Leadership in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannos, Act 3
Act 3: Discoveries
Opening Comments
Miasma—ritual pollution—was important in Greek religious practice, superstition, and mythical narrative. From the perspective of myth, the idea means that families—and cities—can contract and communicate the consequences of wrongdoing. This cultural concept is operative in the logic of the plagues in Iliad 1 and Oedipus Tyrannos: a leader’s crime causes harm to his whole people. But it is also part of the narrative logic of Oedipus’ family—his parents’ deeds are communicable in character through the son whose deeds in turn impact his people and his own progeny.
Long before Zeitlin and Steinbock framed Athenian tragedy in terms of cultural identity and social memory, Aristotle prized the genre for what one might call its therapeutic effect—the ability to evoke what he calls catharsis (a ‘cleansing’ that has been described as intellectual, emotional or a mixture of both) through a communal experience of pity and fear. For Aristotle, Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannos represented the highest achievement of these aims. Part of this is because of the effect of dramatic irony—the audience knows the true story, but must witness and understand how the play’s characters come to realize it. Through the process of viewing the performance, audience members identify with certain parts of the narrative and come to understand its themes in a deeper way.
Key to an effective play, Aristotle notes, are elements such as character (êthos), reversal (peripeteia), suffering (pathos) and recognition (anagnorisis). Each of these elements may also be central to understanding Sophocles’ play as a contemplation of leadership. The concern of tragedy is not how prominent figures do in favorable situations, but how they fare under duress. For Oedipus, and many other tragedies, the question is not just the reversal of fate of a city’s leaders, but the adverse fate—the suffering—of its people. Oedipus’ investigation of the crime leads to a series of discoveries about himself. But for the audience, these discoveries can prompt other questions: are Oedipus’ mistakes those which others could repeat? Was there ever any way to save the city from its ruin?
Readings
Oedipus, 1086-end
Aristotle, Poetics 1449a-1453
Root Cause Analysis (wikipedia)
Reading Questions
Look for expressions of fatalism and ritual pollution in the play. Are they all harmonious? Are there hints that Oedipus (and his people) might have avoided their suffering?
Where are the discrete moments of recognition in the play?
How does Sophocles make it credible that Oedipus and others do not know the truth?
Whose ‘fault’ is the plague? Are there passages that imply that this is the wrong question to ask?
In-Class Activities
CSI Thebes: Split into different investigative groups representing different parts of the Athenian population (a people’s inquiry board; an executive internal affairs officer; a military investigator). Comb the text to identify who knew what and when. Identify the individual you believe knew the ‘truth’ first. How does this change your interpretation of the play?
Root Cause Analysis: Organizations like the United States Military and corporations like Toyota officially mandate that when their activities have adverse outcomes (e.g. friendly-fire deaths; product recalls) they use RCA (root cause analysis) to identify structural or bureaucratic problems that may have contributed. RCA is not about laying blame on individuals, but instead focuses on using a negative situation to develop positive changes to the system. Identify the root causes of the series of problems that led to the plague in Thebes. Are there systemic or institutional features of the city that contributed to its suffering? Are there systemic or institutional changes which might ward off similar events in the future?