Articles & Summaries in Economics, Political Science, Psychology, & More

Next»

 |   [Part1] |   [Part2] | 

The role of hubris, a theme commonly present throughout the works of Sophocles and particularly evident in Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus, not only exalts the Greek nationalism present at the date of composition but dictates the course of the story, evolving as its tragic hero works through his fated anguish. Hubris, defined as exaggerated pride or self-confidence, is the earmark character trait of Oedipus and perhaps Creon. However, it is the abandonment of his sanctimonious nature that distinguishes Oedipus as a true hero. The theme of the evolution and role in the downfall of men by this overly zealous pride may be traced throughout Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus, as it is only by his radical reversal of mind-set that one may deem Oedipus a hero.

–more–>

In the opening scene of the first play in the trilogy, Oedipus the King, Sophocles depicts Oedipus as a man of great stature, ruling his lands justly but hints at his own catastrophic fate condemned by his overly arrogant conduct. Initially, Oedipus exhibits intelligence, love and concern for his subjects, and deep-rooted wisdom, upholding a reputation of high moral standards. His wisdom, however, becomes self-righteous, his arrogance becoming very clear on the eighth line of his opening monologue, “Here I am – myself – you all know me, the world knows my fame: I am Oedipus. ” (159). The irony of this statement rests behind the notion that Oedipus’s fame will be known and surpass the ages, but it is his complacent nature that will not allow him to realize this fate already set for him. Viewed as a pillar of strength, Oedipus has a penetrating way of looking at people, judging them so as to keep them below him in his mind. Upon sending Creon, his third in command, to hear the prophecy of Apollo’s oracle, Oedipus remains so confident in his distance from the cause of the terrible hardships of Thebes that he commands Creon to speak of the oracle to the crowd gathered. King Oedipus accuses this man, Creon, of conspiring with Tiresias, the blind prophet, to seize power soon after this messenger returns, becoming jealous and fearful that anyone might begin to take hold of his glory. He then vows to find Laius’s killer to purify the city of its evil presence, but only with intentions of making himself look better. Oedipus places the burden of truth in locating this murderer in saying, “I’ll start again – I’ll bring it all to light myself! ” (167), imposing the idea that only he possesses the wit to find the real killer. In the opening of Oedipus the King, Oedipus appears very cocky and self-righteous, but it is not known until later how this build up of pride was generated.

In the next few scenes it is manifested that Oedipus has a right to claim a certain degree of pride for his accomplishments, but has taken this beyond a reasonable level, even placing himself at a level only succeeded by the gods, showing defiance towards them. He kills a man in the street on his flight out of Corinth, citing his rationale as being one of self-defense. Although this may seem to be an appropriate explanation, it is learned that the entourage accompanying this traveler was in no way harmful. One could conclude that Oedipus slaughtered the traveler he encountered, later identified as King Laius, his own father, for the power that it provided him internally. After killing this man, Oedipus enters into the city of Thebes, solving the riddle of the Sphinx, a monster who guards the gates of the city, and by doing so, ensures the fate of the city. The citizens of Thebes reward their hero with the title of king and give him the hand of the recently widowed queen Iocaste in marriage. Correctly solving the riddle of the Sphinx brings about an important self-confidence in Oedipus, later moving him to the notion that he can solve the mystery of who killed the king. This immense pride in his own intellectual capacity, however, leads to certain doom as he discovers that although he has been too stubborn up until this point to believe anyone who dare hold a conflicting viewpoint, he has fallen into the trap of the gods by attempting to outwit them. It had been prophesied that Laius and Iocaste would give birth to a child who would grow up to murder his father and marry his mother. Fearing the possibility of this prophecy coming true, Laius and Iocaste chained their son to the mountainside, leaving him alone to die. He, of course, was saved by a nearby shepherd and brought to the household of Polybos and Merope, the sovereigns of Corinth, where he was raised as if he were their own son. Once Oedipus had learned of this prophecy, he foolishly assumed that the parents he was fated to kill were Polybos and Merope, and thus fled Corinth to avoid this ill-willed destiny. Vainly Oedipus had supposed that he had outwitted the gods altogether because he had left what he had thought to be his homeland and was not in contact with his mother and father any longer. He is so full of personal hubris that he actually believes as cited that he has succeeded in escaping his fate. It is by defying the gods and trying to escape his fate that he walks directly into it. By enveloping pride fueled with actual, admirable accomplishments, Oedipus condemns himself to suffering a most unpleasant fortune.

Oedipus the King closes leaving a pitiful man helpless and broken down by his suffering, completely void of his former hubris once his disasterouw destiny has been revealed.

 |   [Part1] |   [Part2] | 

Next»

«Prev

 |   [Part1] |   [Part2] | 

Ashamed and unable to live with such guilt pressing upon her soul, Oedipus’s wife and mother, Iocaste hangs herself. Oedipus, feeling this same variety of shame and disgrace, instead blinds himself so that he may not have to see those who he has harmed as a consequence of impending fate and so that he may also face a proper punishment for his deeds in incest. In responding to the news born by the prophets, Oedipus feels that he has now become a man of misfortune instead of luck in stating, “My destiny, my dark power, what a leap you made! ” (238). He prays to the gods, demonstrating his own acceptance of his fate to those immortal and omnipotent, humbly asking for mercy upon his tortured soul. This is a radical change from his previous overly self-confident attitude in that he use to believed that he could overcome any obstacle alone but now admits that fate rests in the hands of the gods. Abolishing the formerly overbearing hubris that he once possessed, Oedipus exits humbly out of Thebes a pitiful demoralized creature upon having been stripped of his political power and blinding himself.

After spending much time out of the grasp of society grieving the outcome of his own fate, Oedipus finally owns up to the actual role he has played in his fate by formerly pompous attitude, and makes a decisive effort to bring some good about his newly found self-realization in the play Oedipus at Colonus. Oedipus is to be commended for pursing the truth to the end with respect to the fate of himself and his city, choosing to endure in the face of certain defeat and revealing the true nature of suffering. Upon stumbling into a field outside of Colonus with his daughter, Antigone, by his side, he asks for sanctuary for he is tired and desires a place to die peacefully. Theseus, the king of this unknown land, grants the poor wretched soul this luxury, revealing his knowledge of Oedipus’s past. Soon a new prophecy of the gods is being foretold which excites Theseus and deems Oedipus more desirable to have residing in his kingdom. This prediction discloses that whatever city has the grave of Oedipus will be assured of eternal prosperity forever. It is here that one can fully appreciate the humbled level that Oedipus has lowered himself down to, having relinquished all of his selfish pride for further self-glorification. Instead of killing himself as his wife had done in the previous play, Oedipus blinded himself so that he would be punished but will not be given the luxury of killing himself to end the pain. He knows that he must not die before he atones for some of his sins by saving a deserved city, Colonus, stating, “I will reach my goal, my haven where I will find the grounds of the Awesome Goddess and make their home my home. There I will round the last turn in the torment of my life” (289).

The role of hubris dictates the path which the story follows as its tragic hero manipulates his own fate through his arrogance and evolves as he works through his fated anguish in both Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus. Oedipus, after careful analysis, can be deemed a tragic hero in the end because he overcomes his error in judgment, his own personal exaggerated pride, through suffering the consequences of his deeds. Sparked by the actualization of his true identity and ignited by the damnation of Thebean society which sends him into exile, the original self-righteous and smug attitude of Oedipus is burnt away, setting him apart from those ultimately hubristic in spirit.

 |   [Part1] |   [Part2] | 

«Prev

Next»

 |  [Part1] |  [Part2] |  [Part3] | 

In ancient Greek culture, much turmoil existed on the basis of gender rights and personal roles within the society, as examined by Aristophanes, Plato, Bingen, and Pizan, each seemingly ahead of his or her time with respect to feministic values. Although some “enlightened” philosophers did not believe that existed any more depth than comedic folly for women in political systems, others like Plato determined that it be essential for women to take part in governmental affairs. Even in today’s world, such conflicts are manifested, particularly in poor countries, without a resolution in such a long and drawn out social dilemma.

Countless theories of a factual and expressed series of fundamental differences in men and women are adamantly refuted in the works of Aristophanes, Plato, Bingen, and Pizan, proving that women are effectively equal to men by either words or example. Although disagreement existed between what roles this equality allows for by these ancient Greek philosophers, each strived to defy the ascertations as described in cultural norms. Aristophanes makes a first attempt in rationalizing this equality as we delve into our studies, revealing in the first scenes that women have a comparable sex drive to men, refuting statements made by Aristotle concerning the supposed sexual passivity of women. In his character Lysistrata, Aristophanes recounts that when calling upon the Spartan and Athenian women to discuss the ongoing war, such women would have been coming forth from their homes with tambourines if a celebration of drunkenness and orgy had been given in the name of Bacchos. Later in the text, Cleonice, Myrrhine, and Lampito, key characters in Lysistrata’s plot and otherwise, very traditional women, inform their organizer that they would be willing to do anything but give up sex for the war effort, even walking through fire, mirroring similar desires of men as described in the final scenes with graphic imagery. This being affirmed, other philosophers examine additional biological similarities which provide further evidence that men and women are essentially the same in abilities and intelligence. In Book V of The Republic, Plato asserts that women have the same parts of the soul and so all the same interests, virtues, and personality types as men. Starkly contrasting with majority of his contemporaries, Plato believes that it is these such similarities of soul and mind that provide reason to require education for girls in the same caliber as that provided to boys, as they hold the potential of future rulers and guardians. Through Socrates, Plato suggests that the distinction between men and women is fundamentally as relevant in intellectual aptitudes as the difference found in the performance of longhaired verses shorthaired individuals, concluding that male and female are by nature the same in obligation of education and employment. In an ironic twist and example of opinions in ancient Greek society, Aristophanes attempts to point out the intellectual boundaries that some women believe they are governed by through Cleonice’s remarks, explaining to Lysistrata that glamour is the only talent women possess and that there is nothing for women to do but sit looking beautiful for her husband. However, without attempting to directly defy typical stereotypes during this period, Bingen contradicts this assumption of inevitable talentlessness among females in her mere publication. During a time when few women could write and most were denied access to a formal education, Bingen was creating inspired works of poetry in an example of female capabilities through action. Pizan in her own internal exploration and encounters with the three women of Lady Reason, Rectitude, and Justice, chose to defy the natural laws as many males spoke of, the idea that women are fundamentally evil and inclined to vice. In such a personal quest, Pizan describes “thinking deeply about these matters, I began to examine my character and conduct, since I was born a woman, and similarly, I considered other women whose company I frequently kept…hoping that I could judge impartially and in good conscious whether the testimony of so many notable men could be erroneous. ” The three women appear solely to establish the knowledge in our young author that women are of equal value as men, and in contradicting this, call out the shortcomings of Aristotle’s viewpoint as described by Saint Augustine and the Doctors of the Church.

 |  [Part1] |  [Part2] |  [Part3] | 

Next»

«PrevNext»

 |  [Part1] |  [Part2] |  [Part3] | 

The ladies also produce the an example of female goodness in the acts of Thermutis, daughter of the Pharaoh, who protected and raised Moses as an abandoned infant. Finally, with other evidence provided in the Bible these women present to Pizan a statement including the idea, “There Adam slept, and God formed the body of woman from one of his ribs, signifying that she should stand at his side as a companion and never lie at his feet like a slave, and also that he should love her as his own flesh. ” As Plato, Pizan, Aristophanes, and Bingen struggled to supply confirmation of biological equality in men and women to counteract the previously oppressive beliefs against the female gender, each also felt employed to define the roles of women in society as a whole.

Greek culture dictated a very strict and well-defined role in which women were supposed to conduct themselves to maintain a dignified and acceptable status in their society; however, Aristophanes, Plato, Bingen, and Pizan dispute exactly what this role is to be. Bingen gives much value to the Virgin Mary, deeming her architect of life, “you who built salvation, you who destroyed death,” respecting her on the basis of her position as the mother of Christ and also a virgin, insisting on a very traditional view of women. Although she is quite the oddity in terms of education and published authorship accomplishment, Bingen does not bestow upon women any specific communal role other than housewife and mother, despite the fact that she herself is so much more. Perhaps in an unspoken way, as a mechanism to gain more substantial male approval, Bingen contradicts the customary roles of women, but just in a more elusive way.

The words and actions of Lysistrata also serve as a means of questioning the ancient Greek perceptions of the role of women in their culture; however, subliminally upon careful examination it seems that Aristophanes disagrees with his own character, instead adapting her quests for political rights into comedic relief. Even in the very opening scene, Aristophanes enacts the stereotypical and time-honored characterization of women articulated during this time period and thus through such description, Aristophanes distances his heroine. Becoming enraged that women will not stand up to how they are typically viewed, Lysistrata proclaims, “I’m positively ashamed to be a woman,” although it is through this stereotypical identity that she hopes to manipulate sexually frustrated men into a peace agreement, using their carnal prowess as a mans of gaining a favorable solution. True examples of tension between the sexes can be targeted in our examination of actions by Lysistrata and her followers against the men. Their male counterparts believe that women have no place in war and thus should not concern themselves with such matters. Additionally, the women of Lysistrata’s group seize the Acropolis to prevent the use of money for warfare, informing the Commissioner that women will take care of the city’s money just as they do at home. Aristophanes implies through Lysistrata’s ascertations that women have a greater sense of reason than boundless political men. She insists, “ye women must wive ye warre! ”, in other words, what Athens needs is a woman. Despite the apparent strides made in feminist ideals by Aristophanes, it seems that the author in reality is poking fun at the female attempts of expressed equality. Although women take on genuine power in assuming control of the Acropolis, Aristophanes excludes women from the spoken idealization of Athens as described by Lysistrata. The philosopher insists through this omission that women are not to have actual political rights or a valid voice in society.

Plato and Pizan make more extreme leaps in their publicized philosophies regarding the position of women in society in an attempt to convince their contemporaries of the merits of female public participation. Plato’s The Republic describes a civilization in which children will be raised in common by those of lowering socio-economic standing, thus freeing up individual women from the burden of child rearing and giving each an opportunity to serve the community alongside their male counterparts in the government. Under Plato’s idealized social system, women are allowed and even encouraged in accordance to their true nature, to develop their skills as musicians, doctors, or even warriors.

 |  [Part1] |  [Part2] |  [Part3] | 

«PrevNext»

«Prev

 |  [Part1] |  [Part2] |  [Part3] | 

To discount the obvious physical differences in men and women that prevent women from becoming as effective warriors, Plato insists that the fairer sex should not be at the forefront of battles, but still allowed to participate in war. Through Socrates, Plato also vows that women should participate in athletic events and gymnastic competitions, despite the required nudity, as men will get used to the concept of naked women contestants over time. At the beginning of Book V, Adelmantus points out to Socrates that the wives and children will be held in common by Guardians, effectively saying that women are able to be Guardians just as well as the men. From Plato’s Apology, the statement “…. and I think that they were a dishonor to the state and that any stranger coming in would say then that the most eminent men of Athens, to whom the Athenians themselves give honor and command, are no better than women. ”, can provide a double edged sword of meaning, but taken into account his previously declared attitude of women’s equality in power, one must assume that he is not trying to demean women, but instead provide them with honor that is due to all of society, regardless of gender. Plato claims that all members of similar social status, regardless of gender, should be provided with equal standards of living with no private ownership of anything, and also maintains that the ruling class of any given culture should be made up of male and female “true” philosophers from the Gold class. Pizan cites a law professor’s daughter’s innate capacity to comprehend legal topics and lecture to students in her father’s absence as evidence of the true capabilities of women. God endowed women with the gift of speech, and that of weeping and sewing, all of which must be utilized to the best of each woman’s ability. Each philosopher has his or her own ideals of how women should perform in society, regardless of how they feel concerning equality of the sexes.

It is remarkable that arguments were made by ancient philosophers, who were willing to go against common stereotypes of women and seek out a truer knowledge of equality in biological makeup and societal roles. Through the duties of Lysistrata and her followers in the absences of their husbands, women were able to gain more independence and self-sufficiency, which is comparable to the large steps that women made in the workforce and with women’s rights following World War II. With the seeds of equality so firmly planted by Plato, Aristophanes, Bingen, and Pizan, one would assume that advancements in equal right would have been made sooner than the twentieth century; however, most feminist movements and similar undercurrents in literature were squashed during the Middle Ages in Europe. Attitudes similar to those of ancient Greeks are still a reality in the world today in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries where women are oppressed. Despite the strides that such ancient philosophers were able to achieve in their time, even if only through publication, the fact that it took centuries to affect change reveals a fundamental rift in western societies between man and woman that needs not only reason, but also experience to overcome.

 |  [Part1] |  [Part2] |  [Part3] | 

«Prev