Oedipus Rex By Sophocles - Tragic Irony

 Tragic irony was used initially in ancient Greek tragedy and later almost in all tragedies. Irony consists essentially in the contrast of the two aspects of the same remark or situation. A remark made by a character in a play may have one meaning for him and another meaning for other character and the audience or one meaning for the speaker and the other characters and another meaning for the audience. Similarly, a situation may have a double significance in the sense that a disaster may be foreseen by the audience while the characters may be ignorant of it. Irony heightens the tragic effect. Sophocles has used irony with striking effect in his plays.

“Oedipus Rex” is replete with tragic irony and is found in most of the speeches and situations. There are many occasions on which the audience is aware of the facts while the speaker is ignorant of those facts and some other characters, on the other hand, present a contrast which lends an increased emphasis to a tragic fact or to the ultimate tragic outcome. The proclamation of Oedipus that he will make a determined effort to trace the murderer of Laius and the curse that Oedipus utters upon the killer and upon those sheltering the criminal, possess a tragic irony in view of the audience’s knowledge that Oedipus himself will ultimately prove to be Laius’ murderer. Oedipus proclaims that no house in Thebes is to provide shelter to the guilty man and that the gods will curse those who disobey his command. Thus, without knowing the real meaning of his words, Oedipus announces the sentences of banishment against the murderer and heightens the tragic effect of the discovery which comes towards the end of the play. Oedipus does not know that he himself is to become the victim of the punishment which he is proclaiming but the audience knows it. In this contrast between Oedipus’ ignorance and our knowledge of the true fact lies the tragic irony.

The scene between Oedipus and Teiresias is fraught with tragic irony throughout. Teiresias is the prophet who knows everything while Oedipus does not know himself as such. Teiresias would not like to disclose the secret but Oedipus quickly loses his temper thus provoking the prophet to say what he never wanted to say. Teiresias tells Oedipus that he himself is the guilty man he is seeking and that he is living in a sinful union with the one he loves. The impact of these words is totally lost upon Oedipus. The charges of Teiresias enrage him and he insults the prophet by calling him a sightless sot showing his own inner blindness. An irony lies in the fact that Teiresias, physically blind, knows the truth while Oedipus, having normal eyesight, is totally blind to that truth. There is irony also in the contrast between what Oedipus truly is and what he thinks himself to be. To Teiresias he boasts of his intelligence citing his past victory over the Sphinx. The terrible predictions that Teiresias makes regarding the fate in store for Oedipus also possess irony in the sense that, while we know their tragic imports, Oedipus treats them as the ravings of a madman. These predictions become more awful when we realize that they will prove to be true and valid. Teiresias warns Oedipus that the killer of Laius will ultimately find himself blind, an exile, a beggar, a brother and a father at a same time to the children he loves, a son and a husband to the woman who bore him, a father-killer and father-supplenter. Even the Chorus, ignorant of the facts, refuses to believe what Teiresias has said about Oedipus. Thus both Oedipus and the Chorus are unaware of the truth while Teiresias and the audience is fully aware of it.

Tragic irony is also found in the scene with Creon. Creon begs Oedipus not to think him a traitor and not to pass the sentence of death or exile against him. But Oedipus blinded by his authority and his anger shows himself relentless. This situation is ironical of the final scene where the roles are reversed. There Oedipus begs Creon to look after his daughters, and entreats him to pass the order of banishment against him. Creon, being a moderate man, does not show himself unrelenting in that scene. The pathos of the final scene is intensified.

Then there is the scene with Jocasta. Oedipus and Jocasta are ignorant of the true facts. The audience, aware of the facts, experiences a deep sorrow at the fate which is going to overtake these characters. Jocasta is sceptical of oracles. She thinks no man possesses the secret of divination and as a proof she tells what she and her husband did to the child, who, according to the oracle, was to kill his father. There is palpable irony in Jocasta’s unbelief in oracles and her citing as proof the very case which is to prove the truth of one oracle received by her and the late Laius. This irony deepens Jocasta's tragedy.

There is irony also in the account of his life which Oedipus gives to Jocasta. Oedipus thinks himself to be the son of Polybus and Merope: he fled from Corinth after the oracle had told him of the crimes he would commit: he has all along been under the impression that he has avoided committing the crimes foretold by the oracles. But all the time Oedipus has been unknowingly performing certain actions leading to the fulfillment of those very prophecies which he had been striving to belie, just as King Laius had earlier taken desperate but futile measures to prevent the fulfillment of the prophecy which has been communicated to him by the oracle.

When the Corinthian messenger brings the news of Polybus’ death, Jocasta gets another chance to mock at the oracles without realizing that her mockery will turn against herself.

“Where are you now, divine prognostication?”

Jocasta tells Oedipus that this news proves the hollowness of oracles because Polybus whom Oedipus believed to be his father has died a natural death. There is irony also in the simple remark of the messenger that Jocasta is the “true consort” of a man like Oedipus. Neither the messenger nor Jocasta knows the awful meaning of these words. Jocasta makes an exultant speech on the desirability of living at random and on mother marrying as merely a figment of the imagination. Jocasta makes this speech only a few moments before the truth dawns upon her. The Corinthian, who wanted to free Oedipus of his fear of marrying his mother, ends by revealing, unknowingly, the fact that Jocasta's husband, Oedipus, is really her son, although this revelation is at this stage confined to Jocasta. The tragic irony of this situation and in what is said by the Corinthian and Jocasta in this scene is evident.

The song of the Chorus, after Jocasta has left in a fit of grief and sorrow, is full of tragic irony. The Chorus thereby pays a tribute to what it thinks to be the divine parentage of Oedipus. There is a big contrast between this supposition of the Chorus and the actual reality. The arrival of the Theban shepherd is the point at which the climax of the tragedy is reached.

After the discovery there is hardly any room for tragic irony. The concluding part consists of a long account of the self-murder and the self-blinding, a dialogue between Oedipus and the Chorus, and a scene between Oedipus and Creon including the brief lament by Oedipus on the wretched condition of his daughters. The concluding portion of the play is deeply moving and poignant, but contains little or no tragic irony.

Oedipus Rex bristles with tragic irony. It opposes Oedipus against those who know i.e. Teiresias. Where characters themselves are not omniscient, the audience is. The audience knows the gist of the story and can be surprised only in the means by which the necessary ends are achieved. They know that Oedipus is, in all sincerity, telling a falsehood when he says:

“I shall speak, as a stranger to the whole question and stranger to the action.”

The falsehood is, however, qualified in the term stranger: the stranger who met and killed King Laius, who met and married Queen Jocasta, the stranger who was no true stranger at all. At the outset, he says:

“For I know well that all of you are sick, but though you are sick, there’s none of you who is so sick as I.”

Here he is, indeed, speaking the truth, but more truth, than he knows, because he is using sickness only in a symbolic sense while actually it is true of him in a literal tense.

In addition to this irony of detail, there is a larger irony in the inversion of the whole action. The homeless wanderer by delivering the city of Thebes from the sphinx and marrying Jocasta became a King in fact, but this revelation turned him once more into a homeless wanderer, who had once gone bright eyed with his strong traveller’s staff, now uses the staff to feel the way before him.

The reversed pattern is seen again in the fact that the cruel oracles have their darkest moment just before they come clear. Jocasta’s words mocking the prophecy of the gods are echoed and amplified in Oedipus’ typical tyrant-speech of unbelief. The role of the helpers is another example. Sophocles provides at least one helper, or rescuer, for every act. The appeal in the prologue is to Oedipus, himself a rescuer in the past. Oedipus appeals to Creon who comes from and represents Apollo and Delphi. It is as a rescuer that Teiresias is called. Jocasta intervenes to help. So does the Corinthian messenger, and the last helper, the Theban shepherd, is the true and original rescuer. Those who do not know the reality are eager to help; those who know are reluctant. But all helper alike push Oedipus over the edge into disaster.

Oedipus Rex By Sophocles - Role of Chorus

Greek tragedy is said to develop itself from the group of dancers and singers who used to partake in the worship of various gods. According to Aristotle the Chorus should be like one of the characters. Gradually the role of the Chorus became less and less important in classical tragedy, until in Roman tragedy the speeches of the Chorus were supposed to be made in between the acts.

Chorus discharges some broad functions in all classical tragedies. The structure of a Greek tragedy is determined by the Chorus. After the prologue, it is with the entry of the Chorus that a Greek tragedy begins. Various episodes are also marked off by choric odes. The conclusion of a Greek tragedy occurs with the exode or the exit song of the Chorus. It is the function of the Chorus to comment on actions and events. It also sometimes questions the characters. Its standard role is that of the moderator. At times it represents the view-point of the common spectator and in some cases it represents the view-point of the dramatist himself.

The functions of the Chorus are very well performed in Oedipus Rex. In the very first ode the Chorus depicts the horror of the plague and expresses an apprehension about the message from the oracle of Delphi. Other odes comment on the action that has taken place after the last ode and build an atmosphere appropriate to that stage of the play. It plays the role of a peace-maker between the king and Creon and succeeds in getting the king’s pardon for the latter. After the exit of Teiresias it comments on the terrible predictions which Teiresias has made but shows determination to support the king. Its most significant response is when Oedipus and Jocasta have expressed irreverent thoughts against the oracles. At many other times also they reflect the dominant mood and help to deepen it. When Oedipus imagines that he is the son of the goodness of luck, the Chorus, immediately sing that their master, Oedipus, might be the son of Apollo.

In the fifth or last choric ode in Oedipus Rex, the Chorus reflects the dejection of Oedipus and says that all the generations of moral man add up to nothing. This ode must not be regarded as reflecting the final mood and impression of the play, for the impression is as much of the greatness of the human spirit as of the insignificance of man and the transitoriness of his happiness. This ode must, therefore, be looked upon only as reflecting a final judgment of it. Oedipus remains forceful even in his downfall; in a sense he is still heroic.

The Chorus takes part in the dialogues also. When Oedipus consults them about ending the plague in the city, they express disappointment that the oracle had not guided them about the identity of Laius’ murderer. They also tell him what they know about the murder of their previous king and its circumstances. When Creon, learning that the king has accused him of treason, comes on the stage he talks to the Chorus, who tell him that the king’s accusation was probably made in the heat of anger. Creon asked if the king looked absolutely serious while making the charge and they rightly say that it is not for them to look into the eyes of his master when he speaks. When Oedipus has almost passed a sentence upon Creon, Jocasta arrives on the scene and first talks to the Chorus. They request her to settle the difference between the two men. They are worried when they see Jocasta going into the palace in a very dejected mood, and they give expression to their apprehension. Oedipus asks them about the shepherd who gave the infant to the Corinthian, they answer that his queen would be able to answer the question better. They sympathize with Oedipus when they see him after he has blinded himself. It is clear, thus, that the Chorus never takes a direct hand in the action. It does not consist only of spectators but influences the action in various subtle ways.

The contribution of the Chorus in Oedipus Rex is considerable. They link the play with common humanity. In some sense they are often in the position of the ideal spectator. They fill in the gaps in the action when no other character is there on the stage. They add to it the element of melody which must have been one of the attractions of Greek tragedy. They provide an appropriate shift between the titanic, heroic figure of Oedipus and the mass of common humanity represented by the two shepherds in Oedipus Res. The tragedy of Oedipus and its relevance to common life is very well stressed by the Chorus in its exit ode or exode.

Oedipus Rex By Sophocles - Hamartia

According to Aristotle, a tragic hero is a distinguished person occupying a high position or having a high status in life and in very prosperous circumstances falling into misfortune on account of a “hamartia” or some defect of character. He should be good or fine man though not perfect. There is nothing to arouse the feelings of pity or fear in seeing a bad character pass from prosperity into misfortune while the ruin of a man who represents near-perfection in the moral sense is repugnant and horrible. The tragic hero is neither a moral paragon nor a scoundrel. He should be true to type, and consistent or true to himself. Aristotle would attribute disaster or catastrophe in a tragedy to an error rather than a deliberate crime.

The main requirements of Aristotle in regard to the tragic hero are thus (1) high social standing, (2) moral excellence or goodness, and (3) some fault of character, or error committed by the hero in ignorance. Oedipus answers to all these requirements. Oedipus is a man of royal birth; he is brought up by a King and a Queen and he himself afterwards becomes a King and marries a Queen. He is thus a man of social eminence and possessing excellent qualities of character, though his is by no means perfect. We cannot say that his misfortune is due to any defect in his character, though his defects do produce the impression that such a man must pay for his defects. It would be wrong to say that he is a puppet in the hands of fate. Within certain limits he is a free agent, though it must be recognized that the prophecy of the oracle would yet have been fulfilled. 

Oedipus is a good king, a great well wisher of his people, a man of integrity, an honest and great administrator and an outstanding intellect. He is a pious man who believes in oracles, respects the bonds of family, and hates impurity. His belief in the prophecies of gods is the very basis of the whole play. The suppliant people approach him almost as a god and he is honoured as a saviour. When Creon reveals the cause of the city’s suffering, Oedipus declares his resolve to track down the criminal and he utters a terrible curse upon him. We can say that Oedipus is almost an ideal King. He also shows himself as a devoted husband and a loving father. He shows due consideration for the opinions and feelings of Jocasta and he lavishes all his affection on his daughters. His relations with the Chorus are also very cordial and he shows all due courtesy to them. In short both as a man and as a king Oedipus is worthy of high respect. 

However, Oedipus has his faults. He is hot-tempered, hasty in his judgment, proud of his intelligence, and random in his decisions. He quickly loses his temper when he finds the prophet reluctant to reveal the things that he knows. He jumps to the conclusion that Teiresias and Creon have hatched a conspiracy against him. This attitude of distrust towards the prophet is in sharp contrast to Oedipus’s genuine piety. Oedipus belongs to the world of politics and human standards rather than to the divine order of the world. His piety fails also later on when, under the influence of Jocasta, he becomes somewhat skeptical regarding the oracle.

An outstanding feature of Oedipus’s character is an inherent feeling of pride in his own wisdom. Because of this arrogance, Oedipus certainly alienates some of our sympathy. When self-confidence takes the form of pride, haughtiness, arrogance or insolence, it becomes disgusting and obnoxious. His attitude of intolerance towards both Teiresias and Creon and his highly offensive and insulting words to both of them create in us the impression that he is paving the way for his own downfall. Of course, Oedipus has already committed the crimes which make him a sinner in the eyes of the god, in his own eyes, and in the eyes of other people. But the tragedy lay in discovery that he is guilty of them. If the crimes had remained unknown there would hardly have been any tragedy. Tragedy comes with the fact for discovery both for Jocasta and himself.

It would be a flaw in the logic to say that Oedipus suffers because of his sin of pride, but his pride is not the direct cause of his tragedy. He tried to avoid the fulfillment of the prophecies made by oracle. He killed his father and married his mother. His tragedy is a tragedy of error. If he had been a little more careful, things would have taken a different shape. He might have avoided the quarrel on the road if he had not been so proud or hot-tempered; and he might have refused to marry a woman old enough if he had not been blinded by the pride of his intelligence in solving the riddle of the Sphinx. But, then, the prophecies of the oracle would have been fulfilled in some other way, because nothing could have been prevented their fulfillment. Pride has little to do with Oedipus’s killing his father and marrying his mother.

If Oedipus had not relentlessly pursued his investigations, he might have been spared the shock of discovery. Something in him drives him forward on the road to discovery. After Teiresias has first refused to tell him anything and then uttered some frightening prophecies. Oedipus is discouraged by Jocasta to continue his investigations. But he pays no heed to her philosophy of living at random. She makes another effort to stop his investigations when she has herself realized the truth, but again she failed. The Theban shepherd too tries, but in vain. It is this insistence on the truth that leads to the discovery in which lies the tragedy. We may interrupt this insistence on the truth as a form of pride, the pride of intellect, or the pride of knowing everything. The link of cause and effect is unmistakable between Oedipus’s pride of intellect and Oedipus’s discovery for his sins. But there is no strong link between his pride and the actual committing of his sins because the sins would have been committed in any case, if the oracle was to be fulfilled. The oracle did say that Oedipus would be guilty of those crimes but no oracle said that Oedipus must discover the truth. 

Oedipus is thus an authentic tragic hero in the Aristotelian sense because his tragedy is as much due to his own initiatives in discovering the truth as to external circumstances. To the modern mind, a high social position is not necessary for the tragic hero nor do they recognize the validity of oracles too. 

In Oedipus we see the helplessness of man in the face of the circumstances and his essential greatness. The manner in which Oedipus blinds himself after realizing his guilt and in which he endures his punishment raise him high in our esteem. The spirit of Oedipus remains unconquered even in his defeat and that is the essential fact about a tragic hero.

Oedipus Rex By Sophocles - Character is Destiny

“Oedipus Rex” is a tragedy of fate. The crucial events in the play have been pre-determined by fate or the gods. Man seems helpless facing the circumstances which mould his destiny. King Laius was told that his own son by Jocasta would kill him. Laius did everything possible to prevent such a disaster. Once Jocasta gave birth to a son, Laius had him chained and handed him over to a trustworthy servant with strict orders that the child be exposed on. Mt. Cithaeron and allowed to perish. But the servant, out of compassion, handed over the child to a Corinthian shepherd who passed him on to the Corinthian King. The child grew up as the son of the King and Queen of Corinth and later killed his true father, Laius, in complete ignorance. Apollo’s oracle was fulfilled even though Laius and Jocasta took the extreme step to escape the fate foretold by the oracle.

Oedipus had also to submit to the destiny which Apollo's oracle pronounced for him. He learnt from the oracle that he would kill his own father and marry his own mother. He, too, tried his utmost to avert a terrible fate and fled from Corinth. His wanderings took him to Thebes, where people were facing a great misfortune. King Laius had been killed and the city was in the grip of the Sphinx, who was causing a lot of destruction because nobody was able to solve her riddle. Oedipus solved the riddle and put an end to the monster. Oedipus was joyfully received by Theban people as their King and was given Laius’s widow as his wife. Thus, in complete ignorance of the identity of his parents, he killed his father and married his mother. He performed these disastrous acts not only unknowingly, but as a result of his efforts to escape the cruel fate which the oracle at had communicated to him.

It is evident that the occurrences which bring about the tragedy in the life of Laius, Oedipus, and Jocasta are the work of that mysterious supernatural power called fate or destiny or be given the name of Apollo. This supernatural power had pre-determined certain tragic events and even informed the human beings in advance. These human beings take whatever measures, to avert those events; and yet things turn out exactly as they had been foretold by the oracles. Oedipus has done nothing at all to deserve the fate which overtakes him. Nor do Laius and Jocasta deserve the fate they meet.

According to Aristotle the tragic hero is a prosperous man who falls into misfortune due to some serious defect or hamartia. No doubt that Oedipus is an able ruler, a father of his people, a great administrator and an outstanding intellect. His chief care is not for himself but for the people of the State. The people look upon him as their savior and worshipped him. He is also a religious man in the orthodox sense. That such a man should meet the sad fate is unbearably painful to us.

Oedipus is not, however, a perfect man or a perfect King. He does suffer from a hamartia or a defect of character. He is hot-tempered, rash, hasty in judgments, easily provoked and somewhat arbitrary. Though in the beginning his attitude towards Teiresias is one of reverence, he quickly loses his temper and speaks to the prophet in an insulting manner accusing both him and Creon of treason and showing a blind suspicion towards friends. His position and authority seem to be leading him to become a tyrant. Creon has to remind him that the city does not belong to him alone. Even when blinded he draws the reproach:

“Do not crave to be master in everything always.”

All this shows that Oedipus is not a man of a flawless character, not completely free from faults, not an embodiment of all the virtues. His pride in his own wisdom is one of his glaring faults. His success in solving the riddle of the Sphinx further developed his inherent feeling of pride. There is in him a failure of piety even. Under the influence of Jocasta, he grows sceptical of the oracles. Thus there is in him a lack of true wisdom which took him on the verge of becoming an impious tyrant.

If Oedipus had not been hot-tempered, he might not have got entangled in a fight on the road and might have not been guilty of murdering his father. Similarly, if he had been a little more cautious, he might have hesitated to marry a woman old enough to be his mother. After all there was no compulsion either in the fight or in his marriage. Both his acts may thus be attributed to his own defects of character. All at once it has to be accepted that the decree of the oracles were inescapable. Even if Oedipus had taken the precautions, the prophecy was to be fulfilled. The oracle’s prediction was unconditional; it did not say that if Oedipus did such and such a thing he would kill his father and marry his mother. The oracle simply said that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. What the oracle said, was bound to happen.

If Oedipus is the innocent victim of inescapable doom, he would be a mere puppet and the play becomes a tragedy of destiny which denies human freedom. Sophocles does not want to regard Oedipus as a puppet; there is reason to believe that Oedipus has been portrayed largely as a free agent. The attendant in the play insistently describes Oedipus’ self-blinding as voluntary and distinguishes it from his involuntary murder of his father and marriage with his mother. Oedipus’ actions were fate-bound, but everything that he does, he does as a free agent – his condemnation of Teiresias and Creon, his conversation with Jocasta to reveal the facts, his pursuing his investigation despite the efforts of Jocasta and the Theban shepherd to stop him, and so on. Oedipus, freely choosing a series of actions, led to his own ruin. Oedipus could have left the plague to take its course but his pity over the sufferings of his people forced him to consult the oracle. He could have left the murder of Laius uninvestigated, but his love of justice obliged him to inquire. He need not have forced the truth from the reluctant Theban shepherd but he could not rest content with a lie. Teiresias, Jocasta, the Theban shepherd each tried to stop Oedipus, but he was determined to solve the problem of his own parentage. The direct cause of his ruin is not fate; no oracle said that he must discover the truth. Still less does the cause of his ruin lie in his own weakness. His own strength and courage, his loyalty to Thebes and his love of truth causes his ruin. All this shows him a free agent.

In spite of the facts that Oedipus is a free agent in most of his actions, still the most tragic events of his life – his murder of his father and his marriage with his mother – had inevitably to happen. Here the responsibility of fate cannot be denied. The real tragedy lies in the discovery of truth, which is due to his own traits. If he had not discovered the truth, he would have continued to live in a state of blissful ignorance and there would have been no tragedy and no suffering. But the parricide and the incest were pre-ordained and for these fate is responsible.

Oedipus Rex By Sophocles - Catharsis

According to Aristotle tragedy should arouse the feeling of pity and terror – pity for the hero’s tragic fate and terror at the sight of the dreadful suffering befalling particularly the hero. By arousing pity and terror, a tragedy aims at the catharsis of these and similar other emotions and cures these feelings which always exist in our hearts. A tragedy, hence, affords emotional relief and the spectators rise at its end with a feeling of pleasure. This, according to Aristotle, is the aesthetic function of tragedy. Through catharsis the emotions are reduced to a healthy and balanced proportion. Besides pity and fear an audience also experiences contempt, hatred, delight, indignation, and admiration. Still, these emotions are less important or less intense. Pity and fear are the dominant emotions and they are intensely produced.

Tragedy, by means of pity, fear and other emotions also provides exercise and nourishment for the emotional side of human nature. It also satisfies our love of beauty and of truth, of truth to life and truth about life. Experience, and more experience, is a natural human craving. Tragedy leads to an enrichment of our experience of human life. It may teach us to live more wisely and widen the boundaries of our experience of life. Tragedy shows the eternal contradiction between human weakness and human courage, human stupidity and human greatness, human frailty and human strength. Tragedy gives us pleasure by exhibiting human endurance and perseverance in the face of calamities and disasters.

Pity and fear are the dominating feelings produced by the play “Oedipus Rex”. Apart from catharsis of these feelings, the play deepens our experience of human life and enhances our understanding of human nature and human psychology. The prologue produces in us pity and fear, pity for the suffering population of Thebes and fear of future misfortunes which might befall the people. The Priest, describing the state of affairs, refers to a tide of death from which there is no escape, death in the fields and pastures, in the wombs of women, death caused by the plague which grips the city. Oedipus gives expression to his feeling of sympathy, telling the Priest that his heart is burdened by the suffering of all the people. The entry-song of the Chorus following the prologue heightens the feelings of pity and fear. The Chorus says:

“With fear my heart is riven, fear of what shall be told. Fear is upon us.”

Oedipus’ proclamation of his resolve to track down the murderer of Laius brings some relief to us. But the curse, which Oedipus utters upon the unknown criminal and upon those who may be sheltering him, also terrifies us by its fierceness. The scene in which Oedipus clashes with Teiresias contributes to the feelings of pity and terror, the prophecy of Teiresias is frightening because it relates to Oedipus. Teiresias speaks to Oedipus in alarming tones, describing him in a veiled manner as “husband of the woman who bore him, father-killer and father-supplanter” and accusing him openly of being a murderer.

In the scene with Creon, the feeling of terror is much less, arising mainly from Oedipus’ sentence of death against the innocent Creon which is soon withdrawn. The tension reappears with Oedipus’ suspicion on hearing from Jocasta that Laius was killed where three roads met. Oedipus’ account of his arrival at Thebes arouses the feeling of terror by its reference to the prophecy which he received from the oracle, but both terror and pity subside when Jocasta tries to assure Oedipus that prophecies deserve no attention. The song of the Chorus harshly rebuking the proud tyrant revives some of the terror in our minds, but it again subsides at the arrival of the Corinthian after hearing whom Jocasta mocks at the oracles. The drama now continues at a rather low key till first Jocasta and then Oedipus find themselves confronted with the true facts of the situations. With the discovery of true facts, both the feelings of pity and fear reach their climax, with Oedipus lamenting his sinful acts of killing his father and marrying his mother.

But the feelings of pity and fear do not end here. The song of the Chorus immediately following the discovery arouses our deepest sympathy at Oedipus’ sad fate. The Chorus extends the scope of its observations to include all mankind:

“All the generations of mortal man add up to nothing.”

Then comes the messenger from the palace and he gives a terrible account of the manner in which Jocasta hanged herself and Oedipus blinded himself. The messenger concluded his account with the remark that the royal household is today overwhelmed by “calamity, death, ruin, tears and shame”. The conversation of the Chorus with Oedipus who is not blind is also extremely moving. Oedipus speaks of his physical and mental agony and the Chorus tries to console him. Oedipus describes himself as:

“…… shedder of father’s blood, husband of mother, Godless and child of shame, begetter of brother-sons”.

The feeling of deep grief by Oedipus is experienced by the audience with an equal intensity. The scene of Oedipus’ meeting with his daughters is also very touching. His daughters, laments Oedipus, will have to wander homeless and husbandless. He appeals to Creon in moving words to look after them.

The feeling of pity and fear has been continuously experienced from the very opening scene of the play. Other feelings aroused in our hearts were irritation with Oedipus at his ill-treatment of Teiresias, anger against Teiresias for his obstinacy and insolence, admiration for Creon for his moderation and loyalty, liking for Jocasta for her devotion to Oedipus, admiration for Oedipus for his relentless pursuits of truth and so on. But the feelings of relief, delight and pleasure have also been aroused in us. These feelings are the result partly of the felicity of the language employed and the music of poetry, but mainly the result of the spectacle of human greatness which we have witnessed side by side with the spectacle of human misery. The sins of Oedipus were committed unknowingly; in fact Oedipus did his utmost to avert the disaster. Oedipus is, therefore, essentially an innocent man, despite his sin of pride and tyranny. Jocasta too is innocent, in spite of her sin of scepticism. There is no villainy to be condemned in the play. The essential goodness of Oedipus, Jocasta and Creon is highly pleasing to us. But even more pleasing though at the same time saddening is the spectacle of human endurance seen in Jocasta and Oedipus inflicting upon themselves a punishment that is awful and terrible. In the closing scene, the blind Oedipus rises truly to heroic heights, displaying an indomitable spirit. Blind and helpless though he now is, and extremely ashamed of his parricide and incestuous experience as he is, he yet shows an invulnerable mind and it is this which has a sustaining, cheering, uplifting and exhilarating effect upon us.

Jocasta’s fate underlines that of Oedipus. So does the great song of the Chorus on the laws which are “enthroned above”. The song and in particular the denunciation of the tyrant are relevant to Oedipus and Jocasta. The song begins with a prayer for purity and reverence, clearly an answer to Oedipus’ and Jocasta's doubts about the oracles. It ends with an even more emphatic expression of fear of what will happen if the truth of the divine oracles is denied. Between the first and the last stanzas the Chorus describes the man who is born of hybris, such hybris as is displayed by the King and the Queen. The description follows to a large extent the conventional picture of the tyrant, mentioning his pride, greed and irreverence. Not every feature fits the character of Oedipus, nor should we expect that. The Chorus fears that he who behaves with presumption, pride and self-confidence will turn tyrannical and impious, and they foresee that Zeus, the true King of the world will punish the sins of the mortal King. If he does not do so, all religion will become meaningless, and all will be lost.

Othello By Shakespeare - Battle of Good vs Evil

Iago said:

“I am not what I am.”

What is Iago? -- as distinct from what he pretends to be -- and what are his motives?

In Shakespeare's, Othello, the reader is presented the classic battle between the deceitful forces of evil and the innocence of good. It are these forces of evil that ultimately lead to the breakdown of Othello, a noble Venetian moor, well-known by the people of Venice as a honourable soldier and a worthy leader. Othello's breakdown results in the murder of his wife Desdemona. Desdemona is representative of the good in nature. Good can be defined as forgiving, honest, innocent and unsuspecting. The evil contained within Othello is by no means magical or mythical yet is represented by the character Iago. Iago is cunning, untrustworthy, selfish, and plotting. He uses these traits to his advantage by slowly planning his own triumph while watching the demise of others. It is this that is Iago's motivation. The ultimate defeat of good by the wrath of evil. Not only is it in his own nature of evil that he succeeds but also in the weaknesses of the other characters. Iago uses the weaknesses of Othello, specifically jealousy and his devotion to things as they seem, to conquer his opposite in Desdemona. From the start of the play, Iago's scheming ability is shown when he convinces Roderigo to tell about Othello and Desdemonda's elopement to Desdemona's father, Brabantio. Confidentally Iago continues his plot successfully, making fools of others, and himself being rewarded. Except Roderigo, no one is aware of Iago's plans. This is because Iago pretends to be an honest man loyal to his superiors. The fact that Othello himself views Iago as trustworthy and honest gives the evil within Iago a perfect unsuspecting victim for his schemes. The opportunity to get to Desdemona through Othello is one temptation that Iago cannot refuse. He creates the impression that Desdemona is having an affair with Cassio in order to stir the jealousy within Othello. It is this jealousy and the ignorance of Othello that lead to the downfall of Desdemona; the one truly good natured character in the play.

As the play opens we are immediately introduced to the hostility of Iago against Othello. Iago has been appointed the position of servant to Othello instead of the more prestigious position of lieutenant. Michael Cassio has been appointed this position. Iago feels betrayed because he considers him self more qualified than Cassio to serve as lieutenant. Iago then foreshadows his plans for Othello to Roderigo,

“O, sir, content you;

I follow him to serve my turn upon him"

Iago already realizes that Othello thinks about him as an honest man. Roderigo is used by Iago as an apprentice and someone to do his “dirty” work. Roderigo is naively unsuspecting. As the play shifts from Venice to Cyprus there is an interesting contrast. Venice, a respectful and honourable town is overshadowed by the war torn villages of Cyprus. It could be said that Venice represents good or specifically Desdemona and that Cyprus represents evil in Iago. Desdemona has been taken from her peacefulness and brought onto the grounds of evil. Iago commits his largest acts of deceit in Cyprus, fittingly considering the atmosphere. Ironically, the Venetians feel the Turks are their only enemy while in fact Iago is in hindsight the one man who destroys their stable state. Act II Scene III shows Iago's willing ability to manipulate characters in the play. Iago convinces Montano to inform Othello of Cassio's weakness for alcohol hoping this would rouse dissatisfaction by Othello. Iago when forced to tell the truth against another character does so very suspiciously. He pretends not to offend Cassio when telling Othello of the fight Cassio was involved in, but Iago secretly wants the worst to become of Cassio's situation without seeming responsible. Cassio is relieved of his duty as lieutenant. With Cassio no longer in the position of lieutenant, this gives Iago the opportunity to more effectively interact with and manipulate Othello. By controlling Othello, Iago would essentially control Desdemona.

To reach Desdemona directly is unforeseeable for Iago considering that Othello is superior to him. It is for this reason that Iago decides to exploit Othello. If Iago can turn Othello against his own wife he will have defeated his opposition. Act III Scene III, is very important because it is the point in the play where Iago begins to establish his manipulation of Othello. Cassio feels that it is necessary to seek the help of Desdemona in order to regain his position of lieutenant and therefore meets with her to discuss this possibility. Iago and Othello enter the scene just after Cassio leaves, and Iago wistfully tries to make it look like Cassio left because he does not want to be seen in the courtship of Desdemona. Iago sarcastically remarks:

“Cassio, my lord! No, sure, I cannot think it

That he would steal away so guilty-like,

Seeing your coming.”

When Desdemona leaves, Iago takes the opportunity to strengthen Othello's views of honesty and trust towards him by saying ironically,

“Men should be what they seem;

Or those that be not, would they might seem none!"

This cleverness by Iago works upon one of the tragic flaws of Othello. Othello has a tendency to take everything he sees and everything he is told at face value without questioning the circumstances. Iago wonders why someone would pretend to be something they are not, while in fact that is the exact thing he represents. Finally, after hearing the exploits of Iago and witnessing the events surrounding Cassio, Othello for the first time is in conflict about what is the truth. This is the first stage of Iago's scheme to control Othello. As Emilia becomes suspicious about Othello's development of jealousy, Desdemona defends her husband by blaming herself for any harm done. This once again shows Desdemona's compassion and willingness to sacrifice herself for her husband. Othello begins to show his difficulty in maintaining his composure:

“Well, my good lady.

[Aside] O, hardness to dissemble --

How do you, Desdemona?

Act IV, Scene I is a continuation of the anxiety and indifference Othello is under going. Iago takes advantage of this by being blunt with Othello about his wife Desdemona. Iago suggests that she is having sexual relations with other men, possibly Cassio, and continues on as if nothing has happened. This suggestions put Othello into a state of such emotional turmoil that he is lost in a trance. Iago's control over Othello is so strong now that he convinces him to consider getting rid of Desdemona and even suggests methods of killing her. Iago, so proud of his accomplishments of underhandedness:

“Work on.

My medicine work! Thus credulous fools are caught;

And many worthy and chaste dames even thus,

All guiltless, meet reproach.”

Othello in this state commits his first act of violence against Desdemona by hitting her. This as a result of Desdemona's mention of Cassio. This shows now Othello's other tragic flaw. He made himself susceptible to Iago and the jealousy within him begins to lead to the demise of others. By his actions Othello has isolated himself from everyone except Iago. This gives Iago the perfect opportunity to complete his course of action. Iago does not tolerate any interference in his plans, and he first murders Roderigo before he can dispell the evil that Iago represents. Finally, Othello, so full of the lies told to him by Iago murders his wife. Desdemona, representative of goodness and heaven as a whole blames her death on herself and not Othello. Iago's wife, Emilia, becomes the ultimate undoing of Iago. After revealing Iago's plot to Othello, Iago kills her. This is yet another vicious act to show the true evil Iago represents. Othello finally realizes after being fooled into murder :

“I look down towards his feet; but that's a fable

If that thou best a devil, I cannot kill thee.”

Iago says

“I bleed, sir, but not killed,”

This is the final statement by Iago himself that truely shows his belief in evil and that he truly thinks he is the devil. That is the destruction of all that is good. Hell over heaven and black over white.

Iago, as a representation of evil, has one major motivational factor that leads him to lie, cheat, and commit crimes on other characters. This motivation is the destruction of all that is good and the rise of evil. This contrast is represented between Iago and Desdemona. Desdemona is described frequently by other characters as “she is divine, the grace of heaven”, while Iago in contrast is described as hellish after his plot is uncovered. Iago uses the other characters in the play to work specifically towards his goal. In this way, he can maintain his supposed unknowingness about the events going on and still work his scheming ways. Iago's schemes however at times seem to work unrealistically well which may or may not be a case of witchcraft or magic. Iago's major mistake, ironically, is that he trusted his wife Emilia and found that she was not as trustworthy as he thought. Although not completely victorious at the conclusion of the play, Iago does successfully eliminate the one character representative of heaven, innocence, and honesty. Yet “remains the censure of this hellish villain”.

Finally, everything Iago pretended to be led to his demise : Honesty, Innocence, and Love.

Othello By Shakespeare - A Racist Play?

There are lots of things to suggest this is a racist Play. Racism don't actually dominates the play, even though it has a racist theme. There is a romantic union between black and white which gets destroyed because most people think the relationship is wrong. At the time the play was written, 1604, even the Queen of England was racist so there must have been a strong hatred of blacks around that time. 

Most racist comments in the play are said by people that are angry or upset. For example, when Emilia found out that Othellohad killed Desdemona she was extremely mad and she called Othello a “Blacker devil”, this was the only time in the play that she had said anything racist about Othello. The main characters that have racist attitudes are Iago, Brabantio, Roderigo and Emilia, with the hatred of Othello as the basis for their racist actions and comments towards him. Iago is the most racist character in the book as he has it in for Othello right from the start. What sparks off Iago's hate towards him is the fact that when Othello chose his lieutenant , it was Cassio who was chosen instead of Iago. What made Iago angry was the fact thatCassio had no experience in war when he did and Cassio was chosen instead of him. Iago does not say anything racist to Othello's face but he has a lot to say against him behind his back. He schemes to destroy Othello and anything in his way including Cassio and Desdemona. The first time we hear one of his racist comments is when he's talking to Brabantio about Othello and Desdemona,

“Even now, very now, an old black ram is tupping your white ewe”.

Iago says this to try and turn Brabantio against Othello. Iago uses racist comments all the way through the play, as he tries to turn people against Othello, for example calling him a “Barbary Horse”. He never says anything racist to Othello's face because in his plot he had to be his best friend, so as not to make him suspicious that Iago was causing all the trouble for him. Iago is jealous of Othello for many reasons, one being that Othello has higher ranking in the army than him, and also he has a good marriage with Desdemona which Iago does not have himself with Emilia. These are the main causes of his hatred for Othello and the reason he adopts such a racist attitude. 

Roderigo is another one of the racist characters in the play, being so right from the start. He is Iago's accomplice and will doanything that Iago wants him to. I think he does this because of the way Iago can twist a situation to make it sound as if Roderigo would get something good from it but in the end he doesn't. 

One of the racist names he calls Othello behind his back is “Thick-lips”. He hates Othello because he's jealous of him as healso loves Desdemona but cannot have her. I don't think he views Othello in a very bad, racist way but uses the racism against Othello because he's jealous of him. Neither Roderigo or Iago would say anything racist to Othello's face as he is the general of the army. 

Brabantio is also a racist character, and is enraged when he finds out that his daughter, Desdemona, has been seeing “the moor”behind his back. Brabantio is so mad he sends out his guards to catch Othello and put him in prison. Brabantio views Othello as a foul and dirty no good black, I think this racist view of his is because he's angry when he finds out that his daughter has been seeing this “moor”. Unlike Iago and Roderigo, Brabantio will openly make racist comments about Othello to his face such as,

“lascivious moor”, 

“Wheeling stranger”.

Brabantio can do this because he is the Senator of Venice and is higher in rank than Othello. 

The other character who is racist towards Othello is Emilia, the lady in waiting to Desdemona. Emilia is disgusted with Othello when she finds out that Othello had killed Desdemona this is the time she gets a chance to express her feelings about Othello, 

“O, the more angel she, and you the blacker devil!” 

Although this is the only time she says what she thinks of him, I think that she was racist towards Othello all through the play and did not approve of his relationship with Desdemona but just could not show it because she would get in trouble with her “lord”. 

Because Shakespeare wrote a play about a black and white union, which was later destroyed, I think it shows that he's not racist. I think he feels that the union between the two is right, but the relationship would never survive in a racist community at that time. He portrayed the union between Othello and Desdemona as a good thing, and the people who destroyed it, mainly Iago and Roderigo as evil. This shows once again that he approves of a black and white relationship and therefore was not racist himself.

Once before Shakespeare wrote a sonnet about his mistress which says, for example,

“If snow be white, why then her breast be dun”

He writes about his mistress being black when other poets of that time wrote about how their mistresses were white. The other poets were the racist ones, they girlfriends were always white and perfect, Shakespeare wrote about how his mistresses is black and not very beautiful. Although the play has a strong racist theme against blacks but on the whole the play is not racist.

Othello By Shakespeare : Note on "The Motive-Hunting of Motiveless Malignity"

The famous phrase, "The motive-hunting of motiveless Malignity," occurs in a note Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote in his copy of Shakespeare, as he was preparing a series of lectures delivered in the winter of 1818-1819. The note concerns the end of Act 1, Scene 3 of Othello in which Iago takes leave of Roderigo, saying, 

"Go to, farewell. Put money enough in your purse,"

and then delivers the soliloquy beginning 

"Thus do I ever make my fool my purse."

Here is Coleridge's note: 

The triumph! again, put money after the effect has been fully produced.--The last Speech, the motive-hunting of motiveless Malignity--how awful! In itself fiendish--while yet he was allowed to bear the divine image, too fiendish for his own steady View.--A being next to Devil--only not quite Devil--& this Shakespeare has attempted-- executed--without disgust, without Scandal!-- (Lectures 1808-1819 On Literature 2: 315) 

Coleridge's phrase is often taken to mean that Iago has no real motive and does evil only because he is evil. This is not far from what Coleridge meant, but he almost certainly wasn't using the word “motive" in the same way as it's now used. We use it to mean “an emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an incitement to action" ("Motive"). This definition equates “motive" and “impulse"; Coleridge, however, thought the two quite different. He makes this distinction in an entry he wrote for Omniana, a collection of sayings assembled by his friend Robert Southey and published in 1812. Here is what Coleridge wrote:

119. Motives and Impulses.

“It is a matter of infinite difficulty, but fortunately of comparative indifference, to determine what a man's motive may have been for this or that particular action. Rather seek to learn what his objects in general are!--What does he habitually wish? habitually pursue?--and thence deduce his impulses, which are commonly the true efficient causes of men's conduct; and without which the motive itself would not have become a motive. Let a haunch of venison represent the motive, and the keen appetite of health and exercise the impulse: then place the same or some more favourite dish, before the same man, sick, dyspeptic, and stomach-worn, and we may then weigh the comparative influences of motives and impulses. Without the perception of this truth, it is impossible to understand the character of Iago, who is represented as now assigning one, and then another, and again a third, motive for his conduct, all alike the mere fictions of his own restless nature, distempered by a keen sense of his intellectual superiority, and haunted by the love of exerting power, on those especially who are his superiors in practical and moral excellence. Yet how many among our modern critics have attributed to the profound author this, the appropriate inconsistency of the character itself!” (Shorter Works and Fragments 1: 310) 

Thus Coleridge asserts that Iago's motives (in our sense) were his “keen sense of his intellectual superiority" and his “love of exerting power." And so Iago's malignity is “motiveless" because his motives (in Coleridge's sense) -- being passed over for promotion, his suspicion that Othello is having an affair with his wife, and the suspicion that Cassio is also having an affair with Emilia -- are merely rationalizations.

Importance Of Being Earnest By Oscar Wild : Major Themes

Manners and Sincerity

The major target of Wilde's scathing social criticism is the hypocrisy that society creates. Frequently in Victorian society, its participants comported themselves in overly sincere, polite ways while they harbored conversely manipulative, cruel attitudes. Wilde exposes this divide in scenes such as when Gwendolen and Cecily behave themselves in front of the servants or when Lady Bracknell warms to Cecily upon discovering she is rich. However, the play truly pivots around the word "earnest." Both women want to marry someone named "Ernest," as the name inspires "absolute confidence"; in other words, the name implies that its bearer truly is earnest, honest, and responsible. However, Jack and Algernon have lied about their names, so they are not really "earnest." But it also turns out that (at least in Jack's case) he was inadvertently telling the truth. The rapid flip-flopping of truths and lies, of earnestness and duplicity, shows how truly muddled the Victorian values of honesty and responsibility were. 

Dual Identities

As a subset of the sincerity theme (see above), Wilde explores in depth what it means to have a dual identity in Victorian society. This duality is most apparent in Algernon and Jack's "Bunburying" (their creation of an alter ego to allow them to evade responsibility). Wilde hints that Bunburying may cover for homosexual liaisons, or at the very least serve as an escape from oppressive marriages. Other characters also create alternate identities. For example, Cecily writes correspondence between herself and Ernest before she has ever met him. Unlike real men, who are free to come and go as they please, she is able to control this version of Ernest. Finally, the fact that Jack has been unwittingly leading a life of dual identities shows that our alter egos are not as far from our "real" identities as we would think. 

Critique of Marriage as a Social Tool

Wilde's most concrete critique in the play is of the manipulative desires revolving around marriage. Gwendolen and Cecily are interested in their mates, it appears, only because they have disreputable backgrounds (Gwendolen is pleased to learn that Jack was an orphan; Cecily is excited by Algernon's "wicked" reputation). Their shared desire to marry someone named Ernest demonstrates that their romantic dreams hinge upon titles, not character. The men are not much less shallow-Algernon proposes to the young, pretty Cecily within minutes of meeting her. Only Jack seems to have earnest romantic desires, though why he would love the self-absorbed Gwendolen is questionable. However, the sordidness of the lovers' ulterior motives is dwarfed by the priorities of Lady Bracknell, who epitomizes the Victorian tendency to view marriage as a financial arrangement. She does not consent to Gwendolen's marriage to Jack on the basis of his being an orphan, and she snubs Cecily until she discovers she has a large personal fortune. 

Idleness of the Leisure Class and the Aesthete

Wilde good-naturedly exposes the empty, trivial lives of the aristocracy-good-naturedly, for Wilde also indulged in this type of lifestyle. Algernon is a hedonist who likes nothing better than to eat, gamble, and gossip without consequence. Wilde has described the play as about characters who trivialize serious matters and solemnize trivial matters; Algernon seems more worried by the absence of cucumber sandwiches (which he ate) than by the serious class conflicts that he quickly smoothes over with wit. But Wilde has a more serious intent: he subscribes to the late-19th-century philosophy of aestheticism, espoused by Walter Pater, which argues for the necessity of art's primary relationship with beauty, not with reality. Art should not mirror reality; rather, Wilde has said, it should be "useless" (in the sense of not serving a social purpose; it is useful for our appreciation of beauty). Therefore, Algernon's idleness is not merely laziness, but the product of someone who has cultivated an esteemed sense of aesthetic uselessness. 

Farce

The most famous aspect of Oscar Wilde's literature is his epigrams: compact, witty maxims that often expose the absurdities of society using paradox. Frequently, he takes an established cliché and alters it to make its illogic somehow more logical ("in married life three is company and two is none"). While these zingers serve as sophisticated critiques of society, Wilde also employs several comic tools of "low" comedy, specifically those of farce. He echoes dialogue and actions, uses comic reversals, and explodes a fast-paced, absurd ending whose implausibility we overlook because it is so ridiculous. This tone of wit and farce is distinctively Wildean; only someone so skilled in both genres could combine them so successfully.

Difference Between Epic and Mock Epic

The Epic

The epic is generally defined: A long narrative poem on a great and serious subject, related in an elevated style, and centered on a heroic or quasi-divine figure on whose actions depends the fate of a tribe, a nation, or the human race. The traditional epics were shaped by a literary artist from historical and legendary materials which had developed in the oral traditions of his nation during a period of expansion and warfare (Beowulf, The Odyssey, The Iliad).

“An extended narrative poem,

usually simple in construction, but grand in scope,

exalted in style, and heroic in theme, often giving expression to the ideals of a nation or race. ”

Epic Conventions, or characteristics common to both types include:

1. The hero is a figure of great national or even cosmic importance, usually the ideal man of his culture. He often has superhuman or divine traits. He has an imposing physical stature and is greater in all ways than the common man.

2. The setting is vast in scope. It covers great geographical distances, perhaps even visiting the underworld, other wortlds, other times.

3. The action consists of deeds of valor or superhuman courage (especially in battle).

4. Supernatural forces interest themselves in the action and intervene at times. The intervention of the gods is called "machinery."

5. The style of writing is elevated, even ceremonial.

6. Additional conventions: certainly all are not always present)

1. Opens by stating the theme of the epic.

2. Writer invokes a Muse, one of the nine daughters of Zeus. The poet prays to the muses to provide him with divine inspiration to tell the story of a great hero.

3. Narrative opens in media res. This means "in the middle of things," usually with the hero at his lowest point. Earlier portions of the story appear later as flashbacks.

4. Catalogs and geneaologies are given. These long lists of objects, places, and people place the finite action of the epic within a broader, universal context. Oftentimes, the poet is also paying homage to the ancestors of audience members.

5. Main characters give extended formal speeches.

6. Use of the epic simile. A standard simile is a comparison using "like" or "as." An epic or Homeric simile is a more involved, ornate comparison, extended in great detail.

7. Heavy use of repetition and stock phrases. The poet repeats passages that consist of several lines in various sections of the epic and uses homeric epithets, short, recurrent phrases used to describe people, places, or things. Both made the poem easier to memorize. 

Aristotle described six characteristics: "fable, action, characters, sentiments, diction, and meter." Since then, critics have used these criteria to describe two kinds of epics:

Epic

* fable and action are grave and solemn

* characterrs are the highest

* sentiments and diction preserve the sublime

* verse 

Comic Epic

* fable and action are light and ridiculous

* characters are inferior

* sentiments and diction preserve the ludicrous

* verse 

When the first novelists began writing what were later called novels, they thought they were writing "prose epics." Daniel Defoe, Henry Fielding, and Samuel Ruichardson attempted the comic form. Yet what they wrote were true novels, not epics, and there are differences.

The Epic

* oral and poetic language

* public and remarkable deeds

* historical or legendary hero

* collective enterprise

* generalized setting in time and place

* rigid traditional structure according to previous patterns 

Comic Epic

* written and referential language

* private, daily experiencer

* humanized "ordinary" characters

* individual enterprise

* particularized setting in time and place

* structure determined by actions of character within a moral pattern 

Sidelight: Homer, the author of The Iliad and The Odyssey, is sometimes referred to as the "Father of Epic Poetry." Based on the conventions he established, classical epics began with an argument and an invocation to a guiding spirit, then started the narrative in medias res. In modern use, the term, "epic," is generally applied to all lengthy works on matters of great importance. The Rhapsodoi, professional reciters, memorized his work and passed it on by word of mouth as part of an oral tradition.

Rape of The Lock By Pope : As Mock Epic

An epic, according to Aristotle, is the tragedy of a conspicuous person, who is involved in adventurous eventsand meets a tragic fallon account of some error of judgment i.e. hamartiawhich throws him from prosperity into adversity,however, his death is not essential. So, the subject matter of an epic is grandand that’s why it is written in bombastic languagen heroic couplet. Its style, too, is grand.

A mock-epic is a satire of an epic. It shows us that even a trivial subject can also be treated on epical scale. The subject of “The Rape of the Lock” is trivial – a love dispute between a lady ad a gentleman. Lord Byron proposes Belinda who rejects his proposal. Baron cuts one of her beautiful looks. This trivial theme has been given epical treatment as if it were some grave event of paramount importance.

The style of the poet is mock-heroic. He employs bombastic and showy diction for thoughts and ideas which are not really grand – pompous expression for low action – for example, the game of Ombre had been described as a war of nerves, the table has been termed as the battlefield, the dispersed cards have been dubbed as routed army etc.

Similarly, the process of Belinda’s make –up has been termed s adoration and the sacred rites of priced. Belinda is called ‘inferior priestess’ and her toilet an ‘alter’ etc.

The poet has employed the epical method to heighten the effect i.e. the great has been made look small and vice versa. The introduction of the aerial machinery is used for heightening of effect. Belinda is an ordinary fashionable girl, but she has been shown being protected by thousands of spirits. The trivial game of Ombre has been compared with a grave war of nerves. The ordinary flight between the supports of Belinda and those of Peter has been compared with the fatal war between gods and goddesses and their hair pins, fans, etc. with which they fought have been termed as ‘deadly weapons’, spears, etc. The grief of Belinda at the loss of the lock has been compared with the shock at the death of a husband or a lapdog or at the breakage of a China vessel. Thus the poet raises a lapdog to the level of a husband or reduces a husband to the level of a lapdog.

The poet has also employed epical and heroic images, which is one of the prerequisites of a mock-epic. For example, Belinda has been named as ‘the fairest of mortals’, the ‘bright fair’. The cards have been called ‘parti-coloured troops’. The pair of scissors has been termed as a two-edged ‘weapon’, ‘little engine’, ‘forfex’, ‘fatal engine’, etc.

Belinda’s dreams have been called mystic vision. The air-pins have been compared with ‘deadly weapons’ and ‘deadly spears’ etc. Belinda’s eyes have been dubbed as ‘fair suns’.

Humour is one of the prerequisites of a mock-epic and the poem is full of humour and its humour is pleasing as compared to Swift’s humour.

Moral is an essential part of a mock-epic. This poem is full of morals from the beginning till the end. However, the speeches of Belinda and Clarissa are especially soaked in moral. Belinda repents that she would have been ten times happier if she had indulged herself in the pursuits of the fashionable circle. So, the more a woman exposes herself and her beauty, the more her chastity is in danger.

Rape Of The Lock By Pope: Social Satire

As Shakespeare is the poet of man, Pope is a poet of society. “The Rape of the Lock” is a social document because it mirrors contemporary society and contains a social satire, too. Pope paints about England in 18th century.
The whole panorama of “The Rape of the Lock” revolves around the false standard of 18th century. Pope satirizes the young girls and boys, aristocratic women and men, their free time activities, nature of husbands and wives, the professional judges and politicians of the day.
Pope clearly depicts the absurdities and the frivolities of the fashionable circle of the 18th century England. The world of Belinda – the world of fashion is a trivial world. The whole life of Belinda is confined to sleeping, make-up, enjoyment and alluring the lords. There are no transcendental elements in her life. This life is marked by ill-nature, affection, mischievousness, coquetry, yielding and submissive nature, fierce and unruly nature, infidelity, cheapness, meanness, trivialities and frivolities etc. Belinda represents all the fashion struck women, busy in such stupidities.
The gallants of the time have not been spared by Pope. Baron not only represents Peter but also typifies the aristocratic gallants of the age.
Pope satirizes man’s nature that is always weak at beauty. Men sacrifice everything at the altar of beauty and even the most intelligent man behaves foolishly when he fall a victim to beauty.
In order to make his satire sharper and all the more effective, Pope introduces the aerial machinery, which facilitates the satire. Through this weapon, the poet throws in contrast the weaknesses of the fashionablewomen of that age. He satirizes women who are interested in fashionable life and its pursuits and who go on exercising their evil influence even after their death. For the sake of worldly grandeur, they can bid farewell even to their chastity and honour. He satirizes women of fiery, coquettish mischievous and yielding nature and gives them different names. It also provides the poet with an opportunity to satirize the class consciousness of women.
All the women and beaus gather at the place where they exchange talks on trivial things e.g. visits, balls, films, motions, looks, eyes, etc. and “at every word, a reputation dies”.

“A beau and witling perished in the throng,
One died in metaphor, and one in song.”

Man’s favourite activity is to take suffered women to play with fan. There is singing, dancing, laughing, ogling, etc. and nothing else. Women are busy alluring the dukes and lords. The poet reflects the hollowness of men in the character of Sir Plume who is coward, foolish and senseless, lacking courage. Women are on the whole irresolute and they have made toyshops of their hearts. They have even illicit relations with the beaus. Women are meant only for the entertainment of men, who play toy with them.
Pope also satirizes of the husbands and wives of the day. Husbands always suspect their wives. They think that their wives have been merry making with their lovers.
Wives are also not virtuous at all. They love their lap-dogs more than their husbands. And the death of husbands is not more shocking than the death of a lap dog or the breakage of a china vessel.
So through the medium of satire, Pope paints a picture of 18th century English society. His satire is didactic and impersonal. It is not inflicted against any person or individual, rather against the society and that, too, owing to some moral faults. He is dissatisfied with the society around which he wants to reform. The society he pictured is the aristocratic group of 18th century fashionable English society. But thee are several allied subjects, too, on which he inflicts his satire. For example, he satirized the judged who make hasty decisions.

“The hungry judges soon the sentence sign,
And wretches hang that jurymen may dine”

He also satirized those friends whose friendship is but lust, those politicianswho do not have a deeper insight and cannot see beyond the shows and take steps just for their own interests and ends etc.
To sum up, the poem is a reflection of this artificial and hollow life, painted with a humorous and delicate satire. Pope’s satire is intellectual and full of wit and epigram. Is picture of Addison as Atticus though unjust and prompted by malice, is a brilliant piece of satire.

“As an intellectual observer and describer of personal weakness, Pope stands by himself in English verse.”

Rape Of The Lock By Pope :Supernatural Machinery

Pope explains that “machinery” is a term invented by the critics to signify the part which deities, angles, or demons play in a poem. He goes on to say that the machinery in this poem is based on the Rosicrucian doctrine of spirits in which the four elements are inhabited by sylphs, nymphs, gnomes and salamanders. The sylphs, whose habitation is in the air, are the best-conditioned creatures.
Pope tells us that beautiful women return, after their death, to the elements from which they were derived. Termagants or violent tempered women become salamanders or spirit of the fire. Women of gentle and pleasing disposition pass into nymphs or water-spirits. Prudish women become gnomes or earth spirits. Light-hearted coquettes are changed into sylphs or spirits of the air.
The first and the foremost activity of the sylphs is the protection of fair and chaste ladies who reject the male sex. They guard and save the chastity of maidens and save them from falling victims to the “treacherous friends”. The gnomes or earth spirits fill the minds of proud maidens with foolish ideas of being married to lords and peers. These gnomes teach young coquette to ogle and pretend blushing at the sight of fashionable young men. However, sylphs safely guide the maidens through all dangers. Whenever a maiden is about to yield to a particular young man, more attractive and tempting man appears on the scene and the fashionable maiden at once transfers to the new comer. This may be called levity or fickleness in women but it is all contrived by the sylphs.

In most of the famous epics, “machinery” consists in supernatural beings like gods and angles who play a vital role in the poems thus showing that the human world is not independent and that supernatural powers have an important bearing in this world. Pope thought that his mock epic would be incomplete withoutmachinery. The machinery of his poem comprises the sylphs led by Ariel. Pope described wittily the occupation and tasks of the sylphs in general.

Ariel and his followers were assigned humble but pleasant duty of serving fashionable young ladies. Their functions are described humorously including saving the powder from being blown off from the cheeks of ladies, preventing scents from evaporating, preparing cosmetics, teaching the ladies to blush and to put on enchanting airs, suggesting new ideas about dress.
The sylphs show a delightful downscaling of the epic machines. They are heroic standards but feel scared when a crisis approaches. They are Belinda's counselors. They explain the various anxieties that make up Belinda's day.

“The Rape of the Lock” may be described as a satirical comedy of manners. The sylphs in this poem are both in mirror and mock customs and conventions of the society of the time. Belinda is told in a dream about the danger of life.
Reassuring Belinda in this way, Ariel is in fact undermining her moral position. He explains how a woman’s defence is achieved. A maid would fall to Florio if Demon were not at hand to divert her attention. It is the sylphs who make her do that.
The machines are present at every crucial situation in the play. The sylphs are present during Belinda’s journey by boat to Hampton Court. They have been warned by Ariel to remain alert and vigilant. Fifty of them take charge of Belinda’s petticoat. They attend on her when she plays Ombre. They hover around her when she sips coffee and they withdraw only when Ariel sees “an earthly lover lurking at her heart”. A gnome, called Umbriel, goes to the cave of Spleen and brings a bag full of sighs, sobs, screams and outbursts of anger, and a phial filled with fainting fits, gentle sorrows, soft briefs, etc. all of which are released over Belinda. And then sylphs are present to witness the flight of Belinda’s lock of hair to the sky.

The sylphs were added to the poem not simply as shinning trinkets and three-penny bits to a Christmas pudding but to develop and flavour the whole. They improve the literary and human mockery. The machinery of sylphs is the principal symbol of the triviality of Belinda’s world. “The light militia of the lower sky” is a parody of both Homeric deities and Miltonic guardian angles. Like these they have an ambiguous status; they exist within and without the characters. The sylphs who protect Belinda are also her acceptance of the rules of social convention which presume that a coquette’s life is a pure game.
The machinery of sylphs in this poem is vastly superior to the allegorical personages of respective mock-epics. It allows Pope to show his awareness of the absurdities which nevertheless is charming, delightful and filled with a real poetry. The myth also allows him to suggest that the charm, in past at least, springs from the very absurdity.
Machinery serves various purposes in the poem. It imparts splendour and wonder to the actors and the actions in the story. Like Homer’s gods, Pope’s sylphs move easily in and out of the lower world. What they really stand for – feminine honour, flirtation courtship, the necessary rivalry of man and woman – is seen in its essence, and is always beautiful.
These “light militia of the lower sky”, increase dramatic suspense and story depth. They help to universalize the whole action. They are in binding symbolism of the little drama.
The sylphan machinery is superb. Ariel offers a satanic substitute for Christianity. Addison advised Pope against adding the machinery of the sylphs to the poem but that Pope ignored the advice. Pope succeeded eminently in his design of introducing his element.

According to John Dennis, Pope’s machinery contradicts the doctrine of the Christian religion and all sound morality. They provide no instruction and make no impression upon a sensible reader. Instead of making the action wonderful and delightful, they render it absurd, and incredible. Dennis’ opinion is, however, not sound or convincing.