathless” and “eternal” (863—71, 903—5; cf. 738). Oedipus is led by his hope for avoiding everlasting punishments and securing everlasting rewards for himself to sacrifice the wellbeing of his family by attempting to kill his mother and to blind himself.
We see that Oedipus ultimately renounces his rationalism and turns to the gods, not because he cannot face the weakness of nobility in the world or the indifference of the world to nobility, but rather because he cannot face the indifference of the world to his deepest hope, his hope for personal immortality. It is his hope for immortality that leads him to react to the deadly plague by seeking to punish the killer of Laius so as to win the gods' favor. And it is his hope for immortality that leads him to react to the discovery of his incest and patricide by seeking to punish Jocasta and himself so as to win the gods' favor. So great is his hope for immortality that he would rather sacrifice his family and blind himself than relinquish that hope. What makes Oedipus truly blind, one might say, what makes him blind to his true self-interest and hence blindly selfish, is his hope for immortality and his unwillingness to examine that hope. Oedipus thoughtlessly holds the self-contradictory belief that he is selflessly noble and that he will be rewarded by the gods for his nobility. This belief leads him, in the end, to be cruel to his family and ultimately to himself.[39]
Oedipus's political and family life defies conventional categories and thereby reveals the limits, and even the falsehood, of convention. The young, unknown, Corinthian Oedipus was an excellent ruler of Thebes, evidently a better ruler than the Theban king Laius, even though he was not the conventionally legitimate ruler. Similarly, Oedipus was an excellent father and husband, evidently better than Laius, notwithstanding his violations of the divine laws that protect the family. But Oedipus cannot face the world without the clarity, and especially without the hope, given by convention. Oedipus can only live in a world governed not by blind chance but by purposeful, moral gods and in a family marked not by double and mixed but by single and pure relations. Convention makes what is by nature manifold seem simple and clear and what is by nature indifferent to human hopes seem supportive of them. Oedipus tries, in his way, to live according to nature and reason, but in the end he returns to traditional law and piety.
Through his account of Oedipus's life and fate, Sophocles indicates why a pure political rationalism — the attempt to govern political society in the harsh light of reason alone — must ultimately fail and why tradition, convention, and piety are therefore necessary to political life (see Saxonhouse 1988, 1272). While Oedipus goes very far in leading his life according to reason alone, he cannot resign himself, as reason dictates that he must, to the mortality of all that he cares about: his city, his loved ones, himself. He simply cannot face the world without the hope that there is some escape from the ills, and especially the mortality, imposed on us by our human nature. Accordingly, in the face of death, Oedipus's experiment in political rationalism collapses and he returns to the pious belief — represented throughout the play by the chorus — in the “deathless, eternal” rule of gods who reward the righteous and punish the wicked (904—5). Through the example of Oedipus's tyranny, Sophocles suggests that politics must somehow satisfy humans' longings for immortality and accommodate human beings' hopes for immortality, and therefore that some element of piety is necessary for a stable political society.
But the play does not simply celebrate piety, for it is Oedipus's unreasonable, pious hopes and beliefs that lead him to harm those dearest to him and himself, as the Second Messenger suggests, so needlessly. Sophocles encourages us to sympathize with and even, in some measure, to admire Oedipus's hope for immortality, for that hope reflects not only a longing to escape death but also a longing to be worthy of escaping death and hence a longing to be greater and nobler than a merely mortal being. But however impressive that soaring hope might be, Sophocles suggests that a genuine understanding and acceptance of our mortality, such as the poet exhibits throughout the play, fosters the even more impressive qualities of human wisdom and human compassion. However mindful Sophocles may be of the limits of political rationalism, of the prudence of accommodating pious longings within the political arena, and of the dignity of piety, he quietly but clearly affirms the superior wisdom and the humanity of the individual life guided by reason.[40]
It might seem that Oedipus's fate and his final renunciation of reason constitute a devastating indictment of reason. By declaring at the end of the play that “it is not noble to speak of what it is not noble to do,” Oedipus suggests that it is not noble even to think about the ignoble deeds he has done (1409—12). But Sophocles clearly disagrees with his Oedipus. For what is Sophocles' play if not a written speech about the deeds of Oedipus, noble and ignoble, and a timeless invitation to reflect on those deeds and on his fate? Sophocles clearly wants us to reason about the evils that Oedipus recoils from thinking about at the end of the play. If Oedipus had followed reason at the end of the play — if he had followed, so to speak, the humane rationalism of Sophocles — he would have benefited both his loved ones and himself and in this sense would have lived a nobler life.
2