You Better Watch Out, He's Gonna Get Ya, Sophocles Style

In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles clearly establishes his religious beliefs through the use of Oedipus and his foils Creon and Choragos. Though the exact ideologies of Sophocles regarding religion are unknown, many sources cite Socrates’s controversial religious views, especially those regarding the higher power of the gods. Though Sophocles did not believe in the conventional religious forms of worship or popular legends, he still firmly held the belief of the gods’ power of all facets of life, especially humanity’s fate. Through the use of the three main characters of the play, Sophocles asserts his belief in the omnipotent power of the gods or God over the entire earth and his refusal to place any human above the reigns of the gods, an innovative belief system for the era of near-complete conformity he lived in.

Every aspect of the story, from the plot to the characters themselves, aids in the establishment of Sophocles unique religious views. The most obvious, concrete use of plot to declare his moral and religious ideas takes the form of the entire Theban royal family’s attempts to evade the gripping claws of fate. Laois and Iocaste attempt to evade their intertwined destiny by killing their potentially dangerous son, Oedipus. Later in life, seemingly because of a genetic flaw, Oedipus seeks to escape the same fate by departing his adoptive family in order to save them and then again mentally tries to avoid the realization of the fulfillment of his fate by ignoring all propositions of such an occurrence, though in the end the truth prove too factual to discount. Like in most ancient Greek tales, the divine governance of the gods in humanity’s predestination proves too overpowering to escape.

While this view was shared by all minds of his time, his exploration of man’s efforts to reign over the gods was unique to his individual being. To explain the unthinkable effects of such acts, Sophocles uses a contrast between the actions and words of Oedipus and those of the character Creon. Oedipus’s pride, his tragic flaw caused by the reverence the Theban people afford him after the saves them from the oppressive power of the Sphinx, is the main source behind his disregard for the ultimate supremacy of the higher powers. In his role as the powerful king of Thebes, he begins to see himself as the true source of power, order, justice and all things good in his kingdom. Sophocles emphasizes the consequences of Oedipus’s disregarding the gods’ power in Ode II: “any mortal who dares hold no immortal Power in awe will be caught up in a net of pain.” Though generally Oedipus’s tragic flaw, pride, is the definitive force that leads to his downfall, his self-triumph over the gods did not exact help in the gods’ final decision as to his fate. Through Oedipus, Sophocles makes a general critique on the fact that in his society he feels that true and honest “reverence for the gods has died away,” in place of an obligatory notion of simply appearing reverent. Contradictorily, Creon serves as the perfect example of reason and worship of the gods, at least in Oedipus Rex. Not only does Creon remain free of the corruption of the royal family and never allow his awe for the gods waiver, he also leads Oedipus towards God and the truth after his final realization of his fate. At the end of story instead of being guided primal emotion or Oedipus’s declaration, he allows god to determine his actions and therefore the future of the destroyed Oedipus. Unlike his fellow characters, Creon never seeks to escape fate but rather lets god guide his every move and in the final lines almost acts as the gods’ representation on Earth, acting to recreate true devotion in the audience.

Sophocles’ strong convictions span far beyond the sole belief of the gods’ supreme power and humanity’s inability to escape it; however, this ideology stands out throughout the entire tragedy. On the other hand, this pessimistic belief in fate does protect the innocent from the fate of Oedipus. Even pious devotees of God are not safe in the face of God’s plan. Though Oedipus’s tragic flaw overthrew him in the end, the last line of the play affirms the fact that anyone could face the same fate. “Let none presume on his good fortune until he finds life, at his death, a memory without pain.”

Get Your Fears in Order

Throughout the story of Ivan Ilych, Tolstoy criticizes the Russian bourgeois view of death. Tolstoy opens the novel with an examination of the accepted view of denial and slowly transitions into the eventual reverse of belief through Ivan Ilych’s own personal decay into the acceptance of death. The first chapter of “The Death of Ivan Ilych” introduces the unique attitude towards death, one of disbelief and a feeling near indifference. What I found interesting was the bourgeois class’s evident lack of any fear towards death. While in today’s society death ranks ten among common fears, I doubt if the acquaintances and even Ilych himself would recognize any fear of death simply because of the sheer denial of any such inevitability. The acquaintances of Ilych in Tolstoy’s story shun death as an enigma and refuse to recognize it as an inevitable fate, even after the death of Ivan. To them, death is something that cannot and will not befall them, “an accident natural” to the dead but not to the living. The question is why? Why does today’s society possess more of a fear of death or even a greater acceptance of human mortality than Russian bourgeois society? But on the other hand, why is the fear of vomiting more common than the fear of death? (I’m sorry but that’s just weird!) Though I do not have enough training in psychology considering my two days so far in the class, I believe the customary sense that death is a far-off fear of the distant future in contrast to the less serious, yet current prospect of vomiting may explain their respective ranking. In this sense, Tolstoy’s criticism still applies today, though not as drastically or directly.

The character Ivan Ilych’s downward spiral past the denial of death into the fear and eventual acceptance of its occurrence provide a unique perspective into the triumph over these social beliefs. As his body decays and his mind subsequently follows suit, the prospect of death finally enters his newly- vulnerable mind. Ivan transcends from his immortal state atop some imaginary cloud of denial and realizes that just like Caius he is mortal and therefore has the ability and will die. Tolstoy demonstrates through the use of Ilych’ s condition that man, especially in his society, only is able to confront the prospect of his own personal death when faced with it himself. Yet his aloneness in this realization leaves him without anyone to understand him or pity his state and therefore he begins to separate himself from those around him because of a mix of envy, hate, and paranoia at their lack of care. Yet his loneliness is not only mental; there are actually few who care about him. His colleagues seek only to take his job; his wife desires only his income from the marriage; and his kids seem far-off and distant throughout the story. Though he pushes them away, there is no need; they have already left his side. His journey through the stages of death allows Tolstoy to criticize the insensibility of society’s views on death, not only then but also now.

That is not to say death should be the constant fixation of life, only that it should be recognized as a real, legitimate thing. No one should live in constant fear of death, but maybe an indirect recognition of the possibility of death, such as a my fear of my driving that with my skills will inevitably lead to my death, can actually create a greater appreciation of life. If humans cannot accept their mortality and live with the notion that time does not limit their dreams, then dreams will go unfulfilled. Maybe thoughts of death can only us to live life to its fullest. And I will end with a cheesy quote by James Dean: “Dream as if you’ll live forever, live as if you’ll die today.” (647).