Oedipus Defended

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 Aristotle’ states 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 introduce an impossibility, that the events be probable. The critical problem Margon is addressing is Aristotle’s apparent bias towards the play Oedipus Rex, a play that is referenced the greatest number of times in Poetics. 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 weakest case, and from two statements, questions whether irrationality should be permitted at all irrespective of if the irrationality occurs ‘outside the play’ or within (Margon, 251). 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’ (Margon, 251). Margon addresses two instances where the plot is illogical: that Oedipus has no knowledge of how Laius died, and that Oedipus never spoke to Jocasta about his past until necessary for the plot (Margon, 250). The omission of the reasons for these discussions not being had, according to Margon, is a failure of the writer by using Coleridge’s principles (Margon, 253). 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 (Margon, 254). This seems a harsh assertion and neglects to consider some key points. Margon incorrectly utilizes a preference of ideal traits to deny the genre. Though at first glance the argument seems compelling, it lacks a solid foundation to base the claims, and what seems to be a widespread assertion is based solely on a technicality of preference making it unjust argument. With the evidence provided, the only point that can be fairly made is that it’s not a perfect play.

In addition, Margon’s argument is incumbent upon the principle that “outside the play” is disregarded. It seems that Margon treats what happens in the play the same as what happens outside the play. However, this is not a fair way to analyze since the audience has no way of knowing exactly how things happened if it’s not directly acted out – which is the point of it not being directly in the play; it creates tension and mystery. In this way, the audience must rely on character perspective and recollection, which may or may not be true or correct. Neither of the instances provided by Margon seems sufficient to be truly “improbable” events, particularly if everyone is only aware of a tiny slice of the narrative – it assumes that between Jocasta and Oedipus, the entire story be solved had the partners revealed all parts of their past to one another; however, it is only after multiple characters come together with bits and pieces that the tapestry is revealed.

It seems that the reason for impossibilities to be permitted in the scope of ‘outside the play’ has a valid reason, which Margon denies, despite Aristotle only stating that it is merely a preference that a play not have irrational elements to be considered “the best”, and not that if it contains one it is no longer a part of the genre (Margon, 254). The past can become muddled, and through the scope of looking at the past, it becomes a puzzle of who knew what, when they knew it, and how they found out. Until the matter of the plague, Oedipus saw no reason to inquire into the murderer of the previous king as the current monarch beyond trivial details and only investigates when it becomes a current problem to solve, which is when pieces start to come together.

In the footnote 7, Margon references the issue of how long after the events the story starts, that the lack of Jocasta’s knowing Oedipus’s past is inconceivable, and he comes up with no reason other than that it was likely a result of keeping with the mythology of Oedipus having four children, which would not be possible to accomplish if the story started closer to Oedipus becoming king in (Margon, 250). However, even if Jocasta had been aware of Oedipus’s origins, until presented with irrefutable evidence after Oedipus continues digging, she denies the possibility. Therefore, it’s of little consequence when it comes about. Without the need for answers, and for seeking answers from anyone who has information, the truth would not have come to light. As such, it seems that even if Oedipus’s ignorance and Jocasta’s silence were rectified, the same result would transpire rendering Margon’s stipulations thus null and void, if only at a different pace because the same events would have occurred to cause the plague and open the line of questioning. Therefore, to call Oedipus Rex a tragi-melodrama on the basis of “outside the play” versus “inside the play” and on what is considered “credible” versus “incredible” in this manner seems insufficient.

In Oedipus Rex, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy where all events occur as a direct result of trying to prevent said events. There is then the question of the purpose of a tragedy, and more accurately, the purpose of this tragedy. Elements of a play are typically intentional, so it seems necessary to question the purpose of the irrationality instead of simply saying they shouldn’t be there. Most of the discussion occurs in the footnotes when considering differing perspectives on the text. One footnote in particular is glossed over in a way that seems to disregard the merit of said footnote.

“13 Waldock recognizes these improbabilities, but he relates (p. 168) the chain of coincidences to his interpretation of the play: "There is no meaning in the Oedipus Tyrannus. There is merely the terror of coincidence, and then, at the end of it all, our impression of man's power to suffer, and of his greatness because of this power." It is not within the scope of this study to discuss the basic themes of Oedipus Rex, but even granted that Waldock's view may be valid, his interpretation does not alleviate the improbability of events in the structure of the drama.” (Margon, 253)

In conclusion, given that the outcome seems to be the same whether the events are probable or improbable, this dismissal of the meaning of the play seems incorrect and more credence should have been awarded to the observation since disregarding the purpose of a play when discussing elements of the play appears to be a grave error; to not contemplate the meaning of the play is to miss the point, particularly if under the declaration that it does not satisfy elements a tragedy when the element in question was a preference and matter of taste. Perhaps both Waldock and Margon are incorrect in what they’re saying: Waldock says there’s no meaning, and Margon deems it not integral enough to discuss. Despite Margon’s claim that it is only tragi-melodrama, Oedipus Rex is distinctly tragic because he suffers horribly after trying to always do the right thing, and that even the pursuit of justice cannot shield one from the consequences of their actions. The point is that tragedy can happen to anyone despite his or her best intentions, and that sometimes human behaviour is irrational—irrationality and/or credibility. The article is useful when determining what makes a perfect play and provides context on some problems to avoid, but beyond that, I am not sure it adds as much as it wanted to the discussion of applying Aristotle’s Poetics. To say that a tragedy does not fulfill the elements of a tragedy because of a technicality that has been inaccurately asserted... is itself a tragedy.

[WORKS CITED]

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://doi.org/10.2307/4348643.

A. J. A. Waldock, Sophocles the Dramatist (Cambridge 1951)