You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In the Oedipus myth Freud found a convenient symbol for his conception of a crucial part of childhood sexuality. Based on his theories of sexuality, he named the Oedipus complex to represent the whole series of conflicts and possible resolutions which he saw as central to the development of character.1-3 His thinking about the Oedipus complex is too well known to set down again here. While the debate over Freud's theories has been vigorous, to say the least, it seems that nowhere within psychology or psychoanalysis has his interpretation of the myth itself been challenged.
The author has no desire to enlist in the tedious arguments over whether or not there is an Oedipus complex, whether it is “universal,” or other similar questions that have been raised about this complex theory. Suffice it to say that I do believe that there is a series of childhood events more or less accurately described by Freud and others and that it is indeed centered about the “family triangle” and its fulfillment as portrayed in Sophokles’ Oedipus the King. It is proposed here that in the widespread acceptance of Freud's interpretation and the debate over his theories, crucial aspects of the myth of Oedipus have been overlooked or distorted.* A fresh examination of the myth yields us great rewards in the understanding of human life, as well as in the literary field. For those who are comfortable with the Freudian interpretation, the view of the myth offered here easily coexists with his, and I have no desire to post any claims for the Only True Vision.
I would, therefore, like to recognize the Freudian interpretation in all its importance and, setting it aside for the moment, see the myth as also dramatizing to us issues which precede the sexual in human development: dependency, loss, and the inevitable association of growth with loss. These are issues which are often referred to as “basic,”4 “ontological,”5 or, ironically in this context, “pre-Oedipal.” In these terms I would like to invite