Oedipus Rex

Trying to stop a divinely ordained murder investigation and neglecting to undergo cleansing rituals are examples of acts of hubris respectively committed by Jocasta and Oedipus in "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles (495 B.C.E. - 405 B.C.E.).

Specifically, Theban Queen Jocasta tries to stop her second husband, King Oedipus, in his investigation of the murder of her first husband, King Laius. She does so because she realizes that something horrifying and humiliating is about to be revealed. But that is not her call to make since the Apolline oracle states that the pestilence in Thebes will end only with the identification and punishment of the guilty in Laius' murder.

Additionally, Oedipus neglects to follow proper purification procedures after killing five people. He is supposed to admit his crime and accept his punishment. Instead, he goes to Thebes, defeats the monstrous Sphinx and marries the older, recently widowed Theban queen. But he does absolutely nothing to carry out cleansing rituals regarding the recent, unsolved slaughter of King Laius and his escort party. These two lapses are arrogant breaches of the conduct code between gods and mortals.

Yes, some of the differences between the written and the viewed versions of the play 'Oedipus Rex' may be significant. At the same time, no, others may not be significant, particularly in regard to the 1957 version directed by Sir William Tyrone Guthrie [July 2, 1900-May 15, 1971]. But if the differences in the Guthrie film are typical of those between filmed, read and staged versions, then they don't change the overall impact of the characters and the story on the reading and viewing audience.

First, a structurally significant difference is an explanatory narrative that's given at the beginning of the film. There's no such equivalent in the play, which begins with the expected prologue.

Second, another structurally significant difference is the crowd of Thebans having a lengthy dialogue at the beginning of the actual performance in the film. Again, there's no equivalent in the play by Sophocles [496 B.C.E.-406 B.C.E.].

Third, an insignificant difference is the film using the play's English translation by William Butler Yeats [June 13, 1865-January 28, 1939].

But at the same time, the Yeats' translation is used in significantly different ways. For example, the film doesn't have the translated passages include Theban King Oedipus' pivotal curse upon himself. So the audience doesn't know that Oedipus calls the same curse upon himself as upon the harborers of the killers of Theban King Laius should he host the murderer as a guest in his own house and with his own knowledge.

The film likewise has the translation omit Theban King Creon's pivotal comment about being forced to do things against his will should he plot to become a solely reigning sovereign.

And the film has the translation omit Oedipus' having to ask for a description of Laius. Instead, the film has Jocasta give the non sequitur information in response to Oedipus' asking what Zeus' plans for him could be. This omission may or may not be considered significant.

Fourth, an insignificant difference is the film's omitting the role of the boy who guides Teiresias the blind prophet into Oedipus' presence.

Fifth, a structurally significant difference is the film dividing the parts for the chorus among several members of the crowd. So the choral odes of the play become crowd odes in the film.

Sixth, an insignificant difference is the film having Teiresias lying on the ground when he speaks his parting words about his lack of prophetic skills only being evidenced should his prophecies fail to come to pass. It's unlikely that the ancient Greeks would have had the blind Teiresias speak his words other than standing up. It especially is awkward for him in the film, because he comes and goes without the play's provision for a boy guide.

Seventh, the film has all of the choral odes spoken except for the half sung last ode. In fact, ancient Greeks expected the play to be performed with the chorus singing and dancing through their odes. This may or may not be considered significant.

That Polybus dies of illness and old age and not at Oedipus' hands and that all prophecies may not come true are the reasons why the Theban royal couple, Jocasta and Oedipus, are happy to hear about the death of Oedipus' presumed father.

Specifically, years before the action of the play, Oedipus hears a prophecy that he will kill his father and marry his mother. He is so horrified by the prospect and so frightened by the prophecy being carried out that he runs away from home. That he was no where near Polybus at the time of the latter's death give Oedipus and Jocasta hope that the rest of the prophecy will not come true either.

Jean Marie Lucien Pierre Anouilh [June 23, 1910-October 3, 1987] was a French dramatist who included among his literary output his modernistic play 'Antigone'. Anouilh's version was an updated, retelling of the play of the same name by Sophocles [496 B.C.E.* - 406 B.C.E.], a famed ancient Greek playwright.

Anouilh didn't limit his creativity on the stage to the penning of tragedies. In fact, he described himself as the author of seven types of plays. He identified his plays as aristocratic, baroque, fantastic, historical, realistic/tragic, sarcastic, or unsuccessful.

*Before the Christian Era

A dreadful prophecy motivates Theban sovereigns, King Laius and Queen Jocasta, to abandon their three day old infant, Oedipus. Laius is warned that he will be killed by his own son. His wife becomes pregnant, and delivers an infant son. Laius tells Jocasta to kill little Oedipus.

The order to kill one's own son sounds brutal. But in ancient Greece, the killing of one's father and of one's sovereign are heinous crimes. A much lesser crime is the killing of a child who's destined to grow up to be a law breaker.

Jocasta doesn't want to lose her husband. But neither does she want to kill her son. She gives the baby to her most trusted servant, a shepherd. The shepherd is supposed to kill Oedipus by leaving him alone on the mountain, and therefore exposed to the weather and the wildlife.

But the shepherd can't bring himself to carry out the deed either. He ends up giving Oedipus to a fellow shepherd, whose home is in Corinth. Upon his return to Corinth, the second shepherd gives Oedipus to the city's childless sovereigns, Corinthian King Polybus and Corinthian Queen Merope.

No, it isn't possible in Freudian psychology for a stepdaughter to have an Oedipus complex over her stepfather. The Oedipus complex is applied to the relationship of a son to his mother. The equivalent for a daughter to her father is the Electra complex.

The two complexes get their names from stories in ancient Greek mythology. The Oedipus complex refers to Theban King Oedipus' albeit unknowing, abnormal relationship with his parents. He kills his father, Theban King Laius. He weds and beds his mother, Theban Queen Jocasta.

The Electra complex refers to Argive Princess Electra of Mycenae. She thinks it's o.k. for her father, King Agamemnon, to bring back as his lover, the war prize Cassandra, from Troy. She doesn't think it's o.k. for her mother, Clytemnestra, to have cousin-in-law Aegisthus as a lover. Electra and her brother Orestes end up planning the murder of Clytemnestra for having murdered Agamemnon.

So the Oedipus complex warns of an abnormal attachment between son and mother. The Electra complex warns of an abnormal attachment between daughter and father.