Oedipus' Tragedy: An Arabic Reinterpretation

Dr. Fathia Saleh Al-Ghoreibi¹

Abstract

'Ali Ahmed Bakathir was keen to reflect Arabs' and Muslims' issues in his literary works. In his belief, history and myth, which are rich in symbols, can be a major source of inspiration to the man of letters. The present study focuses on Bakathir's use of the Greek myth of Oedipus as treated by Sophocles in his play Oedipus Rex. To adapt the myth to the Muslim faith and beliefs, the writer introduces certain changes to his version. The paper examines these changes both in content and form and shows Bakathir's reinterpretation of the classical tragedy after ridding it of the legendary and prophetical context and making it approach the ordinary human life. The study also deals with Bakathir's use of standard Arabic, a neutral language, as an attempt to create a medium that will unite Arab audiences. The researcher offers an overall evaluation of Bakathir's success or otherwise in fulfilling his objectives of writing the play.

Keywords: Greek myth, Arabic drama, adaptation, social criticism

¹Department of European Languages, King Abdul-Aziz University

King Abdul-Aziz University,Contact: falghoraibi@kau.edu.sa

This paper examines the play of 'Ali Ahmed Bakathir Oedipus' Tragedy as an adaptation of the Oedipal theme in Arabic literature. The study strives to fulfill several objectives. Bakathir's aims of adapting Sophocles' play will be discussed to see how far he has realized them in his work. Differences and congruences will be emphasized with the purpose of illustrating Sophocles' influence on Bakathir. The paper also sheds light on various issues and themes handled in the play to show Bakathir's stand towards them. The study will hint at Bakathir's use of standard Arabic in his play as an attempt to create a medium that will unite all Arab audiences. A joint approach comprised of analytical, historical and comparative method will be used throughout the paper which will be divided as follows: The researcher starts by giving a brief biography of Bakathir which will help to explain the author's interest in western literature in general and in Sophocles' tragedy in particular. Next, the researcher proceeds to investigate Bakathir's approach to Sophocles'' tragedy in terms of plot and themes with the aim of showing how far he succeeds in his reinterpretation of the Grecian model.

Born in 1910, 'Ali Ahmed Bakathir is the son of a Hadrami merchant who travelled excessively to Indonesia. The education he received when he was in Hadramout resembled the one given at Al-Azhr (Al-Somahi, 1403: 35). During those days, the student was supposed to learn by heart certain books in religion, language and literature. Beside memorizing the Quran, or at least parts of it, Bakathir acquired a great deal of knowledge in all these fields and showed a tendency towards literature and poetry in particular.

In 1934, Bakathir travelled to Egypt where he enrolled in the department of English at the University of Fu'ad I (Cairo University today). His previous Islamic knowledge together with his study of English literature helped to form the career of Bakathir as an outstanding man of letters.

The influence of the university was great on Bakathir. Before his admission, he mainly wrote poetry, and to prepare himself to be an established poet through strengthening his poetic talent and getting acquainted with English literature, Bakathir chose the department of English. However, the new field he joined had changed not only his concept of poetry but of literature as a whole. During that time, he gave up composing poetry and became interested in western drama especially Shakespeare's plays which affected him greatly. In 1939, Bakathir obtained a BA in English literature. A year later, he got a diploma from the Teachers' Educational Institute and worked in teaching for fourteen years in Egypt.

Bakathir tried his hand at poetry, drama and fiction. When he was a student at the university, he tried to introduce blank verse into the Arabic language first through the translation of Shakespeare's tragedy Romeo and Julliet in 1937 and then through the independent composition of Akhnaton wa Neffertiti in 1937. With his translation of Shakespeare's tragedy, he aimed to show that the translation of English verse drama, especially those of Shakespeare, could not be carried out successfully in Arabic verse but through the way he followed ( Al-Jada' n.d.: 29).

Bakathir's attempt to write drama in blank verse is important in Arabic literature. It is clear that he did not intend to substitute traditional Arabic poetry with this new form. In his view, the new form is suitable for certain topics only and for translating poetic drama which is not lyrical in nature (Al-Jada' n.d.: 32). With his attempt in blank verse, he meant to prove that Arabic language is rich and flexible, as he once illustrated (Bakathir, 1985: 9). Bakathir's plays include comedies and tragedies treating different topics in life; political and historical themes had always been his favorite because he was greatly interested in the Arabs' and Muslims' causes all over the world. The Palestinian question had always been in his mind and he wrote many plays dealing with this problem even before its existence as in Shylock Al-Jadid (1944), and afterwards in his plays Sha'b Allah Al-Mukhtar (1950), Ilah Israil (1960) and Al-Tawrah Al-Da'i'h (1969). In those plays, he criticized some of the legends spread by the Israelis about their being God's chosen race and described their brutal ways through which they achieved their goals.

To Bakathir, history is a major source of inspiration because he believed that:

Art, in general, and theater, in particular, should be based more on allusions

and symbols than on limitations and particularizations. Consequently, the truth

embodied in a work of art. i.e. the play, is larger than the truth in actual life.

Historical events help the man of letters to achieve his end more than

contemporary incidents. Through the passage of time, such historical events have

been crystallized and thus their surrounding conjunctures and details, which are

not important, have been removed. In this way, the writer, can employ

implications of the historical event to reach the goal of his work (1985: 39-40) ¹.

Using historical incidents is a safe way to criticize the present state of affairs without being afraid of any injustice that could be inflicted upon the writer by the agents being criticized. Bakathir had a talent in choosing the appropriate historical incidents and personae and manipulating them interestingly without damaging any established facts. From a national point of view, Bakathir reflected certain events of the Muslims' history in his works in an attempt to set a good example to be imitated by his contemporaries. By doing so, he proved the love and respect he had for that history which should be known to everyone.

Myth is another source of inspiration which is, for Bakathir, richer than history in symbols (1985: 40). Bakathir used myth to achieve certain objectives after introducing the necessary changes that would adjust them to his faith and beliefs. Faust Al-Jadid, is a play modeled on the ancient myth in which Mephistopheles asks Faust to obey him even in the afterlife. Bakathir, whose faith does not accept such an idea, had to limit the devil's influence to the worldly life only (Isma'il, 1980: 203). Oedipus' Tragedy is another instance which shows the author's use of a Greek myth. The changes made in the story will be fully discussed in the following pages.

It is clear that Bakathir's Islamic stand caused him troubles even when he was in his native country where quacks, hiding under religious masks, tried to dominate the simple folk. To enlighten the public of the true teachings of Islam, Bakathir, as an editor of " Al-Tahdhib", criticized the present conditions. As a result, he was accused of being a renegade and thus had to leave the country after losing hope of its reformation. Bakathir's attitude towards Islam is usually connected with his love for the Arab nation and the Arabic language. His nationalism became, as he once declared, a major source of inspiration and thus a considerable amount of his works is intended to "highlight noble ideals from our rich and glorious history to help the Arab nation in its fight for freedom and independence and in its struggle for a glorious future suited to its glorious past" (1985: 39).

Bakathir's nationalism is closely related to his attitude towards Arabic "which is for him, not only a means of expression , but the miracle of his people and their tongue. It is the power that can unite the people" (Badawi, 1981: 36). In one of his lectures, Bakathir explained that it was wrong to go on using the slang in writing plays for the theater only because it suited the audience's taste. Such a habit would not help form a united tradition of Arabic drama since each country has a number of dialects that are not understood even by the natives themselves. Consequently, men of letters should use standard Arabic in their works. He reasoned that:

The best vehicle to draw a character, clarify its psychological features

and distinguish it from other characters is the neutral language; the language

that does not have a strong local flavor that would efface such features,

destroy its characteristics and give it the same brand as the other characters.

For us, standard language is the neutral language through which a capable writer

would form different expressions suitable for the different characters he draws

(Bakathir, 1985: 79).

Despite the difficulty of putting this idea into practice, Bakathir managed to write all his plays and novels in this language he called for (Al-'Ashmawi, 1409: 201).

Oedipus' Tragedy: Content and Form:

Bakathir is known for his serious interest in the cause of Muslims and Arabs everywhere. Most of his works discuss political or historical themes related to contemporary problems and issues. The question of Palestine and the war against the Jews had preoccupied Bakathir's mind throughout his literary career. In 1948, the Arabs suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of the Jews who abused the Muslims and their holy places alike. The effect of the crisis was great on Bakathir who described it by saying:

I was pessimistic, disappointed, humiliated and ashamed of the Arab nation's

future and of what affected her. I felt that all her dignity was crushed down

and no dignity was left for her to be cared of. I remained under this painful

and heavy effect for a long time without knowing how to have a relief for it.

(1985: 58)

In the midst of his depression , Bakathir recalled the incident of the Greek myth used in Sophocles' Oedipus Rex. The strange connection between the Arabs' crisis in Palestine and the Greek myth is explained by Bakathir as follows: "The sin committed by the Arabs in Palestine and its following disgrace are as horrible as the crime Oedipus committed against his parents and the shame it caused him (1985: 58). With this new outlook, Bakathir reread Sophocles' tragedy and came up with a different interpretation of the myth.

Bakathir's Oedipus' Tragedy comprises three acts. The first and third acts are divided into two scenes, the second act has one seen only. The play opens up with Creon and Jocasta discussing a problem which has troubled everyone in the city. It is the same problem as in Sophocles' tragedy; the plague and famine that have afflicted Thebes. The difference here is that Bakathir makes Creon give an account of the citizens' sufferings while in Oedipus Rex, the priest of Zeus is the one who does so.

Creon does not understand Oedipus' refusal to grant the citizens their wish of sending somebody to Delphi to get some advice. Jocasta wishes that Oedipus does so just to relieve him because, as she says, "he has never enjoyed eating or sleeping since this calamity struck Thebes."² Creon is also afraid that the citizens may misunderstand Oedipus if he insists on not sending anyone to Delphi. There is also his old idea which will endanger his throne if he fulfills it. For the sake of his people, Oedipus is ready to confiscate the riches and estates of the temple. Through the introductory conversation between the queen and her brother, Bakathir presents two major elements in the play, the plague and famine which constitute the city's disaster, and Oedipus' wish to confiscate the temple's riches which will cause a bitter conflict between him and the priests of the temple.

With Oedipus' appearance, it is known why he does not want to seek the counsel of the temple. He tells both Creon and Jocasta that he cannot grant the citizens their wish because "the temple is the cause of their misery and hardship. What can the temple do for them? It has enough charities and estates to divert its attention from the people's misery!" (7). Oedipus will do what he thinks of whether the people are convinced with it or not. In an attempt to prevent him from proceeding, Jocasta reminds him:

Had not courage been blind, you would have seen in your way the great

danger which is threatening you and all of us. The chief priest is keeping

an eye on us. Do you think that if you hit him, he will not hit you

back with the sharp weapon he has? Woe… what will become of us

if he announces the awful truth to the citizens? (9)

For a short while, Oedipus is taken aback by Jocasta's last words but then he boldly tells her that he does not care even if the chief priest declares that Oedipus is the murderer of Laius. Bakathir introduced a great change by making Oedipus, Jocasta and the chief priest know that Oedipus is Laius' murderer. This change has a great effect because the temple, especially its chief priest, will gain power and continue to blackmail the king and the queen who are expected to remain loyal and subservient to the temple lest it should publicize their crime.

The mention of Laius' name makes Oedipus ask suddenly about Jocasta's age and why she does not like to hear about her former husband. His first question is not answered and for the second one, she tells him that Laius' name reminds her of the chief priest who may reveal the truth among the citizens. Oedipus wonders why she married the man who killed her first husband. Jocasta's reply is:

This is fate, I have no hand in it. Who knows, maybe it was Laius' fate to be

punished for killing his innocent child for fear that it would kill him and

marry me as was claimed by the thoughtless prophecy. Thus someone was

directed to kill him and marry his wife as a fitting punishment for his crime (13).

Oedipus now wants to make sure that if the child was really killed and to know the whereabouts of the servant who was supposed to kill the child. Bakathir introduces the prophecy through Oedipus' questioning of Jocasta and, more important of all, gives the audience a hint that Oedipus has a slight doubt that Jocasta could be his mother and Laius his father. This hint is emphasized by the chief priest's story which Oedipus tells: "One day, the chief priest proclaimed that the servant did not kill Laius' child, but he gave it to a Corinthian shepherd who handed it to Polybus and Merope. He also told me that I was that child" (14). With this information which is only known at the end of the original tragedy, Bakathir violates the plot and causes the tragedy to lose its suspense.

Oedipus still does not believe in the sincerity of the temple and wishes he would know his true parents just to prove its lying. Bakathir is now trying to make for what he has spoiled in the original tragedy. Having hinted that Laius and Jocasta could be his parents, Oedipus declares right afterwards that he does not know the true identity of his parents. Jocasta, here, displays a similar attitude to that of Jocasta in Oedipus Rex. She does not want Oedipus to search for his parents not because he could be found of a low origin, as Oedipus suggests, but because she does not want the king to busy himself with an insignificant matter.

Creon then announces the arrival of Teiresias, the old priest who has been cursed and abandoned by the temple. Both Jocasta and Creon urge Oedipus not to admit him into the palace lest the chief priest would make a big fuss about it if he knows. Despite their pleads, Oedipus insists to see the blind priest.

The scene between Oedipus and Teiresias is wholly different from that in Oedipus Rex. We see first that Teiresias comes, without being summoned, to help Oedipus fulfill his intention of confiscating the temple's wealth. Oedipus is astonished that his intention is already known not only by Teiresias but by the chief priest and his companions at the temple and thus becomes afraid that they will attack him before he does anything. Teiresias also intends to bring Oedipus back to true faith by showing him how the god is good and never wills evil to human beings. His argument leads them to talk about the old prophecy told to Laius by the chief priest. Teiresias explained to Oedipus how the prophecy was invented by the chief priest to make Laius kill his own child. Loxias, the chief priest, was paid by Polybus for carrying out this dirty deal. Envy and jealousy pushed the childless Polybus to intrigue with Loxias against Laius, his rival in the leadership of Hellas.

Teiresias' attempt to show Laius and Loxias the mistake they were doing resulted in his dismissal from the temple and banishment from Thebes. The priest, says Teiresias, tried to make his invented prophecy come true and succeeded in that. Oedipus is stunned to hear that he killed his father and married his mother and suspects both Teiresias and the other priests. The horror of the truth makes Oedipus scream loudly and fall unconscious at the sight of Jocasta who hurries to his rescue. The scene ends with the fainted Oedipus being carried into his room and the blind priest ironically commenting on the king who has been "behaving with open eyes while he is truly asleep, when he awakes, he closes his eyes!" (34)

Comparing the two scenes in Sophocles' and Bakathir's plays, the following findings are noticed. In Sophocles' tragedy, Teiresias knows the secret, but he will not speak, while in Bakathir's, he knows and comes to tell Oedipus about it all by himself. Oedipus' wrath, in Sophocles' play, is aroused against the blind priest when he refuses to tell the truth, but in Oedipus' Tragedy, it is caused by Teiresias' declaration of the truth. In both plays, Teiresias is accused of plotting against the king but with one difference. His plot is supposed to be with Creon in Oedipus Rex, while in Bakathir's play, it is with the other priests of the temple. The accusation of Sophocles' Teiresias makes him tell the truth in riddles, while his counterpart explains the truth to show that it is not a prophecy but a conspiracy planned by the chief priest. In both plays, the truth, explained implicitly or explicitly, makes Oedipus abuse Teiresias and taunt him with blindness. While Sophocles' Oedipus boasts of having solved the riddle and killed the sphinx, his counterpart does so but is told that the riddle is merely a trick taught to Oedipus and the sphinx is only a dummy controlled by a priest. From a dramatic point of view, giving the truth in riddles, in Oedipus Rex, helps rouse the audience's excitement, while the plain truth, in Oedipus' Tragedy, weakens this sense because it occurs at the very beginning of the play. Another important difference is seen in the clear admission that Oedipus knows his parents in Oedipus' Tragedy, yet he killed his father and married his mother. The introduction of this change will affect the play greatly.

The locale of the second scene has not changed but the time is different. Oedipus and Teiresias are discussing the disaster that befalls Oedipus and are trying to find a solution. The king suggests that he should gouge out his eyes so as not to see the result of his horrible deeds in life and after death, but the wise priest rejects the idea and explains that his eyes are no longer his; they are the property of the citizens who now need his help. Oedipus' attempt to find an excuse for his past crimes is met by Teiresias' clear-cut statement that:

Oedipus, you could have told the truth to the people. You should have

said: "The chief priest told me so and so and I know nothing about my

affair. What do you see, citizens of Thebes? You have consented to make

me your king and have given me the right to marry your widowed queen.

I accept the throne, but I cannot marry your queen unless I know that

I am not Laius' son whom he wanted to kill. Come on people,

search this matter and bring up the witness you know" (40-1).

Teiresias' opinion could have led to Oedipus' death at the hands of the Thebans and it would have been, as he says, far much better than what he had done later. Besides, he could have defended himself by saying that the crime was committed unintentionally and that Laius and his men attacked Oedipus first. But what actually happened was that the moment Oedipus saw the beauty and youth of Jocasta, he doubted that she could be his mother and thus married her. The only thing Oedipus and Jocasta can do now is to repent and ask for forgiveness. The first step for repentance is to confess the truth, first to Jocasta and then to the citizens of Thebes. To defeat the other priests, Oedipus should leave them no opportunity to blackmail him and cleanse the temple from their sins. By comparison with Oedipus Rex, we notice that this long conversation between Oedipus and Teiresias does not occur in the original tragedy. Its intrusion into the play maybe intended to shed light on Oedipus' past. However, the attempt is dramatically a failure because it slows down the tempo of the action.

The play comes closer to its Grecian model by the arrival of Creon who announces the citizens' wish to send him to Delphi. Only after consulting Teiresias, Oedipus agrees to grant the citizens their wish. Here, the difference between the two plays is seen in the idea that in Oedipus Rex, Creon is sent by Oedipus himself while in Bakathir's play, the Thebans ask for that.

From the conversation between Jocasta and Creon, we know that the queen notices a change in Oedipus not because of his suspicion that either she or Creon has told the priests about his intention but because of something she is not sure of. This thing becomes clear during her speech with Oedipus:

Oedipus: (in a trembling voice) Jocasta… My mother!

Jocasta: Your mother! What is the matter with her? What is the matter

with your mother?

Oedipus: (looking down and mumbles) … I long to see her, Jocasta.

Jocasta: But I don't think she is keen to see you otherwise she should visit us

once at least. You have always invited her but she never answered.

Oedipus: Who do you mean Jocasta?

Jocasta: Who do I mean? I mean your mother, Merope, Oedipus.

Oedipus: You know Jocasta that Merope is not my mother… Jocasta, you are….

Jocasta: (appalled) What am I, Oedipus? What am I?

Oedipus: (stammering) You…. You know her, Jocasta.

Jocasta: (giving a sigh of relief) I know her, I wish I do, then I will

love her my dear as I love you (52).

The speech shows that Jocasta is terrified especially when Oedipus mentions her name or the word "mother" as seen in the stage directions. It is obvious, then, that Jocasta is suspicious that she could be Oedipus' mother, but she never makes sure of that since she is living happily with him and her children.

The second act opens with Jocasta intending to meet Teiresias privately to plead with him to leave them in peace. From her conversation, we know that she already knows that Oedipus is her son. Her attitude towards the truth is strange. Even after being reassured that not only Teiresias, but also Polybus, Merope and the chief priest know the same truth, Jocasta says:" Nay…. If heavens and earth…mountains, seas, animals and trees….and all human beings…and even the gods…if all of them witness that you are my son from Laius, I will not believe them and you will remain Oedipus, my beloved husband…(68). Before Teiresias' arrival, they have been leading a happy life and she thinks they should continue to do so. Her account of the truth is really ridiculous and shows that the queen is going mad. The events that follow verify the point. Having regained consciousness after a short faint, Jocasta treats Oedipus as if he were Laius whom she thinks has come to life young and beautiful.

The struggle between the king and the temple starts with the latter's declaration to replace Oedipus with Creon. Teiresias is determined to expose Loxias' dishonesty by advising Oedipus to ask three noble Theban elders to hide themselves in a bedroom to overhear Oedipus' conversation with Loxias. Besides, Teiresias has summoned Polybus, King of Corinth, to take part in the plan intended to expose the chief priest and his company. Creon and Loxias arrive to tell Oedipus about the Delphic oracle. At this stage, two differences between Bakathir and Sophocles are noticed. While in Oedipus Rex, the Delphic oracle is brought by Creon at the very beginning, Bakathir postpones it after the middle of the second act. Sophocles' Creon is the one who conveys the oracle to Oedipus, but in Bakathir's play, he is sent and comes back without knowing the oracle because Loxias will tell it to Oedipus only. The chief priest does not want anybody to know about the bargain he will make with Oedipus. His offer is turned down and Oedipus tells him boldly to announce the truth even at the price of his throne and life. Jocasta pleads with Oedipus and Loxias to come to an agreement in order to save her family from the scandal. But her efforts fail and Loxias starts breaking the news to the citizens, Jocasta goes out threatening Oedipus that he will regret his deed. The men hiding in the bedroom come out after hearing the truth and are sent on a secret mission with Mensas.

Creon is unable to comprehend what is going on, accuses Teiresias of being the cause of problems and taunts him with blindness. Teiresias gets angry and tells Creon that the blind is the one who does not see what the chief priest is doing to Thebes and its monarchs. With Sophocles, only Oedipus taunts Teiresias with blindness, but Bakathir makes Oedipus and then Creon do the same thing. While Creon and Teiresias argue with each other, Tymon, Jocasta's maid of honor, rushes in asking to rescue the queen. Creon hurries in, but after a short while, he returns carrying Jocasta who is about to die.

The dying queen asks Teiresias to protect Oedipus against the priests. The sight of Jocasta makes Oedipus break down and turns on Teiresias. Before her death, Jocasta tells Oedipus to take care of his younger brothers and sisters. The queen dies and Oedipus hurries to his sword because he does not want to live after Jocasta. His intention intensifies after hearing the citizens calling on Oedipus to relieve them from the defiling thing mentioned in the oracle. Creon and Teiresias prevent him from carrying on his intention.

All the events of the second act have never occurred in Sophocles' tragedy. In the scene in which Jocasta faints and then starts treating Oedipus as if he were Laius, Bakathir is preparing the audience to accept Jocasta's suicide as an act of a person who is not mentally responsible for her deeds. Her mental breakdown is caused by a great sense of horror over the scandal if it spreads among the citizens. The difference which occurs in her death scene is that Creon is the one who hurries to rescue her while in Oedipus Rex, it is Oedipus who does so. Another difference is noticed in Oedipus' attitude in both plays. After knowing the truth, Sophocles' Oedipus rushes into the palace and asks the servants to "give him a sword," and to show him "where he should find the wife who was no wife, but a mother whose womb has born alike himself and his children" (Sophocles, 1977: 110-11). Hence, Sophocles' Oedipus wants to kill Jocasta though she, like him, does not know their true relation. But in Bakathir's play, Oedipus and Jocasta have slight doubts that they could be son and mother. When the truth is known, they do not blame or try to kill one another. After Jocasta's death in Oedipus Rex, Oedipus gouges out his eyes because they "long enough have ye looked on those whom ye ought never to have seen, failed in knowledge of those whom I yearned to know_ henceforth ye shall be dark" (Sophocles, 1977: 111). In his view, he thinks that what he has done is a kind of punishment for his deed. Oedipus, in Bakathir's play, does not do anything of the sort. On the contrary, he hurries to his sword to kill himself because, as he tells Creon who tries to stop him, "leave me! Leave me! For whom shall I live after Jocasta?"(108) Oedipus neither kills himself nor gouges out his eyes.

The first scene of act three takes place after the queen's death. Some Theban elders offer condolences to the king and remark that no matter how painful the accident is, Oedipus will not neglect the city's disaster and will do his best to save them. Oedipus explains to the people that the problem is caused by allowing riches and estates to accumulate in the priests' hands while the citizens are starving. Therefore, these riches will be divided among the needy people. Teiresias sides with Oedipus and shows the people that the riches of the temple should not be the priests' alone under the claim that they are the god's properties, but everybody should have a share in them.

On hearing Loxias' announcement that Oedipus is the defiler of the city, Creon angrily condemns the temple and Loxias who has told Jocasta an invented story that led to her suicide. Creon tries to convince the citizens of Oedipus' honesty and Loxias' treason. To verify the validity of his story, Loxias summons Neiqus, the Theban shepherd and Betaquras, the Corinthian shepherd and asks them to tell the people how little Oedipus had been taken from Thebes to Corinth where he was adopted by Polybus and Merope. The swell in Oedipus' ankles certifies the truth of the story. Yet Creon will not believe them and accuses Neiqus, who is the sole survivor of Laius' accident, of withholding the truth from them when he came back and found Oedipus in Laius' place. In defending himself, Neiqus admits that Jocasta knows that Oedipus is Laius' murderer but she does not know that he is her son because he has sworn to keep it secret.

At this stage, we notice a number of changes introduced in the play. Different from Sophocles' tragedy, Bakathir makes the citizens ignorant of the way Jocasta dies. Only when Creon accuses Loxias, the citizens know that the queen has committed suicide. Another difference is seen in the proper names given to the Theban and Corinthian shepherds who are nameless in Oedipus Rex. Bakathir makes it clear that the Theban servant and shepherd are one person while Sophocles did not emphasize this point. However, a great difference between the two plays is realized in the idea that Bakathir's Jocasta knows that Oedipus is Laius' murderer, yet she keeps this fact secret. Oedipus knows through an oracle in Corinth that Laius and Jocasta are his parents but he attempts to defy it to prove its falsehood.

After the discovery of Oedipus' truth, Teiresias sets out to show the people the part played by Loxias in the present disaster. The whole prophecy is nothing but a mean plot planned by Loxias with the assistance of Polybus to make Laius kill his son. The Corinthian monarchs have just arrived to rescue the afflicted Thebes and bear witness to the intrigue plotted when Thebes and Corinth were arch-enemies. Neiqus and Betaquras also confess that they had done what Loxias told them was a heavenly inspiration. Oedipus, then, explains how the trick had been played on him. Loxias ordered a young Corinthian called Pontys to tell Oedipus that he was a foundling. The news made Oedipus go to Delphi where he met Loxias who told him that he is the son of Laius and Jocasta and that he would kill the former and marry the latter. To negate the prophecy, Oedipus intended to travel to Thebes where he would become a faithful son to Laius and Jocasta. But Loxias was not satisfied with this intention and thus threatened Oedipus that if he went to Thebes, he would kill his father, and at the same time, inspired Laius to kill Oedipus before he would reach Thebes.

Having been announced guilty of Laius' murder, Loxias tries to draw the attention to Oedipus' crime of incest. In the same way Loxias made Oedipus kill his father, he encouraged him to marry his mother. Now the only way the priest can defend himself is through inventing a new sphinx. In a ridiculous scene, the sphinx appears, causes disturbance among the citizens, but is eventually defeated after posing the riddle it knows. Loxias suspects treason and suddenly turns on Lamias, one of the temple's priests, who confesses the truth and shows the people that even the sphinx is a trick made by Loxias to scare the Thebans out of their wits and kill those who cannot solve the riddle. Oedipus knew the answer of the riddle through Merope, his adoptive mother who had been taught by Loxias himself. The recent crime Loxias committed is a letter sent to Polybus inciting him to invade and occupy Thebes.

Oedipus wants to give up the throne, but the people's insistence makes him agree to stay. The sentence he passes on Loxias is banishment on Cithaeron top for life. Teiresias has been chosen to replace Loxias and the temple's wealth has been equally divided among the citizens. Polybus ends the first scene by announcing that he wants to hand over the Corinthian throne to Oedipus.

In fact, the whole scene is boring. Unnecessary details have been imposed just to prolong the play and unfortunately, this makes the audience lose interest. Bakathir introduced many changes in his play. The Corinthian monarchs, for example, actually participate in the action. The prophecy, which is very important in Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, is reduced to a mean plot constructed by Loxias in return for some money paid by Polybus to the temple. In Sophocles' tragedy, the man who told Oedipus that he is a foundling has neither appeared nor even given a name, while in Oedipus' Tragedy, he does appear and bears the name Pontys. Similar to Sophocles, Bakathir makes use of the sphinx and goes steps further when he presents it on the stage. But the way Bakathir presents his sphinx is really a complete failure for nobody would ever believe that the citizens of a whole city are so stupid that they cannot distinguish between a dummy and a real beast. At last, the account given to prove Oedipus' innocence of the crime is hardly acceptable. Had he not known his father, it would be accepted that he killed him in self defense and ignorance of his identity just as Sophocles' Oedipus did.

The second scene opens with Oedipus giving a long soliloquy in which he expresses his deep sorrows for what has happened and bids a farewell to Thebes, the citizens, the dead Jocasta and the little ones sleeping inside the palace. But Antigone stops him and insists on going with him even if the journey is long and tiresome. Teiresias also comes to prevent Oedipus from leaving Thebes and reminds him of his citizens who will not find a better king to rule. Oedipus is beyond reproach and will not listen to any pleading. The end of Oedipus' Tragedy is different from that of Oedipus Rex. Although Oedipus in both plays decides to leave Thebes for good, Bakathir did not make him gouge out his eyes before his departure. This is very important because Antigone decides to accompany her father not to see for him but because she will not be able to live away from him. The other difference is seen when Oedipus tells Teiresias to ask Creon to take care of his children, while in Sophocles' tragedy, Oedipus asks Creon to do this directly.

Despite of the changes Bakathir made, he reassured that the play should be seen in its ancient Greek context and that:

the characters are the same, the incidents are the same [probably he means

the major incidents] and the epoch is also the same. If the interpretation

is different, it will not affect the topic of the play which is Greek and

has no relation with any other nation or milieu (1985: 90).

In trying to shed light on the connection between the events of the story and the Arabs' crisis in Palestine, Bakathir elaborated:

We went into the Palestinian war with six or seven of our armies, what was

the result? We lost the battle, while Israel won and gained more land.

Was that a natural consequence of the Arabs' weakness and Israel's

strength? Or was there a previous intrigue carried out by colonization,

Zionism and some Arab kings and leaders to force the Arab countries

into this war which led to that intended result? When did the plot

start? Wasn't it when Balfour declared his evil promise of establishing

a country for the Jews in Palestine? (1985: 91).

Symbolically, Bakathir made various associations between the Arabs' situation during the crisis and Oedipus story. Balfour's promise for the Jews is related to Loxias' false prophecy in that each has been made before the disaster. Loxias announced his prophecy prior to Oedipus' birth and tried his best to fulfill it so did Balfour and his companions in the intrigue. Out of defiance, both Oedipus and the Arabs lend a hand in the fulfillment of the plot. The two treaties in the Arabs' war against the Jews are similar to Oedipus' two trips to Thebes; first to kill his father and then to marry his mother. In fact, the association here is strange and unreasonable. One of the factors that led to the Arabs' downfall was the feudal system which is related to the plague that afflicted Thebes as a result of the temple's control over most of the productive land. Bakathir linked between the religious movement in Egypt during the forties, that started with good intentions but then turned to be a fake and a real danger to the country, and the temple of Delphi that was behind the tragedy instead of being a center of reform and guidance. The confiscation and the distribution were made after the Egyptian revolution whose agents were the same as the persons stricken by the war. In Bakathir's opinion, Oedipus and the revolutionists are the same because though they suffered adversity, they brought relief to their people at critical times. When Thebes was undergoing the disaster, there were some citizens who suggested counseling the temple, the cause of the disaster, just as some Arabs sought the advice of the Allies, their enemies. Teiresias, the unwanted priest, proved to be a true friend to Oedipus in his need. Bakathir hinted at a well-known country that had a similar attitude and sided with the Arabs against their enemies (1985: 91-92).

Concepts and Themes:

Bakathir discusses a number of themes which are close to those in Oedipus Rex and reflect his views concerning these issues. From an Islamic perspective, Bakathir deals with the themes of fate and free will and shows how they are not contradictory. By making the conflict of the play between the forces of good and evil, Bakathir has managed to take man away from any struggle with the gods as represented in the Greek tragedy. The disaster that befalls Oedipus is not depicted as something imposed on him in which he has no hand. In spite of the fact that it is an intrigue planned and successfully carried out by Loxias, Oedipus is still responsible for what has happened. In a conversation between Oedipus and Teiresias after the discovery of the truth, the priest tries to explain that both Oedipus and Loxias were at fault. Man, in Teiresias' view, has been bestowed a mind to think and a free will to choose between good and evil. Consequently, he is responsible for the results of his actions and decisions. Oedipus cannot shake off his responsibility and asks:

What is my offense in what has happened? When I was in embryo, snares

were set for me. Then traps were put on my way without seeing them or

knowing who set them or even why they were there. I fell in them one after

the other until I did what I did. What is my sin in all this?… What is my sin?(40).

Oedipus is responsible for his decisions and actions. When he defeats the chief priest and the citizens forgive him and express their wish to have him remain in the throne, he refuses. He has done something wrong and he should be punished for that.

Among the issues included in the play is the use of religion as a means for personal gain. Since he was in Hadramout, Bakathir used to attack the false men of religion who tried to misuse their positions and the influence they had on the public. In Oedipus' Tragedy, Bakathir also directs his onslaughts against them through the character of Loxias who is, according to his own advantages, ready to declare or hide the truth and who can incite the citizens against Oedipus if the latter intends to harm him. Blindness has also been displayed through the characters of Teiresias and Oedipus. The former has been taunted for his physical blindness whereas the latter has been spiritually blind to the horrible truth of his life.

Bakathir is a writer known for his Islamic attitudes which are always distinct in his works. The early Islamic study he received while he was in Hadramout had affected him deeply and colored his writings. Believing that a playwright can use his field as a pulpit to propagate the ideas he is strongly in favor of, Bakathir tried earnestly to follow his belief not only in his plays but also in his novels and poetry as well. On presenting the objectives of the Islamic novel and applying them to some of Bakathir's works, 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-'Ashmawi concludes that:

we can say that Bakathir's works have greatly contributed in drawing the main

outlines of the Islamic novel and play whereby they have become the nearest

living example and the clearest actual evidence that can be recommended

whenever we are asked for examples representing these two types

(1409: 220).

In Oedipus' Tragedy, Bakathir achieved some of these objectives. It is seen, for example, in the conflict between good and evil and in the victory of the former in the end. The writer also showed the corruption of the so-called men of religion who use religion as a means to get their ends, and how they receive their due punishment. In spite of the horrible crimes committed by the hero, Bakathir is not pessimistic. Hope is still there, Oedipus can repent his former sins and start anew. Besides, he does not inflict any severe self-punishment as does his Grecian counterpart since this would not be accepted by his Muslim audience. Najeeb Mahfuz (1911-2006), an Egyptian novelist, recognized the note of hope with which Bakathir ended his works and remarked that:

'Ali Ahmed Bakathir and 'Abd Al-Hamid Jawdah Al-Sahhar never doubted

the value of their production and its durability. They were full of optimism,

while the others and I are suffering from a strange psychological stress

which is mainly very pessimistic and which develops the feeling that

nothing in life is worthy (qtd in 'A-'Ashmawi, 1409: 15).

Bakathir's Islamic orientation is quite distinct in the habit he follows in most of his works which are epigramized with a Quranic verse suggesting the general mode of the work. Oedipus' Tragedy, for example, is prefaced with the following verse:

And do not follow/ The footsteps of the evil One,/ For he is to you

An avowed enemy./ For he commands you/ What is evil/ And shameful,

And that ye should say/ Of God that of which

Ye have no knowledge. ('Ali, S. II., 168-69: 66-7).

In the above verse, we are ordered not to follow the devil's footsteps which are all sins and wrongdoings. In Oedipus' Tragedy, Oedipus has blindly answered the devil's commands through obeying Loxias' temptations. After being warned not to go to Thebes lest he should kill his father, Oedipus was lured to go and the murder took place while heading to Thebes. Similarly, when he was warned for the second time, the other crime was committed. Therefore, with this verse, Bakathir forms his reinterpretation of the classical tragedy which is now approaching the human ordinary life after being rid of its legendary and prophetical context. 'Abbas Khidr remarks that Bakathir:

participated in the universal revival of Sophocles' Oedipus, and presented

it innovatively on a new base different from that of the ancient Greek

author both in form and content. Its incidents have been presented realistically,

given a new interpretation, formed in a way suitable for the modern age and

used for a specific goal (1970: 10).

Oedipus' Tragedy, as Bakathir's other plays and novels, shows how "Bakathir adhered to one line… which is the Islamic orientation. He wanted to make his characters representatives of the trend of the Islamic thought" (Al-Hajjaji, 1957: 26).

Despite what is known of the author's religious stand, Bakathir has committed, in Oedipus' Tragedy, some errors that should not be made by a person well versed in religion like him. Many times he puts into the mouths of characters swears that are not accepted from an Islamic point of view, while he could have substituted them by other acceptable oaths or simply omitted them. Examples of these swears are the following: "By the life of your head", "by your dear life", "by your reverence and grace" and "by the light of your eyes" (11, 16).

In conclusion Oedipus' Tragedy is good as far as most of its content is concerned. However when the play is seen as a work of art, one cannot help but say that it is an unsuccessful attempt. A number of reasons are responsible for the play's failure. The dialogue of the play is very important because it is: "the tool of the play, and its greatest defect is prolongation. Its function is to make the characters live their incidents" (Al-Hakim, 19: 149). Prolongation is, then, considered a fault in a work of art and, unfortunately, it is quite distinct in Oedipus Tragedy. Long passages have been imposed and sometimes repeated for no good reason. Likewise, the play is stuffed with " irrelevant incidents that could have been omitted without affecting the action of the play. On the contrary, it would have increased its dramatic impulse and lessened the audience's boredom" (Al-Hajjaji, 1957: 26).

The large number of characters (especially the minor ones) employed has also weakened the play and distracted the audience's attention. Had it not been for these minor characters, the play would have become more concentrated and the audience would not have any difficulty in following the action. As for Bakathir's language, Mustafa 'Abd-Allah described Bakathir's words as being "dictionary words not suitable for the stage" (1983: 131). Finally Oedipus' decision to take Antigone with him into exile is considered "a mistake in his work" (Al-Hajjaji, 1957: 101) because it is not dramatically justified as in the work of Sophocles and those who imitated him in this respect.

References

"Abd-Allah, M (1983). Usturat odip fi al-masrah al-mu'sr, Al-Hay'ah

Misriyah Al-"Ammah lil Kitab, Cairo.

'Ali, 'A Y (1403). The holy Quran: Translation and commentary, Dar Al-Quiblah, Jeddah.

Al- Ashmawi, 'A S (1409). Al-itijah Al-Islami fi athar Bakathir al-qasasiyah wa al- masrahiyah, Al-Mahrajan Al-Watani lil Turath wa Al-Thaqafah, Riyadh.

Badawi, 'A (1981). "Ali Ahmed Bakathir: Sha'ir ghina'i". Hawliyat Kuliat Al-Adab. 2.

Bakathir, 'A A (1985). Fan al-masrahiyah min khilal tajaribi al-shakhsiyah,

Maktabat Misr, Riyadh.

Al-Hakim, T (n.d.). Fan al-adab, Al-Maktabah Al—Namuthajiyah, Cairo.

Al-Hajjaji, A S (1957). Al-'Arab wa fan al-masrah, Al-Hay'ah Al-Misriyah Al-'Amah lil Kitab, Cairo.

Isma'il, 'I (1980). Qadaya Al-Insan fi Al-Adab Al-Masrahi Al-Mu'asr. Dar Al—Fikr Al-'Arab, Cairo.

Al-Jada', A (n.d.). 'Ali Ahmed Bakathir: Sha'ir min Hadramout,Dar Al-Dya', Amman.

Khidr, 'A (1970). "Faqiduna Bakathir". Al-bayan 46, January.

Al-Somahi, A 'A (1403). "Ali Ahmed Bakathir: Hayatuh wa sh'ruh Al-watani wa al- islami, Dar Al-Bilad, Jeddah.

Sophocles, (1977). Oedipus rex. Gen. ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, trans. Sir Richard C. Jebb. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., Chicago.

"Footnotes"

1 Quotations from Arabic texts, including Bakathir's play, have

been translated by the researcher.

2 Bakathir, 'Ali Ahmed. (1949). Ma'sat Odip (Oedipus' Tragedy). Lajnat Al-Nashr li Al-Jamiyy'in, Cairo: 6. All page references are to this edition and will be incorporated parenthetically in the text of the paper.