User talk:Saferrreiro

“In what sense, if in any, does the Oedipus Rex attempt to justify the ways of God to man?” This question contrives the viscera of “On Misunderstanding the ‘Oedipus Rex’.” Three justifications result: (1) what we deserve from our actions, (2) the gods concede our fate, and (3) just a bit of fiction enmeshed with anecdote considered by a thoughtful Mediterranean. Dodds first considers this in light of Aristotle’s Poetics: tragic heroes’ posses’ hamartia resulting in misfortune. Oedipus’ hubris is cause for misfortune, but Dodds refutes this by his prior parricide and finalizes noting the use of hamartia in this regard is similar to the Nicomachean Ethics such that a crime sans knowledge of contextual information, ergo free of culpability. The destiny theory, that is Oedipus has only fate to contend, is not a possibility however as seen throughout the play, e.g. he gains more knowledge of his identity as he forces the old slave to yield. By volition, Oedipus blinds himself once discovering the truth and disconnects from humanity. On the third theory, Dodd indeed suggests justification rather than a story involving the gods. Sophocles’ intentions could be many: due to his priesthood, Sophocles intended to use this piece as a medium to express his view of Apollo during the Archidamian War as Delphi was pro-Sparta. As such, a biased oracle to any one polis would be very controversial as they were the forts of Greek society. Dodds concludes with several classical themes: that man is ignorant to what may befall him during life and man’s volition and strength to endure its cost.

Dodds, E.R.. "On Misunderstanding the 'Oedipus Rex'." Greece & Rome 13.1(1966) 37-49. 22 May 2006 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-3835(196604)2%3A13%3A1%3C37%3AOMT%27R%3E2.0.CO;2-K>.