Greek tragedies affirmed the moral values which were once at the core of Greek societies. Theatre allowed authors such as Sophocles, to experiment with new ideas, explore certain issues and to test them in a safe way. According to Aristotle, catharsis is essential to the plot of a good tragedy; it arouses emotions through pity and fear, which in turn brings about ritualistic purging and the renewal of society’s morals and values. There are other elements in the formation of cathartic emotions, such as stichomythia, hubris, harmatia, recognition and reversal;[1] each element is expressed in Sophocles play Oedipus the King. The play has an underlying religious element, which is why the faith of Oedipus is generalised into the faith of all mankind. His fickleness is unquestionably shown as the audience watches him go from prosperity to ruin and disrepute. On the other hand, the infallibility of the oracle of Apollo is strongly stressed so that by the end of the play, the spectators learn to appreciate and respect the gods, to behave morally and to respect societal values.
Aristotle believes that the experience of watching tragedy is cathartic because the spectator’s feelings are purged through the intense emotional experience of the drama. In his Poetics, Aristotle writes how cathartic emotions develop and explains why our emotions are stimulated and excited when watching tragedy. He writes, “Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity”.[2] With the intent of arousing cathartic emotions, Sophocles draws on the audience’s empathy; as empathy is the recognition and understanding of the state of mind, beliefs, desires and particularly, emotions of others. Many consider it the ability to put oneself into another’s shoes, or to experience the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself. This ability is an imaginative process, which is why it works so brilliantly through drama, as drama allows for the flow of the imagination.
As Aristotle believes, this capacity to recognise the emotions of others is related to our imitative capacities, and seems to be grounded in the innate capacity to associate the bodily movements and facial expressions we see with the proprioceptive feelings of those same movements or expressions. Throughout the drama, the audience also makes the same immediate connection between tone of voice and inner feelings. Therefore, by watching the facial expressions or bodily movements of the characters, or hearing their tone of voice, they are able to get an immediate sense of how the characters feel on the inside. Consequently, the audience themselves experience the emotions of the characters, be it sadness, happiness, anger or fear, instead of just noting the characters behavioural symptoms of such emotions.
As Friedrich Nietzsche believes, pity makes suffering contagious’ because the empathiser feels the suffering of the other.[3] The emotions of fear experienced by the audience through empathy with Oedipus provide a warning to it, of potentially unpleasant consequences. In contrast to this, some critics believe catharsis is merely an artistic or structural term rather than the purgation of emotions. Gerald Else has suggested that catharsis occurs not in the spectator but in the plot, as it harmonises disruptive elements within itself. The spectator’s response would be harmonious rather than a form or purgation. However the interpretations flow, it seems it is agreed, that catharsis is a beneficial, uplifting experience, be it moral, psychological or intellectual.[4]
In Oedipus the King[5] the audience is made aware of the complex plot from the beginning of the play, as the name Oedipus translated in English means swollen feet’. When the audience learns of Laius’ and Jocasta’s determination to avert their fate by having their baby’s ankles bound and sending him off to die, it quickly realises who Oedipus really is. Sophocles wants the audience to learn of Oedipus’ past before he himself does, as the conformity of its beliefs will inevitably heighten the emotions felt throughout the play. Sophocles also uses stichomythia, which is the rapid, relentless one sentence dialogue of action between any two characters. The intensity of the rapid dialogue engrosses the audience, drawing them deeper into the play and ultimately closer to the characters. The attachment formed between them will inevitably increase the emotions experienced, especially that of pity. Once the audience experiences pity, it will ultimately experience fear for the characters as their reversal of fortunes unfolds.
The audience watches with empathy, as Oedipus attempts to rid society of the plague and unknowingly brings on his own devastating fate. Ironically, he does this through his own actions, in his search for the truth and his determination to find the killer of Laius. The spectators become aware that Oedipus suffers from hubris, the sin of excessive pride as he is convinced it is his impetuous bravery which saved Thebes from the Sphinx. He appears to have little confidence in anyone but himself, as seen in his conversation with Tiresias, the seer.
Tiresias explicitly tells Oedipus at the beginning that he is the cause of the plague and the killer of Laius. However, Oedipus is fiercely self-assertive, he answers only to himself and to the image of his own greatness; because of this he treats Tiresias badly. This is understood however, because at the time of the argument, Oedipus was in complete ignorance as to his past, and saw no sense in what Tiresias said. Oedipus appears genuine and truthful and it is these qualities which encapsulates the reader and audience throughout. However, his pessimistic views on fate and his beliefs of averting it will arouse other emotions for the reader and audience alike. As Ian Johnston notes, man most recognise that there are certain aspects of life which are not meant to be understood, fate punishes arbitrarily and mercilessly'[6] those who attempt to confront the mystery surrounding it.
As the story deepens, the audience’s fear for Oedipus escalates. It watches him as he begins to uncover his past, becoming so engrossed it wants to scream out and warn him. But despite the consequences for himself, Oedipus continues to seek an end. As the protagonist of the play, he suffers a great reversal of fortunes, and in response to the suffering of the characters the audience experience a cathartic effect. Sophocles does not present Oedipus as a guilty man, as he kills Laius under ambiguous circumstances. This enables the audience to express pity towards him and it feels for him as he unwittingly fulfils the prophecy. It realises he does not wilfully violate the laws of the gods, but that his excessive pride and self belief are the cause. It can be said that Oedipus suffers from hamartia, as he would not knowingly bring about such a catastrophe.
The plot can be seen to move steadily towards its denouncement, when Jocasta mentions the killing of Laius at the three roads, and later when the messenger from Corinth brings news which he believes will alleviate Oedipus of his fears. Conversely, both acts work towards the reversal of Oedipus’ fortune. Ironically they have the opposite effect of that intended, and they bring about greater fear and anxiety for Oedipus. The play presents images which fascinates and excites us on one level, and horrifies and repels us on another; all of these exemplify the cathartic emotions. The reader and the audience tend to compare themselves with certain aspects of Oedipus’ personality. Consequently, this heightens their feelings of fear when they see the consequences of his actions.
Both Laius and Oedipus attempt to avoid their fates, which in turn leads to the suffering of the citizens, affirming that each and everyone must obey God’s will or the consequences will be enormous. Jocasta, in giving her assistance to Laius, determined a devastating faith of her own; in attempting to thwart fate she added the penalty of incest to the prophecy. In grief and despair at her incestuous life, Jocasta, kills herself. All three suffer by attempting to defy the gods and avoid their fates. They do not realise and accept the impossibility of avoiding a fixed and pre-determined fate. The play emphasises great conflicts between Oedipus and the gods and ultimately the devastating consequences of this.
Oedipus demands the world to listen, but by the end of the play he realises that he, as everyone else, must answer to the world, the higher power, or face inevitable destruction. He is extraordinarily stubborn, resisting any pleas for moderation, which Jocasta, the Shepard and Tiresias offer him throughout the play, in desiring the truth his search accumulates in self-destruction. Anagnorsis, meaning recognition, is a change from ignorance to knowledge. This occurs through Oedipus’ conversation with the Shepard, and the catastrophe is averted through his recognition as he is exiled from the state and the city begins to replenish. He is now a blinded man, which emphasises the ironic tones of the play, as Oedipus was deceived about his relationship to the world, in this sense he was always blind.
The consequences of Oedipus’ and Jocasta’s unorthodox views towards seers, oracles and the gods are disastrous. At the end of the play, he shows his acknowledgement of the powers of the gods, but he does not blame them; he acknowledges that he has brought about his own catastrophe through his defiance. He freely initiated and maintained the events through his own actions, which finally brought about his downfall. He realises he does not possess the complete autonomy he believed he did, and must live his life in accordance with religious doctrines. He possesses no control, not even over his own children. The audience expresses great relief and gratitude, as each spectator experiences a greater appreciation for life, they realise the power of the gods and the catastrophic consequences of actions such as hubris and hamartia. Throughout the play, pre-existing elements were revealed which finally led to the conformity of the audience’s expectations of the story. This conformity exemplifies its’ emotions creating a greater overall cathartic effect.
[1]Stephen Halliwell, The Poetics of Aristotle: translation & commentary, (London: Duckworth, 1987), pp.37-89.
[2]Souvik Mukherjee, Complexity & Pleasure: Aristotle’s Complex Plot and the Pleasure element in tragedy’, August 2002, Jadaupur University <http://www.english-literature/aristotle_poetics.html>2 February 2006, pp.1-12.
[3] Friedrich Nietzsche, Pity’, February 2006, Encarta Encyclopaedia 2003, updated.
[4] Marvin Carlson, Theories of the Theatre: A historical and Critical Survey, from the Greeks to the present, (London: Dornell University Press, 1993), p.18.
[5] W.B. Worthen, The Wadsworth Anthology of Drama, 4thedn (USA:Thomson, 2004), pp. 45-62.
[6] Ian Johnston, Oedipus and Katharsis’, August 2004, <http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/introser/oedipus.html> 12 February 2006, p.3.
