Oedipus' Blindness

"Seeing or the loss of vision is a metaphor that pervades the text, Oedipus Rex. Where do we see this in the play? How do you think this metaphor was used by Sophocles to depict Oedipus as a good/bad example of what a Greek citizen should be?"

Oedipus was already tyrannical even from the beginning of the tragedy Oedipus Rex, mostly because he was the only one who was able to answer the riddle of the Sphinx, married the queen Iocasta and was made king of Thebes. If we look closely, these all happened because of the will of the gods. It cannot exactly be called fate but it can be said that whatever the gods want to happen, they will make sure it will take place. I believe this is the central theme of Oedipus. Basically, Oedipus Rex says that a good citizen is one who accepts the decisions of the gods; a bad citizen is someone who refuses.

To further explain the aforementioned conclusion and before delving into seeing or the loss of vision used as a metaphor in the story of Oedipus, we first need to learn a little about the background of Teiresias, a very relevant character in the tragedy. From a mythological context (Braun, 1973), a magic accident transformed Teiresias into a woman when he was young. He was able to reverse the magic after some years and thereafter remained a man. Zeus, the father of gods of men, and Hera, Zeus’s sister, required Teiresias to judge who between males and females have more pleasure. Hera, evidently aggravated, blinded Teiresias when he said that women have nine times the delight of men. It was Zeus, on the other hand, gave him long life and the power of prophecy.

These details are not explained in the tragedy. With this, it is seen that blindness is both a positive and negative consequence provided by the gods. They are the only ones who have the capability to decide for the future of people, based on if they are pleased or not with their actions.The first mention of the word blind in the play which wasstated by Creon, was put this way:

In this land, said the god; “who seeks shall find;

Who sits with folded hands or sleeps is blind.”

It is the gods who can give and take privileges. Even the magic accident of Teiresias may be associated to the work of the gods because this magic must have been done by someone with supernatural powers. The Greeks already believed that they were controlled; it is encouraged by everyone back then. People made sure that other people knew this. All it needed for peace and order during their time was reinforcement.

According to Kitto (1961), “Sophocles could have put Oedipus in the wrong at the cross-road; he could have suggested that blind ambition made him accept the crown and Queen of Thebes. He does neither of these things” (p. 139). Sophocles wanted to emphasize that the gods were already doing something when Oedipus decided to be king. Indeed, it can be said that it was Oedipus’ blind ambition, but someone—or something—brought him there. Through Oedipus, he wanted to tell the Greeks that everything that happens to us has a purpose and reason, though we cannot immediately see it and it is not stated directly until the end of the tragedy.

In Barstow’s essay entitled Oedipus Rex as the Ideal Tragic Hero of Aristotle (1912, as cited in Levin, 1960), she said that “by the flashing quickness of thought and imagination which, blinded by some egoistic passion, so often hurried [Oedipus] to wrong conclusions, he guessed the riddle of the Sphinx” (p. 182). This passion can also be attributed to Oedipus’ intentionally being blind to what was already in front of him: someone told him he was adopted which he may have believed to be something to be ashamed of; he was made king just because he answered a riddle. He was eaten alive because of his wants.Oedipus was even blind to the fact that he married a woman old enough to be his mother. He may be a good citizen because he saved the people from the plague, but this was still according to the gods’ plans. Oedipus being king may be in his blood but the gods put him there through the Sphinx—another creation of the gods. He is a bad citizen because he was blind enough not to see that he did not deserve the position considering that he had already killed somebody.

Barstow also said that “according to Aristotle, the man who attains perfect happiness in the world is a wise man who sees in all their aspects the facts or the forces with which he is dealing, and can balance and direct his own impulses in accordance with reason. In the Oedipus Rex Sophocles had already shown the reverse. The man who sees but one side of a matter, and straightway, driven on by his uncontrolled emotions, acts in accordance with that imperfect vision, meets a fate most pitiful and terrible, in accordance with the great laws which the gods have made” (p. 184). Barstow emphasized that it maybe up to a person if he decides to be figuratively blind but the consequences behind this will be up to the gods. A wise man—which we may consider as being a good citizen—needs to have perfect vision, one that has already been provided by the gods.

Barstow mentioned that “[Oedipus] has no clear vision which enables him to examine every side of a matter with unclouded eyes, and to see all things in due perspective…Oedipus can see but one side of a matter—too often he sees that wrongly” (p. 182). Here it is said that there are times when Oedipus chooses to see and not to see.For the gods, it can never be either—it should be both.Brooks and Heilmanstated from their essay Understanding Drama (1948, as cited in Levin, 1960) that “it is hard to say why Oedipus blinds himself, but the answer is not self-punishment…Oedipus seeks to know his true self by shutting out the deceptions of the outer world, which he has completely seen through” (p. 195).For Oedipus, there is full realization that tricky circumstances were happening in his life but he did very little to accept everything clearly. Choosing to be naïve brought about everything: “[Oedipus] acts in ignorance that Laius is his father, and this is the beginning of his downfall. For it leads to the plague, the curse, the discovery of the truth, and Oedipus’ blinding of himself” (Bowra, 1945, as cited in Levin, 1960, p. 184). Being figuratively blind leading to being literally blind can be translated into the idea that doing something bad—even if it is not done physically—will always have a punishment in return and it will be too late to try to see fully: “The intellectual illumination has tremendous repercussions in the field of overt action” (Brooks &Heilman, 1948, as cited in Levin 1960, p. 189).

We can attribute many uses of blindness in Oedipus’ story. Evidently, Teiresias and Oedipus are being compared. Except for Teiresias’ being literally blind, not being able to see is always taken negatively. Being literally blind is not necessarily equated with being good, but being figuratively blind is always equated with being bad. Walton (1996) said that “only when physically blind does [Oedipus] acquire full understanding. Sophocles’ staging of the scene in which he returns from blinding himself clearly stresses [Teiresias and Oedipus’] contrasts…An audience tells that a man is blind not by his eyes but by his hands. Oedipus…returns from the palace unable to tell where he is. Teiresias had his boy to lead him, his staff to support him. Oedipus had nothing. His children are brought before him and he can only feel for them. At the last he is utterly dependent on other people. The reversal is total” (p. 107). This presentation exemplifies the difference between being good and bad citizenship: Teiresias was not blind at first because he was blunt in telling the truth, and even after he lost his eyesight, he continued to see what was real. Oedipus, on the other hand, started out as figuratively blind. The gods made sure that repercussions were still implemented. Cecil Maurice Bowra’s essay entitled Sophoclean Tragedy (1945, as cited in Levin, 1960) states that“If [the gods] force [Oedipus] to break their own laws, as he does when he kills his father and marries his mother, they should provide means of reconciliation by which he, polluted as he is, can make his peace with them and restore the breach in the divine order which he has made…When Oedipus blinds himself, he is prompted and guided by a daimôn, a divine spirit which rules his actions for him” (p. 185). This may be what the gods wanted to tell the Greeks: prevention is better than cure—from the very start, people should already be able to see to be considered a good citizen.

Bowra claims that the daimôn “is a kind of supernatural power, and it is assumed by the Messenger, the Chorus, and Oedipus himself to be at work at least when he blinds himself” (p. 186). Presenting this play to the Greek citizens may make them wary that there are forces watching them. This awareness will guide them in being either good or bad for the gods to decide their future. This is further emphasized by Bowra when she said that “Oedipus blinds himself…both deliberately and by divine prompting. The Greeks would make no real distinction between the two and would certainly praise Oedipus for acting as the gods desire and see that the daimôn’s pressure on him was part of their scheme” (p. 186). One way or another, the important thing that was considered then was for the people to see that the gods were working.Oedipus told Teiresias that

Offspring of endless Night, thou hast no power

O'er me or any man who sees the sun

to which Teiresias replied

No, for thy weird is not to fall by me.

I leave to Apollo what concerns the god.

The aforementioned lines prove how it is the gods who do the work and how Oedipus chose not to see them. Oedipus recognized the presence of the gods when he uttered the following lines:

But, ye pure and awful gods,

Forbid, forbid that I should see that day!

Oedipus refers to the gods as “pure and awful”; he knows that it is inevitable for something to happen as long as it is what the gods want. A good citizen should respect and accept the decision of the gods.

            The following lines also refer to how fate cannot be broken, using vision as a metaphor for what time can do:

All-seeing Time hath caught

Guilt, and to justice brought

The power of the gods to see everything that is happening is also emphasized in the following lines stated by the Chorus:

O Zeus, reveal thy might,

King, if thou'rt named aright

Omnipotent, all-seeing, as of old

According to Cameron (1968), we should also note that “the sight of the king with the eyes destroyed in the face holds the center of our vision for the last three hundred lines of the play. That is a long time and it means, if nothing else, great emphasis on the blinding” (p. 98).When asked what demon goaded Oedipus to blind himself, there was a need for him to exclaim that

Apollo, friend, Apollo, he it was

That brought these ills to pass;

But the right hand that dealt the blow

Was mine, none other.

 It can be said that the gods wanted them to be feared by people, and point out that they know where you should go but it is up to you what to do with the fate offered by the gods: “[The Chorus] never have to ask that question again. In other words, it is brought out with absolute finality that the answer to the question why and how Oedipus came to put out his eyes is first just that, ‘Apollo.’” (p. 112). To be a good example, a Greek citizen should from then on be aware of this, as reminded by the Chorus:

Look ye, countrymen and Thebans, this is Oedipus the great,

He who knew the Sphinx's riddle and was mightiest in our state.

Who of all our townsmen gazed not on his fame with envious eyes?

Therefore wait to see life's ending ere thou count one mortal blest;

Wait till free from pain and sorrow he has gained his final rest.

            After watching the play, the Greek citizens should forget about having “envious eyes” and wait for the future that the gods hold for them. This may be a bad definition of being a good example in our time but for the Greeks, this was what helped form tranquillity, instilled fear and gave hope to the citizens.

Sources:

Braun, R. E. (1973). Sophocles: Antigone. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cameron, A. (1968). The identity of Oedipus the king: Five essays on the Oedipus Tyrannus. New York: New York University Press.

Kitto, H. D. F. (1961). Greek tragedy: A literary study. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Levin, R. (1960). Tragedy: Plays, theory, and criticism. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Sophocles. (1912). Oedipus the King. (F. Storr, Trans.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Walton, J. M. (1996). The Greek sense of theatre: tragedy reviewed. Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers.

(Submitted in partial fulfillment of Theater 100 under Prof. Vanessa Banta)

August 2012