Max Gould
A Story of Blood
In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles tells the story of a man who “knew the famous riddles
and was a man most masterful” but who is eventually swallowed by the breakers of
misfortune (Sophocles, 1525). Though throughout the play Oedipus is portrayed as a
reasonable man and a good ruler, pursuing justice in an attempt to end a devastating
plague, the chorus that once loved him immediately turns to disgust when they learn of
his indecent crimes. Even though Oedipus did not know that Jocasta was his mother, he is
still blamed for the crime. However, not only did Oedipus not intend to commit the
crime, he actually tried to avoid it. Upon learning of Phoebus’ prophesy, he left his home
and family to prevent that from happening. However, because the Greeks considered
family to be the people with whom one shares a blood relation, Oedipus still suffers for
his crimes. Had Jocasta been any other woman, he would have done nothing wrong.
Except that she was his mother, which made what he did in conflict with social norms.
Yet he did not consider her his mother, nor did she raise him as her son, so how can we
consider Jocasta to be his mother in a social sense? Sophocles challenges the Greek
tradition that those who are related to you by blood are your family. He suggests that
Oedipus’ true parents are Polybus and Merope, and so he is innocent of the social faux
pas with which he has been accused and deemed guilty.
First I will defend the validity of this argument from certain other perspectives
concerning Sophocles’ intentions. The chorus, some would argue, expresses Sophocles’
disapproval of Oedipus’ actions, and therefore is suggesting that the honoring of blood
relations is very important. However, Oedipus never intended to dishonor his parents,
what happens to him is more of an act of fate than his own malicious intent. Furthermore,
Sophocles portrays Oedipus as the tragic hero, encouraging the audience to feel pity for a
man trapped by fate. By showing how, no matter what Oedipus does, he cannot escape
his fate, the audience feels inclined to sympathize with him as what happens to him could
happen to anyone. Sophocles suggests that because no man can escape his fate, we should
not put such an emphasis on blood relations. As Sophocles shows, you can’t be certain of
who is related to you by blood, but you can always be certain of who you consider to be
your family. “How can my father be my father as much as one that’s nothing to me?”
Max Gould
(Sophocles, 1019) Oedipus attempts to live a lawful and decent life, protecting those who
raised him, who meant something to him. It is this meaning in the relationship that makes
it familiar, that makes Oedipus call Polybus ‘father’. But it is precisely because relations
are determined by blood ancestry that Oedipus looses control of his life to fate.
Intention’s importance to law, Sophocles believed, makes this ancestral perspective of
family completely unrelated to the family social norms. By portraying Oedipus as the
tragic hero, Sophocles calls attention to the flaw in considering family to be a bond of
blood, emphasizing the importance of one’s intentions before the law.
Even if Oedipus had avoided his fate in Thebes, surely the same fate would have
befallen him in Corinth. Would he not have been similarly accused if the opposite had
occurred and he had murdered Polybus and slept with Merope? It was after all this
interpretation of the oracle that led Oedipus to Thebes in the first place. “My fate was to
be yoked in marriage with my mother and kill my father, Polybus who begot me and had
reared me.” (Sophocles, 825) Sophocles suggests that even though Oedipus’ Corinthian
parents are not blood related he would still have suffered the same consequences because
of the emotional ties he formed with them during childhood. Oedipus himself finds the
idea horrifying, “I fled to somewhere where I should not see fulfilled the infamies told in
that dreadful oracle.” (Sophocles, 796) Sophocles argues that this natural repulsion is the
origin of the Greek family social standards. Having never known his Theban parents,
Oedipus has no emotional connection with either Laius or Jocasta. How then can we
condemn him for breaking social norms based on an emotional connection that was never
there in the first place? There was no reasonable way Oedipus could have known that
these two people were his parents. Though he had heard the prophesy of Phoebus Apollo,
he had no reason to suspect his parents were anything other than who they said they were.
Having no emotional ties with his Theban parents, nor any knowledge of their
relationship to him, Oedipus acted with good intent by protecting his Corinthian parents
from the infamies foretold by the oracle. Sophocles therefore, argues that Oedipus should
not have been condemned for actions relating to people that might as well have been
strangers to him.
Oedipus isn’t even the first character in the play to commit crimes against his
family. The play categorically ignores Laius’ attempted murder of his own son; nowhere
Max Gould
in the play does anyone show the slightest revulsion at this horrible infanticide. Yet
Oedipus’ patricide earns him the retribution of the gods and banishment from Thebes.
Sophocles contrasts these two events to show once more the flaws in Greek judgment
concerning social norms. Despite being related to his son by blood, Laius’ crime is
considered socially acceptable because his son was still an infant at the time and had not
yet developed the strong emotional ties that define a family. Once again we see how
family social norms exist because of the emotional bonds involved, and so do not
necessarily pertain to blood relations. Laius could justify killing his son because he had
not yet grown to consider him as a son, so how can Oedipus be accused of murdering a
man whom he did not consider his father? Yet he is condemned, for crimes against a
family that not only never loved him, but actually tried to have him killed. The mere fact
that they are blood relations does not constitute an indecent break in social norms.
Through the infanticide of Laius, Sophocles portrays the necessity of an emotional bond
in a family relationship and therefore the unimportance of blood to social norms.
Oedipus, a champion of his country, seeking only to protect those he loves most
from a dreadful oracle, is tragically trapped by fate. As the tragic hero, his only flaw is
that he cannot escape the crimes he is doomed to commit. By telling the story of Oedipus,
Sophocles calls into question the traditional meaning of family as one of blood relations.
However, not knowing who his true parents are, Laius and Jocasta might as well have
been strangers to him. As far as social norms go, family cannot be separated from its
emotional ties. Oedipus acted honorably by leaving Corinth to protect the people who had
raised him, who he called his parents. How then can we call what he did criminal when
he certainly had no intention of doing so? Laius even tried to murder his own son, yet he
was not condemned for his own acts against blood relatives. The importance Greek
society places on blood relationships not only undermines one’s free will, allowing fate to
dictate one’s life, but in fact has little to do with the social norms pertaining to family.
Through Oedipus’ unique situation, Sophocles emphasizes the necessity of an emotional
bond in a familiar relationship. Though Oedipus slept with Jocasta and murdered Laius,
he is innocent of the social faux pas with which he was accused.