The Nguyên Du School of Creative Writing, which he founded and directed from 1980 to

1990, in Hanoi. He received his doctorate in philology from Moscow University and is

currently a member of the Association of Vietnamese Writers. He is the author of several

critical studies including Introduction to Ethics (1976), The Life and Poetry of

Mayakovasky’s Plays, which won the 1987 AVW First Prize, A History of Soviet

Literature (1982, 1984), Contemporary Soviet Literature (1987), Literature and the Study

of Literature (1990), Five Lectures on Literary Genres (1992), in which this essay

originally appeared as isThe Power of Culture and the Development of Literature: The

Case of Vietnamlr (1995).

Translator’s note: With the author’s approval an earlier part of the essay, which

summarizes the plot of Oedipus Rex, is not printed here.  Trần Qúy Phiệt.

In world literature tragedy is major genre, which has a long, prestigious tradition.

Like most literary genres, tragedy has been subjected to a continuous evolution, not only

at every literary period, but also in every literary masterpiece. Today tragedies are not

written in the same manner as Euripides’ and Sophocles’ were written more than 2,000

years ago. However, since each genre has “a memory” of its own, still remembers its

past, its origin, and its beginning, Greek drama can be viewed as “the glorious beginning

of tragedy.”

There are two reasons to choose Sophocles for our analysis. The story of Oedipus

has a meaning so special in the history of European literature that major writers have

turned to this subject in almost every literary period. The three greatest playwrights of

ancient Greece—Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides—wrote about this subject. In the later

periods Corneille in the 17 th century, Voltaire in the 18 th century, and in our modern

times André Gide, who also wrote a play bearing the same title. Moreover, Sophocles’

Oedipus Rex over the ages has always been recognized as a typical tragic genre.

Aristotle, the first critic to lay a foundation for modern criticism, frequently speaks of this

play in his Poetics. Even great authors in later periods such as Racine in the 17 th century

and Schiller in the 18 th century unanimously recognized the character Oedipus as, in the

words of C.C Averintrev, “absolyuntnoe voploshenie samoi idei zhanra” ‘the absolute

embodiment of the concept of the genre tragedy’.

Like all literary masterpieces, Oedipus Rex has myriad important meanings. Over

the ages new themes have been found and the work, considered to be an epitome of

human thought, is an inexhaustible subject for study. Traditional critics have viewed this

play as an illustration of the glory and the fragility of happiness. This idea is clearly

expressed by the chorus at the end of section 4:

Majestic Oedipus!

No prince in Thebes had ever such grace of power

And now of all men ever known

Most pitiful is this man’s story:

His fortunes are most changed, his State

Fallen to allow slaves

Ground under bitter fate.

(trans. Fitts and Fitzgerald 124)

“The great door that expelled you to the light/Gave it night—ah, have night to

your glory”(124). Oedipus thought that he had reached the height of splendor and

happiness. But suddenly, everything collapses and vanishes. Though Oedipus feels that

he is “a child of luck,” the glory he attained only makes him acutely perceive his shame

afterward. The image “anchor” occurs often in the play. What boat does not seek to drop

anchor? Having landed the city of Thebes and Iocastê’s bed, the wanderer Oedipus

thought that he had finally found a home. But this home turned out to be an abyss. Most

writers who view human existence in a clear, cool, and philosophical manner choose to

explore this topic in their works. Man’s life is protected and developed by his creative

inspiration and activities. His desires and efforts to make valuable contributions to

human existence, in the final analysis, aimed to search for truth, beauty, and goodness

(which encompasses, in a broad sense, material and moral values beneficial to human

existence). In important literary works creative inspiration is the driving force—this

does not mean, however, that the theme of the futility of life is absent. In contrast, the

insignificance of life is an overarching subject in decadent literature. In its extreme the

theme of the insignificance of life becomes that of emptiness. In Oedipus Rex at the end

of scene IV on seeing Oedipus, now a blind man groping along, the chorus laments:

Alas for the seed of men,

What measure shall I give these generations

That breathe on the void and are void

And exist and do not exist? (124)

This statement has been taken out from the play to describe the main conception

of life by numerous decadent philosophers and poets of later periods. Oedipus Rex would

not be a masterpiece if it treated only the themes of the futility of glory and the fragility

of happiness. A more important theme in the play is the awareness of truth and the

determination to find truth. In our country (Vietnam, trans.) the purpose of scholarly

research and creative writing is to fight for freedom rather than for truth. But, in fact,

these two themes are closely related. As one character in Maxim Gorky's Na dne (In the

Abyss) admits, “Lozh - religiya rabov i hozyaeve, pravda - Bog svobodnogo cheloveka”

‘Falsity [is] the religion of slaves and slave owners; truth [is] the God of free men’(166).

In Oedipus Rex Sophocles illustrates the search for truth in his two characters, Teiresias

and Oedipus. The blind seer Teiresias has an extraordinary prophetic power. Not only

does he know well what happened, but he can foresee what will happen. Oedipus calls

him “a holy prophet.” Summoned by Oedipus to tell him the murderer of Laios,

Teiresias points to the king. Threatened by the furious king, he replies undauntedly: “I

have gone free. It is the truth that sustains me. (Teiresias not only knows the truth, he

also believes in the power and prestige of the truth. In order to understand Teiresias’

character and wisdom better, we should distinguish two things: Know the truth and tell

the truth. In fact, at first Teiresias does not want to tell Oedipus the truth. He

sympathizes with Oedipus and is convinced that since the truth will reveal itself

eventually it is unnecessarily to torture Oedipus by telling him what he knows. A prophet

is not one who tells or does not tell a truth but should consider whether he should tell that

truth. Teiresias is not one who speaks the truth to appease his audience or himself. But

when, in retaliation to his silence, King Oedipus charges him with being implicated in the

murder, he has no choice but disclosing the truth. From this moment on, Teiresias stands

his ground, that is, protecting the truth. Oedipus, however, views truth differently. To

him truth is man’s courageous attitude toward truth about himself. At the beginning

prompted by his sincere desire to save the Thebans from the gods’ revenge, Oedipus is

eager to investigate the murder of Laios. The investigation, however, gradually reveals

the truth about his identity and his sinful past. Oedipus could have stopped his

investigation and rejected the unraveling truth by citing some unclear information in the

shepherd’s testimony. A further step to be taken in the investigation would lead to the

total revelation of the truth and the tragic downfall of the glorious ruler of Thebes. Does

Oedipus dare to take that further step? The chorus—and the audience—are anxiously

watching the development of the story. Iocastê also pleads to Oedipus to stop. But

Oedipus is determined to carry out his earnest wish: knowing the truth. He orders the

search for his parents’ former servant to confirm the final findings of his inquest. Though

the servant shows up unexpectedly and Oedipus could have called off his interrogation at

any moment, he refuses to do so. In his journey to truth Oedipus takes the last step and

falls into a deep abyss. But it is this last tragic step that marks his self-victory. It can also

be said that this signifies the shift from wrong-headed perception to enlightening self-perception.

Recognizing the truth about oneself is related to an important theme: self-discovery.

In this respect the author of Oedipus Rex belonged of the same tradition as

Socrates, the greatest Greek philosopher and Sophocles’ contemporary, who brought

philosophy from heaven to earth with his famous motto, “Know Thyself.” Oedipus is

desperately grasping at straws in an attempt to prove his innocence: There is no survivor

of the murder at the place where the three highways met. This is reinforced by Iocastes’

assurance that many marauding strangers were involved in the attack upon Laios and his

cortege. Emboldened by these stories, Oedipus completely tries to project his crime on

others. He charges that Teiresias planned it and “killed [Laios] with your own hands”

and that Creon incited Teiresias to destroy him. When reading Scene I, one cannot help

but feel that a criminal is trying to silence the voice of his conscience. Oedipus both fears

and wants the truth. In the end his conscience wins. His moral scruples then make this

terrible victory he has gained in his struggle to find the truth even more significant.

Oedipus Rex contains many lessons about the truths of life. The play seems to illustrate

this essential character commonly known as fate: the process of revealing the truth about

Oedipus’ crimes.

Extraordinarily intelligent, Oedipus was able to solve the Sphinx’s riddle, but he

is completely ignorant of his own identity. At issue here are two kinds of intellect. The

first kind enables man to understand the external world as as well as the mysteries

existing outside of it. Science and technology are the products of this sort of intelligence.

With it man can achieve strength and power just as Oedipus’ solution to the Sphinx’s

riddle entitles him to sovereignty. The second kind of intelligence is man’s wisdom, his

inner light which allows him to see and know himself. It is through art and literature that

man develops this kind of intellect. At this age of science and technology the relation

between two sorts of intellect, between science and technology and art and literature is an

extremely important issue. Debates over the choice between “physicality” and

“emotivity” have exploded almost everywhere. Mankind has plenty of intelligence to

solve the mysteries of cells, atoms, and the Milky Way. But mankind is facing the

danger of falling into a bottomless precipice. Oedipus Rex contains the lessons whose

meanings until now are still unknown yet important.

Why is Oedipus who is famous for his intelligence so blind to his destiny? This

question leads to another principal theme in the play: man’s hubrisŠhis blindness on

account of his thirst for power, prestige, and fame. Based on its title in Old Greek,

Oedipus the Tyrant. Oedipus tiraneos, a correct translation should be Oedipus the

Usurper, or Oedipus the Tyrant. Oedipus’ destiny is that of a usurper or tyrant whose

typical vice is arrogance. Through the chorus, Sophocles deals with the connection

between this flaw and blindness in the tyrant:

The tyrant is a child of Pride

Who drinks from his great sickening cup

Recklessness and vanity,

Until from high crest headlong

He plummets to the dust of hope. (110)

The wickedness of a typical tyrant is clearly shown in Oedipus. His voice is full

of arrogance: “I have come myself to hear you / I, Oedipus, who bear the famous name”

(983). He considers himself “a child of luck.” The chorus’ praise for his divine origin

makes him become even more overbearing. Believe in his absolute sovereignty causes

him to commit irrational acts such as insulting the prophet and bullying the old servant.

Oedipus’ blindness is the flip side of his insane hunger for power and celebrity. The

theme of the craving for power has a great relevance to modern politics. However, it is

important to distinguish here the hunger for power and the correct exercise of power.

Without knowing how to exercise his power, a ruler runs the risk of forfeiting his

responsibility toward his people.

An analysis of Oedipus’ behavior shows the dramatist’s criticism of man’s mad

longing for power. According to legend, before attaining the apex of glory Oedipus had

carried out three things: killing Laios, destroying the Sphinx, and marrying Iocastê. The

tree-way intersection Oedipus sees in his retreat calls to mind the three roads that lead to

these three acts committed by Oedipus. In the play patricide is insignificant. The chorus

seems to deplore only Oedipus’ incest. Furthermore, patricide is hardly mentioned in

some other versions of the Oedipus legend. How is Oedipus’ victory over the Sphinx

connected to his marriage to Queen Iocastê? The fact that Oedipus solves the Sphinx’s

riddle is reminiscent of an ancient custom according to which the groom was not allowed

to enter the nuptial chamber until he solved his bride’s riddle. The destruction of the

Sphinx by Oedipus can be seen as his preparation for getting in Iocastê’s bed.

Furthermore, there seems to be a certain similarity between the Sphinx and Iocastê,

between Oedipus winning the monster and marrying the widowed Queen. Although the

Sphinx is said to hermaphroditic, according to a legend, it is female. In a different version

of the legend the Sphinx and Iocastê are one. The fact that Oedipus’ marrying Iocastê

thus means that he knows the secret of this woman. In his essay on the myth of Oedipus

the critic Averintrev demonstrated a common belief at that time: sleeping with someone

meant knowing his or her secret life. For instance, the Bible says, “Adam knows Eve his

wife; and she conceived” (Genesis: 4:1). There is a striking correlation between the

Sphinx and Iocastê. The beast had appeared before Oedipus with the riddle and

disappeared when it was solved. Iocastê herself is also a riddle. She disappears when her

mystery is unraveled. In fine, of the three acts committed by Oedipus, marrying Iocastê,

his mother, is the most important one because it is the gist of the story. What then does

this mean? First of all, incest is the most dominant theme in the play. As we know,

because ancient Greek civilization as well as every world civilization operates at different

levels each of which has its own appearance, a fact can be subjected to several different

interpretations. Based on the superstitious beliefs and dream interpretations by a special

social class in ancient Greece, Averintxev has found in Oedipus’ marrying his mother a

symbolic meaning which has nothing to do with incest. For example, a book on dream

interpretations at that time explained a man’s dream of sleeping with his mother as a sign

of his becoming a ruler: “Etot horoshii son dlya vsyakogo narodnogo vozhdya i

politicheskogo deyatelya; ved’ mat’ oznachaet otechestvo” ‘It is a good dream for leaders

and statesmen because the mother is associated with the nation’ (93). The roman historian

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillius wrote about Julius Caesar’s dreaming of raping his mother

in these terms: “Etot dream predvneshaet emu llast’…tak kak Mat’, kotoruyu on videl

pod soboi est’ ne cho inoe kak Zemlya, pochitaemaya roditel’nitsei vsego zhivogo”

‘Dream interpreters told him [Caesar] that this dream foretold his coming into power

because Mother is the Earth, the source of life’ (94). For this reason, Mother symbolizes

one’s native land, one’s nation. The fact that a man marries his mother signifies that his

status has been raised from an ordinary citizen to a ruler with all the privileges and power

he can now claim over the woman that belongs to him. For a man, marrying his mother is

tantamount to usurping his nation’s power. For this reason, one can understand why

Iocastê quietly tells Oedipus that “how many men, in dreams, have lain with their

mothers.” It is inaccurate, therefore, to stress only the question of sexual relationship in

the play. First of all, one has to think about the discrepancy between Oedipus’ and

Iocaste’s age. What is important is power and fame brought to Oedipus by his marriage

to Iocastê. This symbolic relation between the two characters explains the title of the

play: Oidipoio tiraneos. What Oedipus does later marks the end of the play: Why does

he blind himself? One cannot see here alone a horrible, tragic thing, which arouses in the

audience sorrow and fear. Based on a special concept in ancient Greek and Roman

civilizations, Averintxev has found an important symbolic meaning in blindness. Ancient

Greeks believed that the ordinary eye, being an external sense organ, sees nothing but the

façade and false appearance of things. It impedes the spiritual eye, which alone is

capable of weaning and grasping the essence of things. Thus blindness is a suitable

condition, a signal of clear-mindedness. There are in the play two paradoxical situations

which make the above perception stand out. Teiresias is blind but sees everything

whereas Oedipus is clear-eyed but sees nothing. Only after he became blind does he see

the truth in its entirety. Homer was said to become blind after the Muse had descended

upon him. Homer himself spoke of the famous blind singer Demodeck. According to

Averintxev, legend has it that the Greek philosopher plucked his eyes out in order to see

what he could not see with his naked eyes. All of these examples cited about show that

“blindness” means clear-mindedness.

The symbolic meaning of blindness allows us to understand better the end of the

play and by extension the most essential character of the tragic genre. Although the play

deals with crime and punishment, it should be pointed out that crime is unknowingly

committed whereas punishment is meted out voluntarily and with due rigor. Not only

does Oedipus inflict punishment upon himself; he also accepts the Thebans’ verdict and

chooses to exile himself. This means that at the end of the play everything belonging to

the powerful ruler of Thebes—fame, glory, happiness—collapses. Paradoxically,

however, Oedipus’ downfall causes the elevation of his person. For the first time,

Oedipus acts like an enlightened individual. For the first time also, he dare recognize the

whole truth about his person and is determined to renounce his criminal past. He has

scored a victory over his person, a pivotal one in his entire life. At the play’s end

Oedipus’ agony and suffering are like his death’s throes. Nevertheless, Oedipus dies in

order to relive, and this is Sophocles’ optimistic view of human tragedy at the end of

Oedipus Rex. If a tragic end does not imply optimism, then a play is not a tragedy. In the

early years of the Revolution, “Optimistic Tragedies” marked a new development in

Soviet drama. This development merely indicates Soviet dramatists’ return to the origin

of tragedy in order to reconstruct its positive nature, which stands in sharp contrast to the

unfortunate fate of dramatis personae.

The traditional poetics of tragedy discussed above leads us to the following

question: In the development of the plot in a tragedy, how does the playwright present

the catastrophe, that is, the moment when the tragic situation is destroyed and the

traumatic ordeal of characters come to an end? The Soviet scholar Vugotxky has offered

this important formula: “V tragedii my znaem chto dva razvivayushihsya v nei plana

zamykayutsya v odnoi obshei katastrophfe, kotoraya odnovremenno znamenuet i

vershinu gibeli i vershinu tozhestva geroya” ‘We realize in a tragedy that these two

planes fuse into a common catastrophe which signals both the character’s most

devastating defeat and greatest glory’ (172). This formula allows us to comprehend

perfectly the destiny of tragic characters. At the end of Sophocles’ play, Oedipus loses

his eyesight but gains wisdom; all his power and fame collapse, but his person is elevated

along with his self-awareness; the throes he is in are like those of his death, but he dies in

order to be born again later. At the end of the play, therefore, there are both grief and

joy, death and life, tragedy and hope. This is the character of the tragic genre which is

best illustrated in Oedipus Rex.

It is the origin of the tragic genre that reinforces its themes. Tragedy originated

from the cult of Dionysus, the goddess of grape-growing and wine in ancient Greece.

The worship consisted of the dramatization of Dionysus’ story of death and resurrection,

which evokes both sadness and joy—sadness of death and joy of rebirth. This concept

implies a most basic act of human culture: plantation. The seeds planted will die to bear

fruits later. In its sublimated form, this concept reflects man’s deep longing to leave his

present tragic existence and enter the realm of immortality.

It is obvious now death and rebirth are essential to tragic characters. A brief

comparison of Iocastê and Oedipus is important. In terms of misfortune and personality

there are several similarities between the two characters. Iocastê suffers the disastrous

consequences of the revelation about the real relationship between them. Like Oedipus

also, Iocastê is elevated in character because of her willingness to bear the brunt of

shame. Nevertheless, unlike Oedipus, Iocastê is not a tragic character. Her suicide

signifies absolute emptiness, the end of existence, whereas Oedipus’ death means

resurrection, that is, a new life, honest and fair to himself and to everybody. Tragedy is a

literary genre that best represents man’s nature, that is, his refusal and inability to accept

non-existence. Though dealing with death, tragedy categorically asserts man’s

immortality as his chief concern. Man’s concept of immortality changes with time. To

be immortal does not necessarily mean to go to heaven, to the fairyland, or to consume

the elixir of immortality. Tragic characters may die as all creatures living on earth do.

But their legacy remains. The noble humanistic values that glimmer or shine in them

continue to remain in the world for ages to come. To die in tragedy, therefore, does not

mean to bid farewell to life. Rather, to die means to remain in this world, to enter the

memory and experience of immortal mankind.

Translated by Qui-Phiet Tran

Schreiner University

Works Cited:

Averintrev, C.C. “K istolkovaniuy simvoliki mifa o Edipe.” Antichnost i sovremennost.

Moskva: Nauka, 1972.

Gorki, Maxim. Na Dne. Vol. 16. Moskva: 1950.

Hoàng Ngoc Hiên. N m bài giang vê thê Loai: Bi kich, anh h ng ca, tiêu thuyêt. Hanoi:

Nguyên Du School of Creative Writing, 1992.

Sophocles. "Odeipus Rex." Four Greeks Plays. Trans. Dudley Fitts, Robert

Fizgerald, and Louis MacNeice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1960.

Vugotxki, L.X. L.S. Vugotskii psihologiay iskusstva. Moskva: 1986.

______________