American prison fail again

After reading the “Bresha Meadows thought you’d understand” article I was left very unsettled. It has been clear that the American prison system is in serious need of reform, but I was fairly shocked by how much it has turned its back on the abused children of America. Brehsha was only 14 when she decided that she could no longer bare to be severely abused by her father. She had tried to escape, only to be taken back to her abuser. To Brenda, there was no other way out. She decided that she, and her family, would only be safe if she was able to completely stop her father. She made the decision, and rightly so, to kill him. She believed that people would understand. Most people understood why she did, and believed that she was okay in her actions. However, the court system believed otherwise. In America, we do not really care about why people commit crimes, we only care that they committed them. We need serious prison reform in America, especially for juveniles. Do you think that juveniles should even be allowed to go to prison? Do you think that they should just have to go through mental illness treatment instead?

Dante & Beatrice's "Transcendental" Love

The background information on Dante refers to the love that he had for Beatrice as transcendental. Knowing the reality of the situation, this statement takes on a new meaning. The love that Dante had for Beatrice was transcendentally creepy. According to Dante's Vita Nuova, Dante and Beatrice met a grand total of twice. I personally think that it's a little odd to write 42 chapters and a universe-spanning self-insert Christian fanfic about a woman you have met twice. While it is more likely that Dante simply used Beatrice as a sort of medium about which to write his poetry, I personally just think its funnier to imply that Dante was really creepy. Dante and Beatrice were also married to different people the whole time, which isn't great and its also a sin. All in all, Dante's love for Beatrice was odd at best and incredibly unsettling at worst. Thoughts?

God's Favorite was so good!!!

I went to the play Thursday (above is a picture of Nic, Erica, Tanner, and I after the play) and it was so good! Also, just wanted to say to Nic and Tanner y'all did great!

THERE'S A SONG

Guess what guys....... I FOUND A SONG ABOUT DANTE'S INFERNO. It is actually just called "Dante's Inferno" and it is by a group called Iced Earth. I have never heard of them before but maybe you all have. The whole song is kind of just a summary of all the cantos in the Inferno. Here are the first couple lines that we should be familiar with after reading multiple cantos:

"Through the fiery caverns we sail, Virgil at my side my guide and master, Questing through the nine plains of hell, Infernal wisdom shall fill my soul, Slowly now the days departing, The darkened air releases me, Frightening visions of my journey, Entrance me to Limbo, I'm not free"

This first stanza really talks mostly about the first Canto when Dante meets Virgil and Virgil tells him how he will lead him through Hell and be his guide. Also, the last line in this stanza says they are entering Limbo, which is the 1st circle of Hell, and is where Virgil lives in Hell. The song continues just as their journey does and if y'all would like to look more into it here is the link for the song lyrics: https://genius.com/Iced-earth-dantes-inferno-lyrics  (you can also play the song off this website, but I will warn you it is very long for a song: about 17 minutes!)

Punishments for Crimes

While responding to a previous post on possible misplacement in the circles of Hell in Dante’s Inferno, I realized that punishments and crimes are not only subject to influence by the time period in which they are committed, but also by the culture/religious beliefs of communities, even in modern times. For example, if you are caught stealing in certain nations, such as Saudi Arabia and many other Middle Eastern countries, you can have your hands cut off as a punishment. By contrast, in Western nations, stealing is considered a minor crime and at most the perpetrator will be given a misdemeanor charge, resulting in community service. You may recall Liangelo Ball, who while representing the United States in a basketball tournament in China, was caught stealing clothes from a Gucci store and was looking at ten years of labor-intensive prison sentencing before our President used diplomatic channels to get him pardoned. Thus, punishments for crimes can differ from country to country, and it mainly depends on the culture and religious backgrounds of nations which can influence peoples’ outlooks on crimes’ severities.

What do you guys think about this?

Who belongs where?

As I was reading cantos 4 and 5 last night, I was intrigued by who was in the first and second circles of Hell. I began to wonder why some people were placed in a certain group if they were guilty of committing far worse sins. For example, Paris was responsible for killing Achilles at the end of the Trojan War, however he is placed in the second circle of Hell. If it were up to me, Paris should be placed with the other killers not with those who are lustful. Yes, Paris was lustful, however murder is more severe than lust. With that said, I understand that Paris killed Achilles in war and that makes it “acceptable,” but I don’t see it this way. I would place the person in the circle of Hell according to their most severe sin no matter the circumstance. 

In addition, I think that some of these characterizations show the subjectivity of the circles of Hell. Depending on your connections, you might fall within a less severe circle of Hell. For example, if you had connections to the Roman Empire or were a warrior in battle, your chances in hell might be a bit better off. Overall, I just found some of the characterizations a bit strange. 

What other people do y’all think should be placed in different circles? And do y’all agree?

Cosmic Horror

So, I had a question: where and is a sense of helplessness felt strongest in both Medea and Oedipus Rex?  I want to draw a comparison between H.P. Lovecraft (well known author and RAVING racist [like, total xenophobe]) and these two Greek tragedies in terms of their usage of "fear of the unknown" or fear of being helpless.  More specifically the former, because a major theme in Lovecraft's works is the scary lack of control the characters feel.  The "gods" in Lovecraft's works aren't so much interested in and controlling humans' lives behind the scenes, but the general idea is that humanity is totally worthless in comparison to them.  Much like with the Greek gods, humans generally are the lesser beings, and they may determine a person's fate entirely.  The parallel may break when considering the characters feelings towards or reactions to being controlled or helpless.  In Oedipus one could say that the audience (specifically Greek polytheistic audience) and other characters all understand Oedipus's fate, and part of what makes Oedipus fall so hard is the fact that he can't accept his own lack of free will.  Therefore the lack of free will is part of the status-quo.  In contrast, pretty much any character in H.P. Lovecraft's works that seems to accept their lack of control and worships the "Great Old Ones" is shown as being insane.  What are some examples of this, or contradictions to it?  cthulhu bad

Son Of Sam, I Am

In yesterday's discussion of prisons and all that jazz, someone mentioned that prison should be rehabilitative, but that certain psychopathic serial killers cannot be rehabilitated and thus should not be catered to.

This reminded me of the "Son of Sam". David Berkowitz killed 6 people in the 70's, and later converted to Christianity and became remorseful for his actions. Read more about him, if you find murder entertaining.

Not saying religion is the way to go, but is this proof that there is some way to rehabilitate these so-called psychopaths?

Discuss.

Justice

During today's discussion on the nature of justice, we failed to discuss one of the most important ideas of justice developed in the modern era. John Rawls, a professor at Harvard University argued that justice is fairness, but not the kind of fairness you are thinking of. By fairness he does not mean perfect equality but a system of equal opportunity. A better way of thinking about it is that justice is about inherent fairness not bringing about fairness. When you go into a courtroom what you are seeking is that justice be restored because the system does not decide what is just, justice is an outside concept upon which the system is built.. Rawls defines his system of justice on two principles which he defines in his book A Theory of Justice, "First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all."


These principles state that all people must have equal rights and that these rights be as extensive as possible, and that inequality can exist as long as everyone benefits from them and that everyone has the opportunity to move up through the social and political system.


Now, I am sure you are asking how does this relate to the criminal justice system , Andrew? Well, Brandon, it's quite obvious that Rawls's Two Principles apply directly to the justice system as the justice system must protect everyone's rights and that the justice system must work to ensure that there is equal justice under the law so that the poorest and richest citizens receive their due. In class we mostly focused on discussing retributive, rehabilitative, or proportional justice as well as deterrence theory, but now consider how Rawls's theory applies to criminal justice. In what ways has the justice system violated Rawls's Two Principles?



Sources:


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#JusFaiJusWitLibSoc
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1978.

The Golden Fleece?!?!?!

I'm not gonna lie, when we were talking about the Golden Fleece the only thing I could picture in my head was:
 
I can't be the only one... so I looked up and found some pretty cool pictures of what Jason was actually on the search for:


I also found a nice little definition- The fleece of the golden-woolled, winged ram, Chrysomallos, which was held in Colchis. The fleece is a symbol of authority and kingship.

What If?

When reading the play Oedipus Rex, I wondered what would have happened if people knew Oedipus killed Laius before he became king of Thebes. Would they still accept him even though he saved the city? Would Jocasta still wanna hook up? What would happpen?!?! I think they would just exile him but still be heralded as the man who saved the city. I want to know your thoughts. Yes YOU, the reader of this blog post. I want your thoughts pLeAsE.

Yummy Yummy Yogurt!

So, Oikos is the idea of family right? Or, the inside. The good stuff inside. And there is a brand of Greek yogurt called Oikos! I have a feeling that they called the yogurt Okios because the good stuff, in this case the yogurt, is inside, just like family.

Nothing too serious or analytical. Just something I noticed.

This is completely random but.....

Ok so this has nothing to do with Medea or Oedipus or podcasts or really anything we have done in English so far this year but...... I really wanted to talk about it and get y'all's opinions. So recently I've been watching a lot of movies based on books, yet I haven't read the books. After watching a a few of the movies I started to want to read the actual books and to read the sequels of them as well. Most people say the books are better but I feel like that might not be the only case. What do you all think? Do you usually read a book then watch a movie? Or do you usually watch a movie then read the book? Or do you only do one or the other? And which do you most often like more? (Again sorry this is really off topic, but I was curious!)

Erinyes and Medea

We have talked about The Furies very briefly in English while discussing Oedipus. So to refresh, The Furies are "infernal goddesses" that punish humans for crimes if there is no earthly justice. There are three of them, Alecto (punisher of moral crimes), Megaera (punisher of liars and infidelity) and Tisiphone (punisher of murderers). They are embodiments of karma and the self-hatred and guilt of committing crimes. Now in reading Oedipus Rex and Medea I couldn't help but wonder why the Furies were not used within the plays. Aeschylus wrote The Oresteia and there's a whole part of the story centered around the Furies torturing Orestes for the crime of matricide. In Oedipus they call upon the Furies to torture the murderer of Laius, not knowing it's Oedipus. However, they never show to enact the supernatural justice because there is no need to. Oedipus just stabs his eyes out and leaves while Jocasta hangs herself so why would they need to write them in. In reading Medea I had an "AHA" moment and did a quick google search. Medea herself basically becomes the Fury Megaera, punishing Jason for his infidelity by killing Glauce and Jasons Children. It wasn't a random act of passion but a very well calculated plan. She didn't just want Jason to suffer but Glauce as well, hence the poison dress and crown. Plus she "accidentally" killed Kreon, so points for efficiency?

Was what Medea did to Jason wrong? debatable.
 Did it get the point across? Yes.
Moral of the story: don't cheat on anyone because they might just poison your spouse and kill your children.

nasty woman: medea

The major theme of the play Medea is that greatness is what leads us to our downfalls, therefore we should strive for mediocrity to live a stable and consistent life. Medea’s love was so passionate and fierce for Jason, that its greatness controlled her. The chorus reminds us that gradual love, and finding the middle ground, is what leads to real greatness. I believe Medea’s sudden and abrupt love for Jason is the reason for her overwhelming amount of anger. She reacts so nastily and can’t seem to move on without reacting with a large scale plan. We talked about this in class, but I’m still curious about what others think is the overall reason for her distasteful use of revenge. Why can’t she just move on? Why do ya’ll think she chooses the death of Jason’s loved ones as the ultimate revenge?

Jason: Good or Bad Through Medea’s Eyes

As we were discussing in class, all women were expected to marry and have kids. However, the decisions who they were to marry was not up to them. It was left to chance, fate, and the gods to decide who your husband was to be. Due to this, you could be stuck with a good or bad husband who you had to live the rest of your life with.

In Medea’s case, she was to marry Jason. Whether this was “love at first sight” or the doings of Aphrodite, we are not totally sure. She sacrificed everything for him and was ultimately left alone. Jason began seeing a new women and left Medea in the dust. Men were allowed to have these “outside relationships,” but women were not. When Medea find out about his relationship with this the princess, she goes crazy. In addition to this, she was made aware that she and her kids are going to be exiled. She then begins to carry out her next action: REVENGE. This leads me to the point of my post: does Medea think she was given a good husband?

In my opinion, Medea is still very much in love with Jason. In order to hate someone, you have to care very deeply for them. The greater the degree of hate, the more you care about that person. Medea dedicates all her time on carrying out this revenge plan of hers just to prove to Jason that she has power as a woman. Again, if you have to prove something to someone, you CARE about what they think about you. Medea is still consumed with Jason’s actions, therefore indicating she still has feelings toward him.

If Medea were to not not care about Jason, she would have just left and went to Athens. She didn’t have to kill anyone, but she wanted to carry her plan out! Medea expends so much energy on Jason’s life that it is clear she wants him.

The question then is: does Medea consider herself to be blessed with a good husband/ex-husband? My answer to this question is YES! I am not saying that what Jason did in leaving her was right in any means, I’m just saying that Medea is fighting for/against him to show she cares and wants to be with him. If she thought Jason was a “bad husband,” she would have been relieved when he left her. Instead, her life fell apart and she is left alone. Despite all the terrible things Jason has done, I think Medea would take him back!!

Medea Syndrome

Did you know that there is a real syndrome based on our favorite child killing protagonist, Medea. It is known as both spousal revenge and Medea syndrome. It is the most rare form of of filicide, the killing of one's son or daughter. This crime is done in order to get revenge on a spouse, usually after a divorce or another traumatic event in one's marriage.

Susan Smith, a 23 year old from South Carolina, drove her two sons into a lake where they later drowned. This story gained nationwide attention and became a modern day Medea. It came out that Smith was suing David, the father of her 3 year old Michael and 14 year old Alexander. She was suing him on the grounds of adultery, a common cause of Medea syndrome. Another example would be Theresa Riggi, who was 46 when she stabbed her 8 year old twin boys and 5 year old daughter. Her marriage had recently broken down, and she was bitter after the divorce. A custody fight was also looming over them. 

These are just a couple of examples which involve Medea syndrome. Both women were believed to commit these crimes in order to get revenge on their husbands for their failed marriages. The end,

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-some-parents-kill-their-kids/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/wellness/1994/11/08/the-medea-syndrome/551db74b-9055-4c00-be32-a1db0082e046/

Morality

In Medea we are presented with a character that commits a series of murders for the sake of revenge. Now we must determine the morality of these actions. So are the murders of the Princess, Kreon, and the Children immoral? 

I will present three arguments as to why these actions are clearly morally wrong. First, let us consider the murders from a contractualist perspective. Contractualism states that the morality of an action is based on what we can justify to some else so that there are no reasonable complaints against you. There are two reasonable complaints against Medea. First, she killed 4 human beings because she was jealous. Second, she killed her own children just to spite Jason. I could list more but I think I have made more point.

Now let's consider this from a Kantian perspective. The 1st formulation of the Categorical Imperative states, "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."  Now assume that it is always morally justifiable to murder someone out of a desire for revenge. Logically, this will lead to the Purge where people are being killed all the time. Therefore under the 1st formulation of the Categorical Imperative killing someone out of a desire for revenge must be considered immoral as it leads to an illogical outcome. Even if you do not believe this argument we can consider these murders under the 2nd formulation of the Categorical Imperative which state, "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end" This essentially says that you should never use another human being as a means to end. By using her children as instrument to commit murder, Medea commits what Kant would consider to be one of the most immoral acts possible, disregarding the autonomy of a human being. 

Now let us consider the actions from the Consequentialists perspective. Consequentialism says that the morality of an action is determined by the outcomes of the action. Medea's actions lead to four people dying. This is all we must consider under the consequentialist framework. The action is immoral because the outcome of the actions lead to four people not being alive. 

I could go on showing how Medea's actions are immoral under many different moral frameworks, but this post is long enough already. 



Sources: 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
x

Shafer-Landau, Russ. Ethical Theory: an Anthology. Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf

Medea?

It is clear in the story that Medea has some very controversial thoughts (for the time period it is set in). Would you argue that Medea was a feminist during her time? Why?

I Can Do Bad All By Myself

Medea and Madea: What do they have in common? I mean it. Regardless of whatever impression he gives in his movies, Tyler Perry is a smart man from New Orleans baby! WOO! NOLA REPRESENT! There must be a reason that he chose the name Madea. Discuss.

"Without Me" by Halsey is Medea's hype up song?!?!?

Found you when your heart was broke
I filled your cup until it overflowed
Took it so far to keep you close (Keep you close)
I was afraid to leave you on your own

These are the opening lyrics to the song "Without Me" by Halsey. While we were discussing Medea in class the other day, the song popped up in my head and I realized Halsey's song relates directly to Medea's story. Verse 1 (shown above) reminds me of when Medea and Jason first met. She did everything in her power to help Jason get the Golden Fleece.

I said I'd catch you if you fall (Fall)
And if they laugh, then (bad word)' em all (All)
And then I got you off your knees
Put you right back on your feet
Just so you could take advantage of me

Onto the pre-chorus... This is when Medea finds out Jason completely used her to get the Golden fleece, made babies with her, then peaced out just to do the same to another woman but this time to get a better title.

Tell me, how's it feel sittin' up there?
Feelin' so high, but too far away to hold me
You know I'm the one who put you up there
Name in the sky, does it ever get lonely?
Thinking you could live without me
Thinking you could live without me
Baby, I'm the one who put you up there
I don't know why (Yeah, I don't know why)
Thinking you could live without me
Live without me
Baby, I'm the one who put you up there
I don't know why (Yeah, I don't know why)
Thinking you could live without me
Live without me
Baby, I'm the one who put you up there
I don't know why (I don't know why, yeah, yeah)

And lastly, the chorus. When I see this part I picture Jason on a levitating throne in a King's robe and crown while Medea's brewing up a plan. She's telling Jason, "Enjoy your throne because you won't have it for long." "Thinking you could live without me," in other words, "I'm planning on killing you... and our offspring."...dun...Dun...DUN...

Medea so far......

My overall question for y'all in this blog post is ..... Do you like or dislike the character Medea as of right now (before finishing the play)? Personally, I feel super bad for her because of the whole Jason left her for the new Princess of Corinth situation. Also, he kind of just left her there to support herself and their two sons without his help at all. He just left to make a new life for himself and doesn't even look back to his family he has already made. So, I like her and feel bad for her in that sense. But on the other hand, I don't really like her plan. I don't think killing Jason, Kreon, and the Princess will get her very far or solve any of her problems. I mean she was already supposed to be exiled but she begged for one more day and she got it. So she already is not on Kreon's "good side." Her plan is to kill them on this day and have her revenge. Not the smartest idea but I guess she is so in love she didn't know what else to do. So, what do y'all think about Medea as of right now?

Links for Oedipus and Medea

Plays are meant to be performed, so I have put links for Oedipus and Medea for you to watch if you choose to do so. Mind you, the translation is not exactly what is in our book because translation is an art, not a science. Oedipus uses the classic greek masks to indicate character while Medea is simply actors traipsing about the stage. Enjoy

Oedipus Rex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TonLOAkc1OY

Medea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNiriEzx5ss

Trump & Oedipus (Co-Authored by Brandon & Andrew)

       In July, President Trump spoke to Ukrainian President Zelensky and strongly implied that US aid would be withheld until such time as the Ukrainians investigated Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden. In August, a whistle-blower within the Intelligence Community filed a complaint that the Inspector General found to be credible and urgent. Two weeks ago, a formal impeachment inquiry began in the House of Representatives, and the unofficial transcript of the phone call was released. Last week, Rudy Guiliani, the President's personal attorney, was subpoenaed by the House of Representatives, and the President asked the nation of China to investigate the Bidens. 

       In Oedipus Rex, we see a monarch that is both insecure and overly confident. These factors combine to bring about his downfall. We see these same factors at play in the current scandal. The President acted similarly to Oedipus and chose to act off of his insecurities by asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent. He then responded to the fallout of this action by acting overly confident, releasing the transcript of the call, and prompting other governments to interfere in the election. Much like Oedipus, this fatal combination of insecurity and over-confidence may lead to the President's downfall. 

Sources:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/03/timeline-trump-impeachment-inquiry/

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uyWKAGgHIqDEORgjOyo0uq7JOXzhxOQf/preview

LAST MINUTE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScdJURKGWM

CLICK thE LINK ITS A SONG ABOut oeDIPUS! WE READ THAT BOOK! MRS. KING IM TRYING!

THE JOKER

I am going to give the most basic of plot overviews to start off my post so that I don’t spoil anything. The Joker can be described as a movie about a mentally ill , incredibly poor, and rejected member of society who is driven towards a life of violence due to how he’s treated on a daily basis. That is all I will say about the movie. I am mainly making this post because I feel like the movie and it’s message relates really well to some of the podcasts we’ve listened to recently. Many people in society often grow up in poor communities with little parental guidance in life and are driven towards crime as an outlet. These members of our society slip through the cracks and their struggles are neglected and not cared for or treated. These criminals have been offered no hope for a better future, nor  any promises of help, yet we wonder why they lash out. I think this movie was a perfect example of how rehabilitation methods that this country depends on are not effective, and lower income communities who have a strong reputation of violence are not being met with the type of attention that they need. Anyone who feels like they have no purpose in life is bound to take action until they are recognized by other members of society; unfortunately, far too often are these actions violent and attract the attention of the law. Waiting until someone ends up in prison to attempt to “rehabilitate” them should not be the case, and letting people get away with being overlooked or ignored while they’re struggling on a daily basis is bound to lead to destruction. Understanding why people do what they do, and showing sympathy for their situation will be far more effective than a long prison sentence.

Back to Podcasts...

So I know we have been focusing on Oedipus Rex, but I want to throw it back to podcasts again for a little bit. I was really interested in them after doing our crime podcast project that I wanted to look more into them, and of course I wanted to share my research with y'all! I kind of thought that podcasts were "replacing" radio and and that podcasts were "the new big thing," which I found to be pretty accurate after doing my research. This The Atlantic article states, "Among the technological innovations of the last decade, there's a discrete yet enduring format that may fulfill such an alternative, 'sensational' vision of the role of media in democracy: podcasts." Podcasts are said to be different with the fact that they are supposed to make you "trigger" your emotions and feel things. There are also certain podcasts that interest people because they talk about the hottest tv shows. Instead of listening to music or talk shows on the radio, people listen to other people "gossip" about their favorite tv shows. Podcasters are also seen as being more of a storyteller and when you are listening it's like you are in the same room as them having a conversation. Whereas some radio talkers are just journalists reporting facts and playing music. Also, different from radio, podcasts can reach audiences all over the world. Radio stations, on the other hand, are usually just associated with a city or a certain area. These are just some of the many reasons why people are switching from radio to podcasts, and I might be one of them........

Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/how-podcasting-is-shaping-democracy/524028/

W, WO, WOM, WOME, WOMEN!

I find it very, very (did I say very?) ironic that women were belittled and deprived of their rights yet were essential to many aspects of life, including theater and plays! Around 400 BCE, women possessed few to no rights in daily life. They were not allowed to leave the house, except for a few occasions! Due to this, they could not attend Ancient Greek theater performances and definitely NOT be on stage.

This is where the irony comes in. According to RWAAG, “The actors were usually men. Of course, they turned to the women in their lives as models, because the women in the plays were important.” The male actors would dress up in ways that resembled women. Let us get this straight: Women were seen as way, way, way below men, however they are one of the most important things in plays AND life?? The role of female characters in plays was essential that MEN had to play the role of women. Why not just let women play the part? This a question I will never understand. 

In relation to Oedipus, Jocasta, a woman, is the key to the whole play. Without Jocasta, there would be no plot! The plot of the play is as follows: a woman has a son who grows up searching for his mother and finally discovers who she is. Considering women were not allowed on stage at any point, I am curious to how a man pulled this part off. Jocasta is portrayed as the strongest character in the play, up until her death, that holds the most power. However, in reality she is just a woman!

Anyone have anything to add?

https://www.rwaag.org/gdrama#Role

Mother or Lover?

As we know, Jocasta functions both as a mother and wife to Oedipus. However, I think that Jocasta’s “maternal side” trumps her duties as a lover. I think the best example of this is when the shepard arrives in Thebes and begins to tell the story of who the parents of Oedipus are. Obviously, Jocasta realizes she is the mother of Oedipus before he does and urges him to call off the search for his parents. She repeatedly begs him to stop looking for his own sake. 

This instance of trying to save him from finding out that she is his mother, serves as a way of protection toward Oedipus. By trying to protect him, she puts his best interest before her own which is the key element in being a mother. Prior to this event, we also see Jocasta attempting to mend the relationship between Oedipus and Creon. She says, “Have you no sense? Poor misguided men, such shouting- why this public outburst” (590). Once again, Jocasta asserts her mother-like abilities to settle the feud between these two men. In a way, the “fight” between Oedipus and Creon serves as a symbol for two children fighting. Whenever two kids fight, their mother to quick to come in and break it up. Even when Jocasta is unaware that she is the mother of Oedipus, she still acts in a mother-like way. 

Lastly, Jocasta continues to comfort and protect him as she recounts the story about her son that she left with the shepherds; as we know, she is talking about Oedipus. She tells Oedipus the story of leaving her son with his ankles tied on the Mount with the shepherds because of the prophecy that he would kill both his parents. Due to the fact that neither Oedipus or Jocasta know the truth at this point, she tells him this story to “prove” that prophecies are false and completely useless. Overall, I see Jocasta more as a mother than a lover towards Oedipus.

What do y’all think? Agree? Disagree? 

What is the Sphinx?

Were you reading Oedipus Rex and wondering what or who the Sphinx is? Or have you heard of it but didn't know exactly what it was? Well, that was the boat I was in so I did some research! A sphinx is a creature that has a body of a lion and the head of a human. It is common in Asian, Greek, and Egyptian mythology. They began in ancient Egypt where they were a spiritual guardian and most of the time were male. From Egypt, they "migrated" to both Greece and then Asia. This all happened in the 15th and 16th centuries B.C. The Asian perception of the sphinx had eagle wings and was usually female. Also, it was often described or drawn as sitting on its haunches with one paw raised up. The Greek perception of the sphinx also had wings and according to the legends, it ate all peoples who were not able to answer the riddles it told.
For more information: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-egypt/the-sphinx

I'm at a loss for blogging right now so bear with me

Thebes is probably one of the most well-known cities of ancient Greece. It's the setting of many myths, and archeological excavations found tablets from the Mycenaean period (1600-1100 BC) show settlements and the importance of the city even in the Bronze age. Thebes was a rival of Athens and sided with the Persians during the 480BC invasion. During the Macedonian period, they were one of the most dominant city-states. Finally, during the Byzantine period, they were famous for silk. Now in Greek mythohistory, Thebes has many titles one being "Seven-Gated Thebes". This is not to be confused with "One Hundred Gated Thebes" of Egypt. All I'm saying is that there is ONE sphinx and SEVEN gates. Basic math has taught me that 7-1=6. So there are SIX other gates anyone could have left from. Then tell me how the Sphinx single-handedly held an entire city hostage by guarding ONE of SEVEN exits. Can she teleport? Does she know if anyone has left from one of the seven gates that she is not guarding? Like I said, I'm at a loss for what to blog about. So someone please answer me this question because we deserve answers. I'm also open to literally any explanation because pretty much anything goes in ancient Greece at this point.

Translation issues

This might be a stretch for a blog post, but nonetheless I feel it is important to discuss. Whomever was in charge of translating Greek to English clearly did not know what they were doing. As far as I am concerned when Greek is translated to other languages the diphthongs and true sounds of the words are kept.

In English all is lost.

The city Thebes is actually pronounced "Thiva," but the city Thessaloniki is usually pronounced the correct way in English. So here we can see no rhyme or reason when translating.

 In Greek the letter upsilon (Υ,υ) in written in English as an "U,u" simply because they look the same. The pronunciation is actually very different, the "Υ,υ" makes an "ē" sound; when it is by itself.

When that letter if put after an "a" or and "e" it is a diphthong and makes an "f" or "v" sound. Occasionally, the "u" could also just be the "ou" sound when translated into english. It's very confusing and whoever originally translated Greek words into English seemed to do so with no rhyme or reason. They sometimes did it with how it looked and other times they used the true sound.

When the Greek "Ο,ο" and "Ι,ι" (oi) are put together we also get the ē sound. Any Greek derived English word that ends with an English "Y,y" should actually end with an "-ia." For example, geometry in greek would geometria.

"Αι" is pronounce like a short "A"

Everyone knows about Zeus, but it is not pronounced "Zoos," it is pronounced "Zefs." This is because "Ζευσ" has the diphthong "eu," which makes the "ef" sound.

I feel like some English scholar should go back and fix all the mistakes the previous person made.

What will they say?

As Oedipus is talking with Creon publicly we see everyone except Oedipus is embarrassed and try to make the discussion a private matter. I believe that this is extremely culturally important to the book, but that value also extends to modern times. It shows how against the cultural norms Oedipus went to make this speech and I think that it shows one of his many flaws. Today, we can still see a common greek saying that parents say to their children, " Τι θα λέει ο κόσμοσ" This translates to what will the people say [about you or your family]. The word κόσμοσ is this context is used as people, but it can also mean universe. The fact that this value has survived for literally thousands of years shows its true importance. And since O. violates this value it shows a major flaw: he is very quick to anger. This quickness to anger also causes many more issues, like the fight with Creon.