The irony of physical and metaphorical blindness was thoroughly developed by the ancient Greek dramatist, Sophocles, in the tragic play “Oedipus”. Dramatic irony was heavily used by the playwright to convey and contrast the elements of this theme. Other techniques that Sophocles had employed include character developments, foreshadowings, prophetic statements, dialogue, symbolism, rhetorical questions and imagery. Each of these were interdependent on the other to convey the ironic state of blindness as related to sight in both physical and metaphorical terms. This irony applied to three of the play’s characters – Teiresias, Jocasta and Oedipus.

From the first moment Teiresias appeared on the stage, he was shown to be a physically blind prophet. His disability, however, heightened the aura of reverence and respect that surrounded him. His wisdom and knowledge were irrefutable. Oedipus himself recognized this fact as he greeted Teiresias – “… all heavenly and earthly knowledge are in your grasp.”

It was evident by Teiresias’ line – “I refuse to utter the heavy secrets of my soul – and yours” that he already knew who was the killer of King Laius. Teiresias was shown to be metaphorically sighted – he knew the truth, yet was physically blind. This fact could be contrasted with Oedipus who was “in the dark” about the true identity of the murderer. He had sight but was blind to reality. This was thus the irony of blindness that had been created.

Oedipus further perpetuated this ironic state of affairs by accusing Teiresias of having – “eyes wide open for profit but blind in prophecy” and “Shameless and brainless, sightless, senseless sot!” However, the audience knew that Teiresias was the one who had in-depth vision into the mystery whilst Oedipus was ignorant. To this rash accusation, Teiresias was angered and retorted, “Have you eyes and do not see your own damnation?” which is the crux of this irony. Oedipus had eyes of sight but not eyes of knowledge and therefore, was unaware that he had unwittingly fulfilled a part of the oracle that determined his fate.

Teiresias’ prophetic statements of doom were foreshadowings used to further contrast his vision with Oedipus’ ignorance. Additionally, the theme that fate was indomitable and that it could not be deviated from its predestined path was outlined. Hence, to defy a pre-imposed fate was an attempt that lay in the realm of impossibility. Teiresias’ prophecies concerning Oedipus’ fate – “Those now clear-seeing eyes shall then be darkened” and “He that came seeing, blind shall he go; rich now, then a beggar…” foretold his fall – an event that was inevitable for the tragic hero. The change of the condition of physical sight to blindness was paralleled to a fall from a position of power to one of ignominy.

Jocasta, Oedipus’ wife and mother, was portrayed as a woman with an inconsistent nature and erratic principles. This was evidenced in parts of her dialogue where her beliefs in fate and the gods were apt to change to suit the situation. An example of this was when she declared – “A fig for divination!” which indicated her skepticism to fate and foretelling. However, as the audience already knew, she earlier agreed with her former husband, Laius to kill the baby Oedipus after he was foretold to kill his father and marry his mother. She must have believed the action to take such an action.

As she did not know that she was married to her son, her blindness in the metaphorical sense was similar to that of Oedipus’. However, when the messenger told his story, a horrible realization of the truth dawned on Jocasta. As a sneaking suspicion, which could be likened to the light of truth, slowly crept into her mind, her reaction was one of ghastly terror. She implored Oedipus not to go on with his search. Now that the final impediments of her metaphorical disability had been stripped away, she gave a final speech which foreshadowed her ultimate decision – “O lost and damned! This is my last and only word to you forever!”

Having gained her inner sight, the decision Jocasta made was to crush it with both physical and metaphorical, permanent, unseeing and unfeeling blindness – death. Only the total and complete blindness that death offered could disconnect her mind, body and soul from the knowledge of the incestuous life that she had led. Jocasta could not accept her fate and therefore, committed suicide.

Oedipus, the protagonist in this play, was shown to be a fair, just, dutiful and noble king. He exhibited genuine concern for the welfare of his subjects and kingdom. However, his character was tragically flawed and this fault, coupled with the fate pre-destined for him since before his birth, brought about his eventual downfall. The flaw in his nature was chiefly one of pride and insolence. He also had a rash temperament which easily gave vent to quick anger on provocation.

“Living in perpetual night, you cannot harm me nor any man who sees the light,” referring to Teiresias, is a line which illustrated the irony of blindness and demonstrated Oedipus’ symbolic relation of night with blindness and light with vision. He had the arrogance to accuse Teiresias of being an underhanded man with malign intentions because the prophet was reluctant to share his mind.

Dramatic irony was another important technique used by Sophocles especially in the line when Oedipus proclaimed – “Until I came – I ignorant Oedipus…” with some degree of sarcasm because at that time, he thought he knew all that had to be known about himself. Of course, he was still ignorant of the fact that his wife was his mother and he his father’s killer. The audience, being familiar with the story, knew this and would have found it ironic. This is an example of dramatic irony so prevalent in Greek drama.

His hostility to Creon based on his irrational belief that his brother-in-law wanted to discredit him to sieze his crown was another exhibition of pride and arrogance. “Pride breeds the Tyrant… From castled height Pride tumbles to the pit…” which was a description of Oedipus and a foreshadowing emitted by the chorus. The chorus’ insight into the matter proved astute and their predictions later became reality.

Later, a rhetorical question – “Ah wretch! Am I unwittingly cursed?” was used to arouse a sense of irony because of the context in which it was expressed. Oedipus’ life was cursed even before he became an aware human being. Questions like these encouraged the audience to dwell on and reflect upon the retrospective situations of the plot and their relationships to present circumstances.

Oedipus’ relentless pursuit of the truth destroyed him. Using graphic imagery – “He pierced his eyeballs… a whole cascade descending in drenching cataracts of scarlet rain” displayed his violent reaction when he realized what he had done. He physically blinded himself to forever tear his sight from every seeing the ugly and horrible deeds he had committed. The irony of blindness is completed here as now that Oedipus had attained his metaphorical sight, he was now truly blind.

To conclude, it could be discerned that the elements of truth and ignorance were parts of this irony. Truth and ignorance were parts of this irony. Truth was usually associated with sight, enlightenment, integrity and vision, yet the truth was Oedipus’ doom. His sight and position of sovereign were destroyed for it. Ignorance on the other hand represented darkness, concealment, unawareness and hence, blindness. However, when Oedipus did not have the knowledge of his past, he still physically could see. Sophocles had aptly played with these opposing elements to portray an irony that ran constantly throughout the play. The contrast and contradiction of each state of affairs has given the tragedy more depth of thought and belief as well as cementing the theme of unalterable fate.