How is oedipus contrasted with tiresias

Physical sight comes at the expense of truth whilst knowing the truth comes at the expense of sight. Oedipus confirms this when he gouges his eyes after knowing the truth. It appears that truth and physical sight cannot coexist. As the play opens, Oedipus is doomed to tragedy.

His life starts on a bad note after a prophecy reveals that he would marry his mother after killing his father. However, his parents, Laius and Jocasta, are metaphorically blind to this truth and to escape reality, they deport him to mountains where they hope Oedipus will die hence nullify this prophecy.

Luckily, for Oedipus, a shepherd rescues him and takes him to Polybus and Merope for adoption. After Oedipus discovers his prophecy, he escapes from his adopted parents thinking they are his true parents. Unfortunately, on his way, he meets his real father, Laius, and kills him instantly. Oedipus then goes on to become king of Thebes. It is in his capacity as the king that he marries only to realize later that he married his own mother.

The theme of fate and free will develops as the prophecy is fulfilled; ignoring the facts does not change them. As time goes on, a tragedy strikes Thebes, and Oedipus consults Teiresias, the blind prophet who notes that the Theban woes come from a polluter within the Kingdom. The king is the polluter. Oedipus cannot contain such an oracle. He learns the truth, and that is why he decides to blind himself; Oedipus Rex stabs his eyes out and becomes physically blind.

From this short synopsis, it is true that Oedipus is blind in many ways. First, he is blind to the fact that Polybus and Merope were not his real parents, Laius and Jocasta were. He was so blind that he could not withstand anyone claiming that Laius and Jocasta are his parents Bates Para. Some critics argue that this is not blindness because Oedipus did not know. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Oedipus is blind, for he cannot see the truth.

It does not matter whether he knew and ignored the truth or not, he could not see or realize the truth, hence blind. As the play rolls on, Oedipus starts realizing the truth, and finally, it dawns on him that he is the polluter. As this dawns on him and truth takes precedence, he takes away his sight.

This explains why physical sight does not coexist with acknowledgment of truth in this play. In discovering the truth and the eventual physical blindness, this Greek tragedy comes to fulfillment. His physical blindness, the result of an act of weakness, causes him pain, just like his previous blindness to the truth.

First, the physical pain he inflicts on himself is so great, just like the pain he is causing himself due to his inability to see the truth. Jocasta, on her part, has sight, and she knows the truth; however, she deliberately chooses to ignore it. Even though at first she does not know that, her new husband is her son Oedipus, after realizing it, she chooses to ignore it altogether. This is blindness to the truth.

Upon realization that the prophecy about Oedipus has happened, she chooses to kill herself; therefore, she enters into eternal blindness. In death, she cannot see or make choices. The symbolism of blindness continues to unveil, just as Oedipus loses his sight after knowing and acknowledging the truth, Jocasta loses her life after admitting the truth.

At the end, Oedipus gets banished from kingdom, which becomes his final punishment. He places curses on his two sons and leaves. On his part, Teiresias is physically blind; he cannot see his surrounding; however, he can see into the future and link it to the past.

His physical blindness presents him with the gift of having visions. Due to this gift, he knows that Oedipus is the polluter of Thebes. Though he was praised of clear sightedness, it is after a many years that Oedipus discovers he had always been blind. This complicates the situation that he blinds himself physically not to look on his own children. Sea imagery also shows things turning from orderly into disorderly manner with depiction of darkness. In addition, the light from the sun is also a form of reality dawning on Oedipus.

Oedipus is running away from this reality and begs light not to shine on him. In conclusion, it is clear imagery relates to Oedipus inability to see the reality, and lack of familiarity with fate bestowed on him. Consequently, the imagery of light is shown to be the final truth as Teiresias prophesied.

In addition, failure to recognize the truth is darkness. This darkness caused Oedipus to run away from the reality, and made him physically blind. On the roles of prophet and king in this scene, see Worman sections 6—7. On euphemism in ancient Greece, see Sommerstein and De Martino , Pellucchi , Caroli , with further bibliography. Anger is often seen as causing bad deliberations: see Thuc. See Battezzato On anger in this scene, see Worman section 6. On conceptions of anger in antiquity, see Harris , Braund and Most Finglass ad loc.

Catrambone n. For a similar request in a polite contest, see Eur. Tiresias uses prosaic terms: see esp. Brown and Levinson 2 , , discuss euphemisms as an off-record politeness strategy intended to minimise the face threat to the interlocutor.

Here, Tiresias does not intend to minimise the face threat to Oedipus but elicits further questions from him, which will authorise Tiresias to use more explicit language. Tiresias says he will leave at but delivers his final speech — before doing so.

The law was probably interpreted as prohibiting also the use of periphrases, as argued in Lys. Oedipus, in any case, is a parricide and therefore, one would assume, not covered by the law. See Finglass ad — for a review of staging and authenticity problems. See also above, p. Mastronarde ad — and Medda 46—50, n.

The dialogue might have been even shorter since lines — are suspected of being unauthentic by some scholars: see, however, Mastronarde and Medda ad loc. The king, in fact, tries to avoid the death of his son, who eventually kills himself to save the city: Eur.

Ahl, F. Apperly, I. Bain, D. Barrios-Lech, P. Battezzato, L. Braund, S. Bremmer, J. Brown, H. Brown, P. Budelmann, F. Cairns, D. Cairns ed. Caroli, M. Catrambone, M. Clay, D. Condello, F. Culpeper, J. De Temmerman, K. Dersley, I. Dodds, E. Dorati, M. Easterling, P. Edmunds, L. Emde Boas, E. Epley, N. Ferri, R. Finglass, P. Gianquinto, A. Goodhart, S.

Gould, J. Grice, P. Morgan eds. Hall, J. Harris, W. Haugh, M. Jaszczolt and K. Allan eds. Heath, M. Herman, D. Hester, D. Heyes, C. Iser, W. Iurescia, F. Kahneman, D. Kovacs, D. Hume eds.

Lattimore, S. Lloyd, M. Rijksbaron eds. De Temmerman and E. Manuwald, B. Mastronarde, D. Medda, E. Murnaghan, S. Naiden, F. Pellucchi, T. Giannakis and V. Bubenik eds. Pfeiffer-Petersen, S. Reinhardt, K. Roisman, H. Ryan, M. Sacks, H. Scodel, R. Sidnell, J. Sommerstein, A. Todd, S. Watts, R. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, T. Worman, N. Zunshine, L. Reference Works. Primary source collections. Open Access Content. Contact us. Sales contacts. Publishing contacts. Social Media Overview.

Terms and Conditions. Privacy Statement. Login to my Brill account Create Brill Account. Author: Luigi Battezzato 1. Download PDF. When he arrives onstage, he refuses to reveal what he knows: [1] Sophocles Oedipus the King — He notes that, in a partially determined storyworld, it is always possible to imagine normal anthropomorphic actions Achilles kills Agamemnon […] or different material circumstances Oedipus and Laius fail to meet at the crossroad that are in contrast with it [fate].

Why then did this wise man not declare these things at the time? Tiresias himself points out the ambiguity in ranking: [5] Sophocles Oedipus the King — He welcomes the seer expressing exaggerated praise: [6] Sophocles Oedipus the King — The prophet again refuses to speak: [16] Euripides Phoenissae — Watts See also Culpeper Apperly , Epley , Heyes Goodhart already argued that Oedipus was innocent and Tiresias untrustworthy.

For a brief but persuasive criticism of Ahl , see Bain Lloyd for this observation.