The Truth Shall Set You Free: Hellenic and Hebraic Totality in Oedipus the King and “The Lame Shall Enter First”
Sophocles’ Oedipus the King and Flannery O’Connor’s “The Lame Shall Enter First” both start with protagonists that are self-assured heroes in their own right but find themselves in total tragedy by the end of their stories. Yet, in Oedipus’ blinding and Sheppard’s own experience of spiritual sight, both protagonists come closer to achieving a totality of existence. As Matthew Arnold illustrates, “The final aim of both Hellenism and Hebraism, as of all great spiritual disciplines, is no doubt the same: man’s perfection or salvation” (129). In this essay, I first track how each character is initially presented as heroic in one way, and how both texts eventually reveal them to be flawed and in need of “salvation.” I further argue that in both Oedipus and “The Lame Shall Enter First,” both Sophocles and O’Connor present self-realisation as necessary in predicating man’s perfection or salvation. Through a comparative analysis of both texts, specifically in their treatment of the motif of blindness/sight, I will also reveal the differences between how each hero approaches Hellenic or Hebraic totality of existence.
In Oedipus, the king of Thebes while initially glorified for his Hellenic qualities, is shown to be a flawed hero. He is known to Thebes as a saviour, second in power only to the gods (39) having conquered the Sphinx with Hellenic instincts of intelligence and bravery. Yet, Oedipus proves to be a fallible human, despite his perceived favouritism from the gods. This is first fleshed out through his excessive pride and arrogance, which is echoed first by Tiresias when he accuses Oedipus of criticising his temper while unaware of his own (384–385). Oedipus is led by his pride as the glorious king of Thebes and defeater of the Sphinx, so much so that it prevents him from entertaining the possibility that he may be accountable for any wrongdoing Tiresias accuses him of. His prideful insistence on knowing the truth from Tiresias despite the latter warning him that it was unwise, and his blatant dismissal of the same truth Tiresias reveals later on as an “obscenity” (414) prevent him from acknowledging that he could eventually, as Tiresias suggest, be his own downfall (432). This same hubris leads the Chorus to criticise Oedipus, singing, “Pride breeds the tyrant / violent pride, gorging, crammed to bursting” (964–965). Here, the Chorus, a representation of the citizens of Thebes (Weiner 210), parallel their starving and dying city with Oedipus who is “gorging” himself on pride; the implication here is that his hubris is as potent as the plague that has controlled his city. Like Thebes who is at the mercy of the gods, he is helpless to his own hubris and his own destiny and is now the one that needs to be “saved.” Oedipus, whose suffering no one can exceed and yet who is tainted by hubris, thus exemplifies a flawed Sophoclean model of the Tragic Hero.
Similarly, Sheppard in “The Lame Shall Enter First” also demonstrates the fallibility of his humanistic heroism. Sheppard’s defining trait is his obstinate reliance on humanistic knowledge, and it is this obdurate humanity — evidenced by his ideals which are rooted in scientific knowledge and a disbelief for the supernatural — that makes him the perfect humanistic hero rather than a Hellenic one like Oedipus. His heroism is grounded in the need to help humanity, instead of Hellenic feats of strength and intelligence, as there are no divine beings in his worldview that will come to his/humanity’s aid. Sheppard heroism adheres to his secular worldview and is defined, psychologically, to be “actions undertaken to help others, despite the possibility that they may result in the helper’s death or injury” (Becker and Eagly 163). Yet, like Oedipus, Sheppard’s flaws taint his heroism. O’Connor implies hubris to be Sheppard’s great flaw, manifesting in a “messianic compulsion to ‘save’ the world through acts of secular charity” (Driskell and Brittain 94). Like Oedipus who thinks he is above divine fate, Sheppard thinks himself as a Christ-like messiah who is above the rest of humanity because of his heroic kindness. He wants to “save” Johnson from his lameness and impoverishment by fixing him with an orthopedic shoe and a home (452). O’Connor furthers this association through the name “Sheppard,” a deliberate rewriting of “Shepherd,” which many use to refer to Jesus Christ. Johnson himself accuses Sheppard of thinking he is Jesus Christ (459) after Sheppard articulates that he is beyond the pettiness that Johnson shows him, and that all he wants is to help someone like Johnson (458). Johnson furthers this accusation by remarking that believers are “saved” (462), implying that Sheppard is in need of salvation for his non-believing ways.
Having revealed himself to be imperfect even in his heroism, Oedipus still approaches a Hellenic totality of existence through a self-realising act of human suffering. His prideful nature as a fallible human drives his Hellenism to seek complete knowledge of his birth and fill in the gaps in the totality of his existence. What unravels is the details of his cruel fate, where he learns that he is “born for pain” (1305). To punish himself for his wrongdoings of killing his father and bedding his mother, Oedipus decides that a fate worse than death shall await him, and commits a self-realising act of embracing suffering — he blinds himself (1405–6). Oedipus attains ultimate self-realisation as his blinding provides him with inner vision and enlightenment (Segal 120). Crying “like a dirge” (1410), Oedipus mourns the metaphorical death of his ignorance, further asserting that his Hellenic pursuit of perfect wisdom has been approached. His actions are in direct contrast with the less-than-Hellenic Jocastas, who is framed as his opposite throughout the play. While Oedipus is knowledge-seeking and embraces suffering, Jocastas abhors Oedipus’ search for the truth and claims that “[her] suffering is enough” (1162–4). In light of Oedipus’ self-blinding, Jocastas’ suicide by hanging is seen as an act of cowardice and escapism. Oedipus, who embraces suffering and accepts all responsibility in his wretched fate, gains a Hellenic totality of existence while Jocastas is implied not to. Furthermore, as the truth of his birth is “all burst to light” (1307), Oedipus plunges himself into literal darkness through his self-blinding, an irony that parallels how the Hellenic totality of human perfection is ultimately approached through an imperfect hero’s tragic suffering.
In “The Lame Shall Enter First,” the same motif of blindness is used, this time to characterise Sheppard as a neglectful and spiritually-sparse father rather than a Tragic Hero chasing a Hellenic totality of existence. Like Oedipus, Sheppard’s blinding is self-imposed; yet unlike the literal blinding of the king of Thebes, his is a metaphorical blinding. Sheppard does not see Norton for who he is, and instead imposes upon his living reality an image of what Norton should be. To the humanist Shepard, Norton should care about the less fortunate (448), should show intellectual curiosity (460), and his grief for his mother should not have lasted as long as it had (447). Sheppard’s refusal to perceive him for who he is results in Norton’s dull and self-preserving nature, which irritates Sheppard even more. O’Connor furthers the metaphor of Sheppard’s blindness with the imagery of him looking at Norton who was so small it was as if Sheppard was “looking through the wrong end of the telescope” (460). The telescope, a representation of humanist knowledge, is thought of here to distort reality and thereby facilitate Sheppard’s blindness. His self-imposed blindness towards Norton culminates in an active display of neglect, where he sees Norton beckon him and refuses to let his eyes focus on him, for fear that acknowledging him would offend Johnson (469). Furthermore, Sheppard’s scientific knowledge is based on what he can physically see — when he refutes Johnson’s claim of the existence of a hell, he remarks that unlike hell, the moon can be seen and known (461). This helps to highlight that his blindness towards Norton could in fact be a symptom of spiritual blindness, therefore foreshadowing his self-realisation through God’s grace, and his approach towards Hebraic totality of existence through spiritual sight.
Sheppard’s fate then mirrors Oedipus’ in how he eventually approaches the Hebraic totality of his existence — through a moment of self-realisation. Sheppard attains self-realisation when he hears Johnson’s voice telling him, “Satan has you in his power” (481). Sheppard realises in that moment that in blinding himself to his own child and wanting badly to “save” Johnson, he had been unknowingly serving the Devil. He is repulsed with himself that he had done more for Johnson than he did for Norton, and is enlightened by an image of Norton looking “empty, forlorn, his left eye listing almost imperceptibly toward the outer rim” (481) that is true to reality. Enlightened by grace, Sheppard’s blindness is taken away and he sees his son clearly for the first time in the story. Additionally, Sheppard’s newfound spiritual sight gives him the ability to see the literal Devil “leering at him from the eyes of Johnson” (481). It could even be said that Sheppard’s enlightenment gives him an “unclouded clearness of mind” (Arnold 131) that makes him characteristic of a Hellenic hero. However, Arnold’s interpretation of what a Hebraic totality of existence could mean for Sheppard, which is to “set doing above knowing” (131), thwarts the trajectory of Sheppard’s salvation. While he finally attains perfect knowledge of his son in true Hellenic quality (as seen in Oedipus), his inability to keep his son alive to finally do him right makes for a tragic end to his story, and prevents him from completely achieving a Hebraic totality of existence through salvation.
In this essay, I have displayed how Oedipus and “The Lame Shall Enter First” both present self-realisation as necessary in predicating man’s perfection or salvation. Such self-realisation and enlightenment is attained in the Hellenic totality through perfect knowledge and through salvation in the Hebraic totality. While both Oedipus and Sheppard begin as flawed and imperfect heroes, both end their stories closer to fully realising the totality of their existence.
Works Cited:
Arnold, Matthew. “Hebraism and Hellenism” in Culture and Anarchy, ed. by William S. Knickerbocker. The Macmillan Company, 1925, pp. 128–143.
Becker, Selwyn W., and Alice H. Eagly. “The Heroism of Women and Men.” American Psychologist, vol. 59, no. 3, 2004, pp. 163–178.
Driskell, Leon V., and Joan T. Brittain. The Eternal Crossroads: The Art of Flannery O’Connor. University Press of Kentucky, 2014.
O’Connor, Flannery. “The Lame Shall Enter First.” Flannery O’Connor Complete Stories. Faber and Faber, 1990, pp. 445–482.
Sophocles. The Three Theban Plays. Trans. Robert Fagles. Penguin Group, 1984.
Weiner, Albert. “The Function of the Tragic Greek Chorus.” Theatre Journal, vol. 32, no. 2,1980, pp. 205–212.
