Oidipus the King- Tragic Dialectic

348 Words2 Pages
The play “Oidipous the King” illustrates the Oidipous’ struggle to gain knowledge in both theories: the Tragic Dialectic (Siedensticker) and Internal Conflict (Heilman). Though these theories are centrally different, they both can be applied to several turning points of Oidipous’ struggle, or agon, throughout the play. The tragic dialectic theory dictates that the character achieves the opposite of the goal intended, and more importantly, against all odds. The plot reversal, perpiteia, brings the character to the anagnorsis, or recognition, of his/hers mistake. For example, when Oidipous talks to Jokasta to find out more about Liaus, the facts only create more suspicion. Oidipous’s initial intention of clearing up the possibility of the prophecy being true, only raises more questions. Moreover, when the messenger delivers news to Oidipous about the natural death of his “Corinthian” parents the plot is further reversed. Lastly, when Oidipous is informed that he was given up as an infant and killed his own father at the road fork, he comes to a realization that his sin is so great that the whole city of Thebes is being punished. Against all odds Oidipous has fulfilled the prophecy and recognizes his hamartia -ignorance. He chooses to blind himself in order to become more like the knowledgeable prophet Tiresias. However, the play "Oidipous the King" also can be analyzed using the internal conflict theory. Heilman argues that a conflict within the protagonist’s mind is essential for a well-written tragedy. The playoff between the imperative and impulse within the play can be seen as Oidupus’ constant denial of the surfacing details and his impulse to absolve his name. This poses a dilemma for Oidipous, as a passionate being he cannot let go; yet the emerging facts reveal he has committed an in absolvable sin. In attempt to rid of sin and his own
Open Document