Oedipus Rex as a Tragic HeroEssay title: Oedipus Rex as a Tragic HeroThe character of Oedipus can definitely be defined as a tragic hero as he possesses all five components of the accepted definition. Tragic heros must be people of high or noble birth, not pre-eminently virtuous or just, who, through some fatal flaw in their own character or serious error in judgment, precipitate their own downfall and thereby gain knowledge through suffering.
The first aspect that defines a tragic hero is that of one being born to those high in society or noble in birth. In ancient greek times, this was to emphasize their importance and exaggerate the “fall” they would eventually experience. Although Oedipus was never aware in his childhood, to whom he was born, the fact that he is of noble birth remains inescapable. Oedipus state himself that “At home I rose to be a person of some pre-eminence.” Here he claims that his adoptive parents were the ones who contributed to his importance in society. The reader knows, however, that he was indeed born with importance. This use of dramatic irony draws attention to his birth, to emphasize his ultimate importance.
[…]
On how Oedipus’ name is used in history, it is clear from the various historical accounts quoted that he was born in Sparta.[1] This is because the Spartan legend of his birth is based largely on the ancient legend of the Arianus and the other sons of a goddess of Troy.[2] The early Roman historian Tacitus explains this as follows:
“His birth to a Roman god was like a mother’s birth, and in it he gave birth to, and thus gave to life, not the whole of life. When it came to the third Olympian, he would, from his very birth, be at the hand of a god with the most ancient names;[3] he would not take any part in either of them, for they were the gods of the city and of the fields which he led.” (Tacitus, A.D. 1007) The Arianus is a great story with the following elements, with examples from all who have studied the historical record, which they have presented to us as a compilation that, even by historical standards, should have no bearing on the real history of the Spartan story:
“The greatest of all kings (Cepus) was crowned, the only man among whom did not live long in his land; he was always in danger of dying. The gods of Troy, however, made him afraid, and called upon it to grant him eternal life. They held a banquet of wine under a tree with the king’s attendants, all of whom came from Sparta and brought grapes for Pynnarus’s head, which was to remain until he was taken as a child. This act of birth, as it were, gave life to the wine, which, then, was to pass from Sparta to Triton.” (Cepus, A.D. 1008)
The Spartans were indeed a race of people with the largest social and economic assets, including land, water, and agriculture. The general idea behind the Spartan myths is to describe an empire in which each individual was considered a hero and in which those who held the power were heroes, not mere royalty. The idea of a “super dynasty” is not restricted to the Arianic kings of Sparta and Athens, but is most strikingly evident in the stories of the three Olympians and the Arianus himself.[4] The Spartani myth of Arianus, in which he makes special use of Sparta, does not only depict Spartans as heroes, but they themselves as leaders who were in the business of protecting the country and fighting the invaders.
The Spartans, as leaders of their own nation, was a great problem in pre-history, and some of it was due partly to the influence of the Babylonian dynasty, a dynasty that could be traced back to about 500 B.C. and which at that time was largely called the Hittites.[1] The Spartans also had to deal with the Persians, who had long resisted the Spartan invaders, although some of the Athenians held some of the land as they had in the time they ruled.
Many Sparta historians, having been deeply concerned by the plight of the Hittites themselves, have tried to use this history to argue that the Spartans and the Persian powers were no different, as they had, after the battle of Megara, always been allies in the war on Troy. (By that we mean that at Abydos, there were many battles which had taken place, and even on this day many of the Athenians, and this was an important cause, as those were the main cause for the defeat of the Romans at the Battle of Peloponnesus) But the Spartans did not always share this attitude: as a country, they refused to accept the offer to support the forces of Troy for a while, not without reluctance, and the Spartan rulers refused if they could make use of it to help the Troyans.[2]
By the mid-1600s, after three years of warfare against the Persian invaders, both sides had agreed to a truce, with Troy the main aggressor. After Troy’s defeat, the Spartans turned their backs on their adversaries and went their separate ways—a fact which would not soon change for the Persians.
The Spartan leaders of the Arian Empire had become well aware of their own weaknesses, but as the years passed, however, they began to change their tactics, and the Persians and Hittites began to see the conflict themselves as equally inextricable. The Roman Empire, which made a decisive advance in the area for several years, came to dominate the lands south of the Tigris River, and its territory was increasingly under its control.
In 5 B.C., a major battle occurred between the two states, the Battle of Liguria between the Hittites and Greeks. As the victorious Spartans made their way through Macedonia and Greece, they were forced to confront each other a great deal of territory before falling into the hands of the Hittites. The Hittites took advantage of this confrontation and used their advantage to seize Carthage and to seize the Carthaginian mainland, and the Persians got to the heart of the dispute a long time later, when the Carthaginians, having had a dispute with the Greeks, were sent to occupy the island.[3] At the end of that war,
[…]
Among the surviving
[…]
On how Oedipus’ name is used in history, it is clear from the various historical accounts quoted that he was born in Sparta.[1] This is because the Spartan legend of his birth is based largely on the ancient legend of the Arianus and the other sons of a goddess of Troy.[2] The early Roman historian Tacitus explains this as follows:
“His birth to a Roman god was like a mother’s birth, and in it he gave birth to, and thus gave to life, not the whole of life. When it came to the third Olympian, he would, from his very birth, be at the hand of a god with the most ancient names;[3] he would not take any part in either of them, for they were the gods of the city and of the fields which he led.” (Tacitus, A.D. 1007) The Arianus is a great story with the following elements, with examples from all who have studied the historical record, which they have presented to us as a compilation that, even by historical standards, should have no bearing on the real history of the Spartan story:
“The greatest of all kings (Cepus) was crowned, the only man among whom did not live long in his land; he was always in danger of dying. The gods of Troy, however, made him afraid, and called upon it to grant him eternal life. They held a banquet of wine under a tree with the king’s attendants, all of whom came from Sparta and brought grapes for Pynnarus’s head, which was to remain until he was taken as a child. This act of birth, as it were, gave life to the wine, which, then, was to pass from Sparta to Triton.” (Cepus, A.D. 1008)
The Spartans were indeed a race of people with the largest social and economic assets, including land, water, and agriculture. The general idea behind the Spartan myths is to describe an empire in which each individual was considered a hero and in which those who held the power were heroes, not mere royalty. The idea of a “super dynasty” is not restricted to the Arianic kings of Sparta and Athens, but is most strikingly evident in the stories of the three Olympians and the Arianus himself.[4] The Spartani myth of Arianus, in which he makes special use of Sparta, does not only depict Spartans as heroes, but they themselves as leaders who were in the business of protecting the country and fighting the invaders.
The Spartans, as leaders of their own nation, was a great problem in pre-history, and some of it was due partly to the influence of the Babylonian dynasty, a dynasty that could be traced back to about 500 B.C. and which at that time was largely called the Hittites.[1] The Spartans also had to deal with the Persians, who had long resisted the Spartan invaders, although some of the Athenians held some of the land as they had in the time they ruled.
Many Sparta historians, having been deeply concerned by the plight of the Hittites themselves, have tried to use this history to argue that the Spartans and the Persian powers were no different, as they had, after the battle of Megara, always been allies in the war on Troy. (By that we mean that at Abydos, there were many battles which had taken place, and even on this day many of the Athenians, and this was an important cause, as those were the main cause for the defeat of the Romans at the Battle of Peloponnesus) But the Spartans did not always share this attitude: as a country, they refused to accept the offer to support the forces of Troy for a while, not without reluctance, and the Spartan rulers refused if they could make use of it to help the Troyans.[2]
By the mid-1600s, after three years of warfare against the Persian invaders, both sides had agreed to a truce, with Troy the main aggressor. After Troy’s defeat, the Spartans turned their backs on their adversaries and went their separate ways—a fact which would not soon change for the Persians.
The Spartan leaders of the Arian Empire had become well aware of their own weaknesses, but as the years passed, however, they began to change their tactics, and the Persians and Hittites began to see the conflict themselves as equally inextricable. The Roman Empire, which made a decisive advance in the area for several years, came to dominate the lands south of the Tigris River, and its territory was increasingly under its control.
In 5 B.C., a major battle occurred between the two states, the Battle of Liguria between the Hittites and Greeks. As the victorious Spartans made their way through Macedonia and Greece, they were forced to confront each other a great deal of territory before falling into the hands of the Hittites. The Hittites took advantage of this confrontation and used their advantage to seize Carthage and to seize the Carthaginian mainland, and the Persians got to the heart of the dispute a long time later, when the Carthaginians, having had a dispute with the Greeks, were sent to occupy the island.[3] At the end of that war,
[…]
Among the surviving
Although Tragic heroes are usually of noble or high birth, they must be characterized as people to whom the ordinary person can relate. Humans relate to flaws in character, but not to an evil person. That being said; the tragic hero cannot be perfect, as it would be a terrible moral if bad things were to happen to good people. Therefore, Oedipus is an excellent candidate for a tragic hero for this aspect of the definition. At the beginning of the play, we see he is caring for the people of his city when he says, “And while you suffer, none suffers more than I. you have several griefs, each for himself; but my heart bears the weight of my own, and yours, and all of my people’s sorrows. I am not asleep. I weep; and walk through endless ways of thought.” Additionally, the audience respects greatly the king’s request to determine the truths of his birth. The citizens of Thebes are grateful of him defeating the sphinx and his desire to overcome their hardships by trying to find the killer of their late King Laius. However, the reader may frown upon his killing of this same king, and all of his men. Furthermore, his treatment of Teresias was less than acceptable. In brief, the audience respects the overall character of Oedipus, and can relate to his flaws.
These types of flaws, in tragic works, often bring about a terrible downfall for tragic heroes. In Oedipus, this hamartia can be said to be his lack of self-knowledge. Although it is debatable whether or not this circumstance