Sophocles Oedipus

„Die Aufgabe eines Dichters ist es, etwas so darzustellen, wie es gemäß Wahrscheinlichkeit oder Notwendigkeit geschehen würde, d. h. was möglich ist.“ (Aristot. poet. 1451a37f.)

Können wir tatsächlich auch unter dieser Voraussetzung Sophokles‘ KÖNIG ÖDIPUS noch als gute Dichtung bezeichnen? Soll ausgerechnet jenes Drama, in dem wir erfahren, dass der Sohn, ohne es zu wissen, seinen eigenen Vater getötet und seine eigene Mutter geheiratet hat, eine Geschichte erzählen, die sich an den Merkmalen Wahrscheinlichkeit oder Notwendigkeit orientiert?

Myth is one of the genres of oral folk narrative, on a par with fairytales, novellas, and fables. Myths have many features in common with fairytales and legends but are distinguished for their profound cosmic and existential significance. Often a myth transforms the story pattern of a plain folktale or a humorous novella and elevates it into a tragic conception of human fate. For example, the terrible story of Ajax’s madness and his delusional slaughter of the animals reworks the well-known comic tale of the fool who mistakes innocuous objects for dangerous enemies and attacks them with his sword (compare Lucius’ battle with the wineskins in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses and a similar adventure of Don Quixote). The same novellistic scenario is reflected in the delusions suffered by Pentheus in Euripides’ Bacchae, which reveal the redoubtable power of the divinity. The myth of Oedipus is based on the widespread narrative model of the “hero legend”, which revolves around a royal child born with a magnificent destiny; the child is exposed or taken away from his family but survives and grows up to become a great hero and king. The story of Oedipus reverses this model and applies it to a tragic man destined not to glory but to horror and infamy. Other materials of folk narrative (the wisdom contest of hero and monster, the princess of enigmas, the riddle of the feet) are also absorbed into the myth of Oedipus and connected with central questions of human experience.

It's difficult to understand the origins of Greek rhetoric, given that the theoretical handbooks on the matter have been lost. As a result, we must approach this topic indirectly; such as, through the influence of new art on some other literary genres.
In this dissertation I analyse the rhetorical configuration of the rheseis or speeches that we find in Sophocles' tragedies, which encompass a very important period in rhetorical development (the second half of the 5th century BC). This analysis focuses particularly on early pieces, as these are, within the production of Sophoclean tragedies, the nearest to the birth of rhetoric. This work covers three main points:
1) Argumentation. Through its study we can learn how thought evolves and how persuasion is sought out early on in the development of rhetoric as a techne. Moreover, in comparing that line of reasoning to the one which develops in late Sophocles, we can observe the evolution that took place at that key time.
2) Rheseis composition. The level of rhetorical development of a speech is detected in its argumentation, but also in its formal style; therefore, the makeup of speech as well as the repetition of certain formulas in it for thought structure are factors to take into account.
3) Rhetorical thought. It is of the utmost of interest to see how the use of rhetoric brings about the growing reflection by the author regarding the characteristics of this techne and even about logos in general. This ultimately leads to a broader reflection upon communication and the limits of human knowledge.
The study of these three fields in Sophoclean tragedy allows us to assess the level of development of the rhetoric at a key moment and, furthermore, to deepen our knowledge of these works, in which rhetoric is a key factor for approaching a problem and, therefore, for achieving a dramatic ending, which, as a last resort, due to the very nature of the genre, is to a great extent a reflection about the society in which the genre takes place.

Examines Sophocles' play "Oedipus the Tyrant" within the context of 5th century BCE Greece. The interplay of Fate, Free Will, and Character plays out in a well-defined, predetermined universe, within the norms of Greek warrior society ethos.

THE ESSAY CAN BE READ IF YOU CLICK IN THE URL ABOVE.

A Review of R. Drew Griffithʼs explanation of the play in *The Theatre of Apollo: Divine Justice and Sophocles’ Oedipus the King*, which is confirmed by Pierre Aubenqueʼs *Le Prudence chez Aristote* and the phronesis in Greek, popular, tragic, Aristotelian Ethics.

Karel Thein, “L’exemple de Socrate. Les ébauches autobiographiques dans l’Apologie de Socrate écrite par Platon”, in M.-L. Mallet (ed.), L’animal autobiographique. Autour de Jacques Derrida, Paris, Galilée, 1999, 47-59.
To the potential reader: This is a rather old article. I would advise to skip the introductory paragraphs and go right to the reading of The Apology of Socrates. The main focus is on the way Socrates keeps subtly shifting his own interpretation of the Delphic oracle including the passage from “no one is wiser” to “I am the wisest”. I also emphasize Socrates’ outrageous claim that at the origin of his elenctic mission is the effort at refuting the god from Delphi (refuting human beliefs is then only a consequence of this primary motivation). In the article’s post-script, I sketch a contrast between Socrates’ characterization of himself as a paradigm of human wisdom (consisting in the knowledge of one’s own ignorance) and that other paradigm of human condition represented by Oedipus in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex.

Theatre review-essay analysinng the unconscious ideology and political theology underlying the work of Melbourne based theatre company, The Hayloft Project. Their theatre would seem avant guarde, and they speak of themselves in such way, but the work is technistic, nihilistic and essentially neoliberal and reactionary. Includes analysis of the political and theatrical genius of Sophocles and how his work demands a more devoted group of theatre makers.