Tragedy is one of the phenomena that is so easily found in the world today, especially when huge disappointment arises where hope and glory would have succeeded. The story of Oedipus is one such story, where the prevalence of tragedy was seen in the face of great bravery. Sohrab is an equally renowned hero in his tale, yet he falls prey to a vexation that would seemingly befall all good heroes – their tragic fall. This paper analyzes the lives of the two hroes Sohrab and Oedipus to determine whether they were, in fact, similar or not.
An interesting similarity between the two heroes was the cause of their fall – their arrogance. Once Oedipus had defeated the sphinx by solving their riddle and become an acclaimed leader, the fame could be said to have to his head. His mission for vengeance was even more determined than ever before, wishing that he would get to Corinth quicker and obtain his prize (Rosen, 2007). The fact that he would not listen to his adopted parents’ advice, or the oracle’s, is evidence to the fact that his arrogance was at full brim. On the other hand, Sohrab was also the victim of his own arrogance. Sohrab, when facing Hajir, has no regard for the procedures of the King’s court. Instead, he threatens, “Let me see the King, or I will kill you.” And thereafter, attacks the guard after they shared a laugh (Najarian, 1997). It is with such brute force, which borders folly, that the heroes move on towards their objectives, disregarding every dissenting voice, even if that voice is one of reason.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
At the same time, both heroes seem to be experiencing extraneous forces that seem undeterred to see them meet their ends, namely fate. In the case of Oedipus, a prophecy regarding a man who would murder his father and marry his mother loomed in his past, informing his very actions. Nevertheless, his lack of knowledge of the truth led him right to the destiny he thought he was avoiding. He ended up killing his father to take the throne, and married his mother who was the inherited queen from his deceased father. In Rostam and Sohrab, disaster yet looms when a fateful turn of events causes a father to kill his son, leaving him with no successor to his throne – a twist that can only be the result of fate (Najarian, 1997). An expression in the text asserts the will of destiny over the ways of men: “This is destiny, I cannot do anything about it”. Even this piece understands the place of fate and destiny, and even expresses resignation at the hands of destiny. As a result, the similarity can be seen in the place of fate within the novel.
Notwithstanding, differences are present within the two stories, especially in the details rather than the themes. For example, Oedipus was the son who murdered his parents, while the opposite is true for Sohrab. However, the underlying theme of murder and fate remains intertwined. Additionally, both pieces are presented in a poetic manner, such that both forms of art are understood from that perspective. Furthermore, the deeper storyline of heroic tragedy is enunciated in both texts, thereby providing a moral lesson for the effects of unchecked powers or the lack of character and its effect on the well being of the individual.
All in all, the text seeks to impart knowledge on the similar fates for both heroes, Sohrab and Oedipus. Similar themes are expressed, especially with regards to fate and its impact on human life, as well as arrogance as a common theme in both heroes’ lives. As a result, this paper concludes that the two stories are more similar than they are different.
Reference:
Najarian, J. (1997). Curled Minion, Mancer, Coiner of Sweet Words": Keats, Dandyism, and Sexual Indeterminacy in" Sohrab and Rustum. Victorian Poetry, 35(1) , 23-42.
Rosen, I. C. (2007). Revenge—the hate that dare not speak its name: A psychoanalytic perspective. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 55(2) , 595-619.
