Irrationalities Compared in Oedipus Rex and Le Cid
In Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, there seems to be controversy over whether or not there are improbabilities at all. According to Joseph Margin in, “Aristotle and the Irrational and Improbable Elements in Oedipus Rex”, there are two instances of improbabilities regarding plot, and in Kurt Fosso’s “Oedipus Crux: Reasonable Doubt in Oedipus the King”, a solution is offered in which not only is the improbability solved, but the already tragic story is made even more tragic by a simple misunderstanding where Oedipus is not even guilty of the crime his life is ruined over. Meanwhile, in the case of Le Cid by Pierre Corneille, according to Aristotle’s The Poetics, and corroborated through Bernard F Dukore’s, “The Cid Controversy,” there are examples of more than a couple of improbabilities where both plot and characters are concerned.
The Poetics by Aristotle, a chapter included in Allan. H. Gilbert’s Literary Criticism – Plato to Dryden, is still a prolific work that endeavors to give parameters and explanations of what makes a good play good, and what can make them fall short. Concerning tragedy specifically, there are several significant details that must be stated. Under “[Length of plot. 51a6]”, Aristotle does not give a definitive length; he simply states it must be sufficiently long for the hero’s fortune to go from good to bad (80). There are then three broad characteristics of ‘tragedy’ from the context of plot: peripety (an action that results in the opposite of what was intended), recognition (a change from ignorance to knowledge), and a tragic incident (84-5). Finally, there are four essential aspects to character: the characters must be good, they must be appropriate, they must possess resemblance (the footnote explains that this is a murky characteristic because Aristotle fails to say exactly what the characters are to resemble, but it is inferred that characters must resemble people in real life), and finally, must be consistent (89-90). Concerning ‘irrationalities’ they must only exist on the ‘outside’ of the play (91).
In Joseph S. Margon’s, “Aristotle and the Irrational and Improbable Elements in Oedipus Rex”, Margon seeks to address two instances in which the play, Oedipus Rex, is illogical, an element that by Aristotle’s own words is a principle that should be avoided unless in very specific circumstances, two reasons of which are given: that illogical aspects are permitted outside of the play – which means that illogical events may occur before the plot commences and after the plot concludes – and if a poet must venture into the realm of impossibilities, that the events be, at the very least, probable. The critical problem Margon is addressing is Aristotle’s apparent bias towards the play Oedipus Rex, a play that is referenced the most number of times in Poetics, and yet does not appear to hold up to Aristotle’s idea of an ideal tragedy through Aristotle’s own stipulations; Aristotle is hyper critical towards Aegus in Medea, but not critical of the messenger in Oedipus Rex. By Aristotle’s own admission, he considered Oedipus not knowing how Laius died an irrationality. This is, however, excused by Aristotle since the event of Laius’s death happened years before the play starts and is thus ‘outside the play’.
Margon breaks apart Aristotle’s argument, and from two statements, asserts that Oedipus Rex does not hold up to Aristotle’s own logic where irrationality is concerned and questions whether irrationality should be permitted at all irrespective of if the irrationality occurs ‘outside the play’ or within. Margon argues that events that occur outside the play are as necessary to plot as those that happen within, and as such, should be held to the same standard as those that happen within the play because events that happened outside the play still influence events unfolding and would therefore be ‘within the play’ because they are alluded to and culminate in the plot: that Oedipus has no knowledge of how Laius died, and that Oedipus never spoke to Jocasta about his past until necessary for the plot.
The omission of the reasons for these discussions not being had, according to Margon, is a failure of the writer. Margon concludes that because these two irrationalities occur within the play, bordering on melodrama, the events can therefore not be considered credible and thus dubs Oedipus Rex as not a true tragedy, but a tragi-melodrama. This seems a harsh assertion and neglects to consider some key points, which seems a confirmation bias itself (ironic given that is what Margon says of Aristotle.)
An interesting argument against this is laid out by Kurt Fosso in his, “Oedipus Crux: Reasonable Doubt in Oedipus the King”. The paper seeks to determine if there is even any concrete evidence that truly damns Oedipus, or if the evidence is merely circumstantial. The fact that there are improbabilities, it seems, does have a purpose: the story is not so simple, and the vague and contradictory details surrounding the murder of Laius create suspense and intrigue (which is only possible because the events happen off screen so the audience has to piece it together.) At the very least, it’s not an open and shut case concerning Oedipus’s guilt.
Jocasta reports that there were a total of five in the party including the King and a herald. Additionally, Creon reports the King was attacked by a group of robbers—"not just a single man, a gang of them.” Finally, Oedipus himself remembers only killing three people, and there was nothing distinct about the carriage that would indicate royalty. Fosso states that it is possible that there were two different events and that everyone is actually right, but that Oedipus mistakenly applies his situation to the wrong events. Afterall, Jocasta states herself that “seers are not to be trusted” and Oedipus is being blamed by the seer, Teiresias “the rascal prophet”. Finally, the baby’s ankles were “pierced”, and Oedipus gives no indication that his ankles have any scarring or deformity.
All of this evidence therefore seems to be circumstantial and incorrectly applied to Oedipus. What makes this reading of Oedipus Rex even more tragic, despite his not even doing the deed, is that he takes justice into his own hands and pays the price that’s not his to pay. Out of his own sense of guilt and duty, he applies swift justice to himself and assumes responsibility thinking the worst. Oedipus was a good man, and the situation is similar to Socrates’ trial: Oedipus and Socrates paid for crimes they did not commit. Perhaps this is a reason Aristotle seems to have a preference to this play over others in his own Poetics. That’s a purely speculative thought, but it’s a potential answer for Margon’s questioning on Aristotle’s apparent bias towards the play despite potential ‘irrationalities’. Perhaps the point of the irrationality being excused in this case is that Margon is correct in questioning the probability of these events and that we are meant to be skeptical – in order to come to the conclusion that Fosso brings us to by taking that question as step further and asking ‘why is it here?’
In Le Cid, there are problems in both spheres that Aristotle references concerning plot and characters. Where plot is concerned, the issue lies with the tragic event; there are two instances that may be perceived as the tragic incident: the death of Don Gomes, or the marriage of Chimene and Don Rodrigo by the end. If it’s the former, the tragedy is undone by the latter, and if it is the latter, it seems inappropriate to frame marriage as a tragedy. The tragedy should be young love torn apart, not being brought together. There is the additional issue of far too much being squished into one single day. Where characters are concerned, there are problems in all aspects with Don Diegue, Don Ferdinand, and Chimene where good, appropriate, resemblance, and consistency are concerned.
Where Margon struggles to find two instances of improbable events within Oedipus Rex, there are more than a couple in Le Cid. The first irrationality is the duel between the two fathers to begin with, but on the part of The Count, not Don Diegue (though perhaps Don Diegue should have gone to the King to inform what was transpiring). To fight over the King’s decision to give the job to Don Diegue over The Count seems like utter disrespect to the word of the ruling monarch and thus seems to be contrary to Aristotle’s rule on ‘appropriate’ when applied station. To fight the King’s rule seems to be deliberately going over the King’s head, which is treason. When injured, instead of insisting on a duel, Don Diegue should have immediately gone to the King to demand justice through the law since the matter in question was over a ruling the King himself made.
The actions of Don Ferdinand are suspect in two regards: appropriate and resemblance, if not the additional question of if he’s good. Though he’s certainly not bad, he does not seem to be the ideal King, and he makes wrong call after wrong call and seems to go against Aristotle’s assertion that tragedy should imitate ‘better men’ (91). Kings should be the best of the best and display qualities such as strength, intelligence, and fairness, and truly, Don Rodrigo shows the best qualities of anyone in the play, and yet he’s made into a murderer despite his loyalty, conscience, and love. Don Ferdinand made a divisive ruling in choosing one man over another when they both clearly wanted the position, and when the matter would have been so clearly fixed if they had have had a royal contest endorsed by the King to determine the most able, it’s difficult to see why events transpired the way they did. The King could have determined to split the job, since Don Diegue’s strength was failing, or he could have given both Lord’s promotions for their addition to the state to mitigate the animosity.
There is the additional problem of how Don Ferdinand, the king, chooses to handle the situation of Don Rodrigo and Chimene: not only does he make a strange call in deciding to humour Chimene instead of being gentle but firm with his ruling of ‘drop it’ since it was her father who was in the wrong in the first place, but he also subjects Chimene to marry her father’s killer the same day it happens. Though the meaning of ‘resemblance’ is unclear, this action seems improbable, impossible, and utterly fantastical. At least the King is consistent in his irrational rulings.
The final problem of irrationalities in character is in Chimene herself, and it is through the traits ‘inconsistency’ and ‘appropriate’. Chimene flips back and forth between feeling love and hate where Don Rodrigo, her lover is concerned, in one moment wishing him dead and the next wishing him to be safe and back again. Her split loyalties make sense to a degree, but the fact that she is so inconstant between the two does not aid her case. It’s less her fault, however, and more the failing of the King to shut the issue down since her father instigated everything that led to his own demise. What is frustrating is that the plot falls apart if you take away the irrationality within the plot: if there is no duel and they deal with the issue by going to the king, the tragedy seemingly disappears; if that is taken away, then the marriage at the end is not only absolutely guiltless, but without any tragedy to speak of.
Where ‘appropriateness’ is concerned, Georges de Scudéry in “The Cid Controversy” calls Chimene’s marriage to Don Rodrigo “implausible” (213). In no world would an honourable woman give consent to marry her father’s murderer, let alone the same day it happens. This goes against the plot rule of ‘resemblance’, since it in no way would happen in real life: it is both impossible and improbable. The fact that Don Ferdinand sees no issue with this ruling is the reason his ‘goodness’ is called into question. Scudéry goes on to assert that stories can be twisted in facts to fit the story the author is writing to ensure plausibility (214). What would have been actually tragic is if instead of Chimene’s father dying in the duel against Don Rodrigo, if The Count killed Don Diegue when the first insult occurred and then it is Don Rodrigo going through the grief of losing his father and lover since the same conflict would be on Chimene as it was on him. That makes far more sense given the time frame and actually ends in something tragic.
Finally, the most basic thing about tragedy is that it’s supposed to end in... tragedy. Despite the actions that take place over the span of twenty-four hours, which are already contrived, it ends with the hero gaining everything, not losing anything. Don Rodrigo becomes a hero in defending the city, and he gets his girl. While Oedipus the King may not be perfect in a technical way if Margon’s reading is to be accepted fully, the plot does not work in Le Cid, at least not squished into less than twenty-four hours. If Corneille. While Oedipus is in a state of absolute wreckage through his own actions, whether intentional and known or not, Don Rodrigo experiences only guilt, and only briefly at that. He gains prestige in aiding the city in a time of turmoil, and then gets rewarded with a marriage. Where is the tragedy in that? If the tragedy is surrounding Chimene, not only is it misplaced, but it rings hollow.
Margon states, in regards to Oedipus the King, that forcing events from history to fit into the time frame of a single day is no excuse for irrationalities in plot: he applies this to Oedipus Rex in that the plot tales place years after the death of the King to account for Oedipus’s children. The same complaint could be applied to Le Cid in regards to how quickly Chimene loses her father and then has to marry her father’s killer. It seems that the largest issue concerning applying Aristotle’s Poetics lies within the timeframe allotted to plays. A brief argument here: Hamlet spans over months, and no one argues that Hamlet is not a tragedy because it does not conform to timeframe. I wonder at the possibilities for both Oedipus Rex and Le Cid had the rule of time been the rule broken, and not improbabilities in a squeezed plot. It seems, for truly great plays, some of the rules need be broken, and the question is not how to fit within Aristotle’s ancient rules, but is actually “which rule makes sense to break?” to most effectively tell the story.
[WORKS CITED]
Corneille, Pierre. “Le Cid.” Translated by A. S. Kline, 2007. Public Domain Work.
Dukore, Bernard F., and Georges de Scudéry. “The Cid Controversy.” Dramatic Theory and Criticism: Greeks to Grotowski, Houghton Mifflin, New York, NY, 1997, pp. 211–237.
Fosso, Kurt. “Oedipus Crux: Reasonable Doubt in ‘Oedipus the King.’” College Literature, Vol. 39, no. 3, 2012, pp. 26–60., https://www.jstor.org/stable/23266055.
Gilbert, Allan H., and Aristotle. “The Poetics.” Literary Criticism - Plato to Dryden, Wayne State Univ. P., Detroit, MI, 1962, pp. 68–105.
Margon, Joseph S. “Aristotle and the Irrational and Improbable Elements in ‘Oedipus Rex.’” The Classical World, vol. 70, no. 4, 1976, pp. 249-255., https://www.jstor.org/stable/4348643.
Sophocles. “Oedipus the King.” The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles: A Newly Revised and Updated Version, translated by Paul Roche, Penguin, New York, NY, 1991, pp. 1–81.