Content uploaded by Tara Dabbagh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tara Dabbagh on Mar 15, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available online at http://jgu.garmian.edu.krd
Journal of University of Garmian
https://doi.org/10.24271/garmian.207016
Illusion and Reality in Oedipus the King and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Bukhari Abdullah Rasool
Tara Dabbagh
Salahaddin University _College of Languages,
Abstract
The ongoing universality of the theme of illusion and reality allows
for it to be discussed afresh and to be reinterpreted according to the
outlook of the time. This theme forms a link between Sophocles‟
Oedipus the King and Albee‟s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. One is
a Greek tragedy showing the helplessness of man in the face of celestial
powers that are too strong for him, and the other is an American
twentieth century play showing the ineffectiveness of man in an absurd
world. Through the study of the conveyance of illusion and reality in
both plays, this paper aims to show how this theme connects the two
plays, and yet how it still stands as a sign of their different times.
Sophocles‟ play delivers the message that order could be restored when
man acknowledges the reality of his limits rather than taking a hubristic
delusionary path. Albee‟s play shows that human compassion could be
attained through admitting one‟s reality instead of adopting a deluded
life. The resolution to face reality requires bravery in the difficult
Article Info
Received: October , 2020
Revised: November ,2020
Accepted: December ,2020
s
Keywords
parentage and filiation, fate
and free will, American
Dream.
Corresponding Author
tara.dabbagh@su.edu.krd
worlds of the two plays, but submission to it is shown to be the only
way ultimately offered man. Both plays end on a melancholic note due
to the harsh reality with which the characters finally come face to face.
1-Introduction
Parentage and filiation are central to the
theme of illusion and reality as portrayed in
Oedipus the King (430-426 B.C) and Who’s
Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1962). They are
actual in Oedipus the King but lead to
delusionary hubristic actions, whereas they
are imaginary in Who’s Afraid of Virginia
Woolf? and are used symbolically. The other
manifestations of the encompassing theme
of illusion and reality, namely, familial
relations, search for identity, private and
public lives, and faith and agnosticism, are
all strongly linked with and all lead back to
parentage and filiation.
1. Illusion and Reality in the Two Plays
1.1. Illusion and Reality in Oedipus the King
The whole action of Oedipus the King is a
dramatic presentation of the gradual
deciphering and realization of Apollo‟s
oracle of Delphi which tells Laius and
Jocasta, king and queen of Thebes, that their
son Oedipus will grow to kill his father and
marry his mother. Apollo holds his peace
when they give their baby son away to be
killed when confronted with this divination.
Additionally, he lets Oedipus believe, for
many years, that he is the biological son of
Polybus and Merope, king and queen of
Corinth to whose care he is brought as a
baby. Oedipus approaches the oracle when
he starts having doubts about his familial
descent and the oracle unequivocally voices
his destiny as earlier told his parents, but it
does not address his original question about
the true identity of his parents. Afflicted
with this prophecy, and misguided by his
human illusions in interpreting divinity,
Oedipus takes the oracle as a warning for
him to leave Corinth to avoid fulfilling it,
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 172
and begins his journey of self-discovery by
going to Thebes where, ironically, his real
parents are. There he finally fulfills the
oracle in unknowingly killing his father and
marrying his mother, the widowed queen
Jocasta, whereupon Apollo lays his
punishing plague on Thebes. The Thebans
turn to Oedipus to get them out of this
difficulty as the patriarchal figure, their
current king who has already, on his first
arrival at the city, seemingly freed them of
the merciless Sphynix‟s control and “quit
[them] of the toll” (Sophocles, Oedipus the
King 58) of the riddle it had imposed on
Thebes. Consequently, Thebans perceive
him as the “greatest of men” (Sophocles 58)
and as their “Saviour” (Sophocles 59) in
being the only man capable of solving this
riddle (Sophocles 67, 74). Thinking of
himself and of Jocasta as the rightful
sovereigns and oblivious to his having
fulfilled the oracle being the cause of the
miasma, Oedipus obligingly tries to get at
the reason behind it. His investigations
prove to him that his hubristic actions in
defiance of Apollo are in themselves a proof
that reality as foretold by the oracle is
inescapable. The play thus shows how
Oedipus finds out the tragic truth of his
situation which shatters all his illusions of
success, opening his eyes to his helplessness
in confrontation with divinity.
1.2. Illusion and reality in Who’s afraid of
Virginia Woolf?
Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf? portrays a
night in the life of George and Martha, an
American middle-aged husband and wife.
The little affection that they had felt for each
other is overpowered by their material
interests in the marriage. George mainly
marries Martha because she is the daughter
of the president of the New England
university where he teaches, and Martha
marries him in the hope that he would one
day take the position of her father on the
latter‟s retirement (Albee, Who’s Afraid of
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 173
Virginia Woolf? 53-55; act 1) which would
sustain her prestigious position. She
eventually comes to realize that her
expectations in George are incompatible to
his personality (Albee 56; act 1, 95; act 2) as
he even fails to become head of his own
history department (Albee 30, 36, 44, 55: act
1) let alone the whole university. Martha
cannot bring herself to overlook his
inadequacies and George, on his part, cannot
tolerate her offenses either. Still, perversely,
they stay in their marriage which makes it a
kind of compulsive prison for them. To
alleviate this sense of imprisonment they
resort to games, night parties, excessive
drinking, adultery, and the creation of an
imaginary son, all in the attempt at
delusionary escapes from their frustration
with their life. Their need for these illusions
is so strong that they allow them to develop
into a complementary illusory life blurring
their real existence, even unto having an
imaginary son. Fusing honesty and
falsehood in the games that they play, they
inadvertently uncover ugly details about
themselves and their relationship. At the end
of the play, however, they do give up the
illusion of the son and accept each other for
what they are.
2. Manifestations of Illusion and Reality in
Both Plays
The following sections link the main points
of illusion and reality in the two plays.
2.1. Dysfunctional Families
At the outset, the marriages of Oedipus and
Jocasta on one hand, and George and Martha
on the other, seem to be good prospects.
Oedipus, to all appearances, is an ideal
husband for the widowed queen Jocasta. He
is royal, brave, strong, and, above all, is
thought to have saved Thebes from the
riddle of the Sphinx. Oedipus is thus
expected to be an able and suitable
replacement for Laius both as king of
Thebes and as husband to Jocasta, regardless
of their age difference. Martha too is older
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 174
than George (Albee 54; act 1, 127; act 3), a
fact that they also dismiss and get married in
the hope that George, who also shows
promise in being “young [and] intelligent”
(Albee 54; act 1), will eventually replace
Martha‟s father as president of the
university, which would qualify him as a
replacement for her father in her heart and
admiration as well. The confusion of the
parental/filial and the marital in both plays
can already be seen.
Both couples thus rush into their
marriages and deceive themselves by the
illusion of their suitability for each other.
This is seen in Nick and Honey too, George
and Martha‟s guests for the night. Their
newness at the university, their youth, and
Nick‟s scientific specialty of biology (Albee
29, 30, 36, 43; act 1), as opposed to
George‟s specialty of history, proffer them
as “the wave of the future” (Albee 47; act 1,
68; act 2) and at first give the impression of
their being foils to George and Martha.
However, as the play progresses, the
grounds of their marriage are revealed to be
as self-serving as those of the older couple.
Honey and Nick had got married because of
Honey‟s false pregnancy (Albee 60, 62-3,
67, 89; act 2), with Nick having the further
motive of her father‟s wealth (Albee 65-6,
68-9, 87, 88; act 2). Even after their
marriage Honey continues to have fake
pains and vomits repeatedly (Albee 24, 57;
act 1, 60, 89-90, 96, 97, 105, 106, 108; act 2,
110; act 3) and Nick‟s inconsideration of her
shows in his readiness to sleep with Martha
as part of his intention of sleeping his way to
professional advancement (Albee 71, 72; act
2, 115; act 3). Their apparently satisfactory
marriage proves to be deceptive.
In both plays the couples‟ premarital
expectations are thwarted by their reality. So
deep and firm is Oedipus and Jocasta‟s
hubristic belief of having defeated the oracle
that they do not hesitate to get married.
Otherwise, as Lear argues, Oedipus would
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 175
have avoided killing any man old enough to
be his father and having a physical relation
with any woman old enough to be his
mother (194). The signs of the oracle are
lost on him and Jocasta as they hasten into
marriage, thinking it best for them and for
Thebes. Likewise, George and Martha are
ruled by self-oriented interests and hence do
not take the trouble to acquaint themselves
with each other‟s character before marriage.
Martha, as an older mother figure, rather
than providing comfort and encouragement
for her husband, lashes out at him in her
dismay because he fails both to replace the
father figure in her heart and to fulfill her
womanly yearning for motherhood. The
initial impression of suitability is proven to
be false.
Another point of similarity is that
both Oedipus and George‟s history with
their parents is unnatural, for George too
may have killed his parents. This issue is left
unresolved as it is never clarified whether
this occurrence is of George‟s own past life
or not. As he recounts the incident to Nick
he claims that it happened to one of his
friends, “a boy of fifteen [who] had killed
his mother with a shotgun some years
before” (Albee 61; act 2). But then he
asserts that he himself has “no doubt, no
doubt at all” that the boy had killed his
mother “accidentally-completely
accidentally, without even an unconscious
motivation” (Albee 61; act 2). George‟s
vehement assertion of the shooting being an
accident casts doubts about his truthfulness
as to the identity of the young boy and gives
the impression that he is in fact talking about
himself. Furthermore, George‟s blending of
different time periods in the story envelops
it with ambiguity and casts doubts about its
validity and reliability. In what can only be
described as an Absurdist feature of
incertitude, here that of time, George first
says that the incident happened during the
Punic Wars, only to say later that it
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 176
happened in the time of “the Great
Experiment, or Prohibition, as it is more
frequently called” (Albee 61; act 2). As a
result, the incertitude transcends to the
incident itself and engulfs its actual
occurrence with doubts.
George then goes on to say that “the
following summer, on a country road,” the
same boy “swerved the car, to avoid a
porcupine, and drove straight into a large
tree,” thus killing his father too (Albee 62;
act 2), also accidentally. That George claims
the incident to have happened “thirty years
ago” (Albee 62; act 2) further supports the
possibility of the boy being George himself
because that would place him at the fitting
age now. He had told Nick that he was
sixteen (Albee 61; act 2) at the time of these
happenings, and earlier still he had told Nick
that he is now “forty-something” (Albee 28;
act 1). The play does, arguably, provide
stronger indications of this episode being
part of George‟s own past life than
otherwise. While recounting the story
George says that his friend, who supposedly
mistakenly killed his parents, once mistook
the word “bergin” for brandy (Albee 61; act
2). As part of her ridicule of him, Martha
mentions that George “used to drink bergin”
at which George “sharp[ly]” tells her to
“shut up” (Albee 76; act 2). Martha,
typically, does not “shut up” and continues
in humiliating him by recounting the same
episode of the accidental killings as
“something funny in [George‟s] past […]
which [he had] turned into a novel” (Albee
81; act 2) that he wanted to publish. When
her father, shocked by its content, forbade
George from publishing it, George had
responded, “this isn‟t a novel at all … this is
the truth … this really happened … TO ME”
(Albee 82-3; act 2). George‟s passionate
and violent reaction to Martha‟s account of
the matter in trying to strangle her is a tell-
tale sign of his own personal involvement in
this past event, furthered by Martha later
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 177
saying to him that she was going to hurt him
so badly that he would wish that he “‟d died
in that automobile” (Albee 93; act 2), in
reference to the aforementioned car
accident. George does not even try to refute
what she says and simply takes it as part of
the conversation and as a given fact. Even
Nick reaches the conclusion that it must
have been George himself who had
accidentally killed his parents when he asks
George if he had sailed “past Majorca”
(Albee 118; act 3), as George claims to have
done, after he had killed his parents, which
George, again, does not try to refute.
The above circumstance of Nick‟s
question could, on the other hand, be seen as
an indication of his disbelief of the whole
story of the accidental killings as that of his
disbelief of George‟s having ever sailed in
the Mediterranean, which he sums up in “I
don‟t know when you people are lying, or
what” (Albee 118; act 3). His confusion of
illusion and reality here is shared by the
audience who is left uncertain about how
much of the story that George and Martha
recount is true. Indeed, the related story of
the parents and their death could be
imaginary like the imaginary son that
George and Martha create and George
finally kills, also in imagination. Reporting
the imaginary son‟s death to Martha he
claims that their son was driving “on a
country road, […] he swerved, to avoid a
porcupine, and drove straight into a … […]
large tree” (Albee 135; act 3). It can thus be
seen that George‟s manner of killing the
imaginary child is the same as that of the
killing of the father in his recounting to
Nick, which could not but raise doubts about
the credibility of his whole story.
The story also comes close to that of
Oedipus in the repeated mention of the
“country road,” as Oedipus too encounters
his father on a crossroads (Sophocles 76)
“on the countryside/ Of Thebes” (Sophocles
6o) and kills him without recognizing him as
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 178
his father. In other words, Oedipus too, like
the boy in George‟s story, kills his father
accidentally on a country road. Moreover,
Martha‟s father‟s threat to expel George
from his academic institution should he
publish his aforementioned novel (Albee 82;
act 2) means that publishing the truth about
his parents‟ death, as he claims, would lead
to his loss of life as he knows it, like
Oedipus does when he makes his truth with
his parents known. Moreover, that both
George‟s father and imaginary son die
similarly in car accidents on country roads
rounds up their stories as being inescapably
cursed to die thus, akin to the oracle of
Oedipus and his parents. What is more,
Oedipus too, like the boy in Georg‟s story,
would have killed his mother had he had the
chance to do so on finally finding out the
shocking truth. He rushes to kill her
considering her equally responsible for what
happens as he is, only to find that she,
unable to face the final reality, has already
killed herself (Sophocles 86-7).
Before the final revelation of the
truth of their situation, Jocasta is confident
in her belief of being safe from the
prophecy. She tries to reassure Oedipus too
when his doubts about his ancestry are
renewed during his investigations into the
cause of the miasma. She tells him how she
and her late husband had supposedly
defeated an oracle which foretold that Laius
“should die/ Some day, slain by a son of him
and [her]” (Sophocles 74) by casting the
child “to die on the barren hills” (Sophocles
74). She concludes by saying that “on
soothsaying/ Nothing depends” (Sophocles
74). However, when she too begins to
suspect the truth and to fear the inevitable
result of Oedipus‟ continuous probing, she
urges him to refrain from further fact-
finding in an attempt to maintain the status
quo (Sophocles 82). The more imminent
the truth, the weaker and more powerless
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 179
she gets in the face of Oedipus‟
determination to learn the reality. Martha
too seems the more prominent of the two in
the marriage which can be seen in her
insults, attacks, and mockery of George both
in private and in public. She constantly
reminds him of his failures and is open in
her sexual advances to Nick. Most
importantly, she ignores George‟s desire to
keep the matter of their son to themselves
and mentions him to Honey (Albee 33, 48;
act 1, 137; act 3). In retaliation, George
takes charge and kills off the son,
supposedly in a car accident (Albee 135; act
3), in spite of Martha‟s admonitions and
pleas to the contrary, forcing her to face
their reality like Oedipus‟ authority and
relentless search for the truth finally force
Jocasta to face reality too. Contrary to the
women, both men pursue the truth despite
their knowledge of how painful it is.
So painful is the truth that Oedipus
even curses the Herdsman who took pity on
him as an infant and spared his life rather
than killing him as he was instructed by
Oedipus‟ parents (Sophocles 74, 84). This
sentiment is reflected by the imaginary son
in Albee‟s play who, in George‟s words, is
“deep in his gut, sorry to have been born”
(Albee 132; act 3) as, like Oedipus, he is
born into a harsh reality. Moreover, Laius
and Jocasta‟s attempt to kill their son shows
that their defiance of the oracle goes beyond
only trying to avoid it into trying to reverse
it; instead of the son killing the father, the
father tries to kill the son, like George kills
his imaginary son. In the latter‟s case,
however, we are made to suspect that a son,
George, has already killed his parents as
mentioned in his story.
In one of their arguments George and
Martha each try to present a unified front
with the imaginary child against the other
parent, of whom the child is supposed to be
ashamed (Albee 130-1, 132; act 3). Shame
does not spare the children of Oedipus and
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 180
Jocasta either whose actuality as offspring is
questionable. They are not children in the
normal sense of the word for they are also
grandchildren to Jocasta, and siblings to
Oedipus. Given this complex biological
make-up, they are the illusion of normal
offspring before the realization of the truth
about their parents. Seen from this
perspective, they are not different from
George and Martha‟s illusion of a son,
which renders Oedipus and Jocasta‟s
marriage sterile too.
The two plays thus denying the
portrayed families happiness, functionality,
and normality, the married couples look for
them in the self-deceptive illusions to which
they resort.
2.2. Quest for Identity
Oedipus‟ quest for identity starts as early as
his being described as a “bastard” by a
drunk in Corinth (Sophocles 75). Reassured,
falsely, by Merope and Polybus that he is
their rightful son (Sophocles 75), he leaves
them to escape the oracle and to establish a
new identity for himself. In Thebes,
Oedipus‟ character develops into an
entangled web of fake identities. He is
perceived as the savior of Thebes in having
solved the riddle of the Sphinx, whereas, in
fact, he is the cause of the curse on the city.
Chosen by the people of Thebes, he
becomes their new king, a protective
patriarchal figure, while on the contrary he
is the killer of the previous king. Marrying
Jocasta he becomes a husband, but then he is
also son to his own wife. Moreover, in due
course, he fathers his own brothers and
sisters.
Jocasta‟s familial situation is just as
complex as Oedipus‟. She is, on one hand, a
bereaved widow, on the other, she becomes
wife to the killer of her husband who is her
and her late husband‟s son. She thus
becomes wife to her own son, mother and
grandmother to the same children.
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 181
In his Poetics Aristotle famously
uses Oedipus the King as an example of
tragedy where recognition is concurrent with
reversal of fortune (41). Going through the
process of recognition and discovery of the
tragic reality, Oedipus and Jocasta realize
that their crisis of identity stems from their
attempt to change the identity set for them
by the oracle, and that the truth of their
identity can only be found in the truth of
their familial situation. As they go through
their reversal of fortune they set illusions
aside, which George and Martha also do at
the end of Albee‟s play.
In the course of Who’s Afraid of
Virginia Woolf? George and Martha fail in
their attempts to achieve the identities they
aspire to. George fails to become head of the
university and Martha is disappointed in her
hope to continue her privileged position by
transforming it from being the daughter to
the wife of the university president. In their
quest for identity and to consolidate their
uncertain characters George and Martha turn
to contrivances such as drinking and
partying, adultery, and absurd discourses.
Indeed, George and Martha‟s search for
identity is seen even in the games that they
play, which are also tricks for them to set the
personalities that they desire to assume.
Moreover, their fake parentage is an
outcome of their desire to be identified as
parents expressed, for example, in Martha
saying “And I had wanted a child…oh, I had
wanted a child” (Albee 127; act 3). They
want to give meaning to their existence in
life and to anchor it through parentage.
Failing to do so realistically, they resort to
imaginary parentage to attain fake emotional
affiliation, contentment, and identity.
However, like Oedipus and Jocasta, they too
are eventually resigned to the reality of their
identities and existence.
2.3. The Public and the Private
Typical of tragedy the closely knit relation
between the private and the public in
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 182
Oedipus‟ life is shown by Sophocles to
reflect on his whole community. The plague
laid on Thebes is Apollo‟s punishment for
Oedipus‟ private sins of patricide and incest,
a fact which comes to light as Oedipus looks
for the cause of the plague owing to his
concern for his people. This public concern
turns into a personal examination of his own
familial background and actions which
culminates in ending his apparent happiness
and ensuing private tragedy. Sophocles thus
meets the requirement of tragedy that the
tragic hero must suffer in order for the
positive values of society to be reaffirmed,
and for a peaceful prosperous public life to
be established. Oedipus‟ end is calamitous
on the private level but favorable on the
public level.
If George and Martha are seen, as
much argued, as Founding Father and first
American president George Washington and
his wife Martha Washington, then the
pattern of the public and private in Albee‟s
play is the same as that of Oedipus the King
for then they would be initiators of the
national criterion of the American Dream.
As depicted in the play this criterion has
failed the American people whom it has
shaped and motivated by its promises of
unlimited possibilities and contentment,
leaving them with nothing but a barren life
of fear and anxieties. The resulting public
distress is equivalent to the plague in
Oedipus the King in being the outcome of
the rulers‟ course of action.
Thus seen as historical public figures
who founded the American nation, George
and Martha‟s socially dysfunctional and
biologically sterile home stands for the
failure, barrenness and impotence brought
about by the American Dream. The play
shows that its ideals lead to the opposite
desired effects because they are impotent in
their impracticality and in their pressure of
success on the whole nation. Indeed, the
power struggles and the deceptions in the
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 183
marriages stand for such conflicts
nationwide, and the sterility of the marriages
indicates the sterility of the pursuance of the
American Dream. Thus, the imaginary son,
besides being George and Martha's means of
escape from their sterile reality, is also
symbolic of the futility of the general
American preoccupation with impossible
dreams and wishes. In other words, these
public goals, being neglectful of the humane
side of life, merely offer illusions of
happiness.
This leads to George and Martha also
being seen as a realistic and ordinary
American husband and wife, in which case
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? reverses
the pattern of the public and the private of
Oedipus the King, for then it is the couple‟s
preoccupation with the ideals of the national
American Dream that reflects negatively on
their marriage. Thus it would be the public
which reflects on the private.
Attempting to conform to the
expectations set by the American Dream in
its general rendering of financial success and
upward social mobility, the married couples
in the play set materialism as their concern
in their marriages. George hopes to take
over control of the university after his
father-in-law‟s retirement (Albee 53-55; act
1) like Oedipus takes over the rule of Thebes
after the death of his father the previous king
and his marriage to the widowed queen. In
fact, Martha‟s father himself had married an
older woman for her money (Albee 69; act
2) and apparently has passed on his
materialism to his admiring daughter Martha
who, in her turn, wants to continue in her
esteemed position like Jocasta does in her
convenient marriage to the new king
Oedipus. Depicting the other married couple
in the play as much younger than George
and Martha reflects the continuity of the
negative influence of the American Dream
as their reasons for their marriage are as
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 184
equally depraved. The egocentric marriages
encompassing the young, the middle-aged,
and the older generation, are shown to lead
to failure and impotence on different levels,
and to a lack of warmth and romance
reflective of the influence of the American
Dream as perceived in the play.
The families thus demonstrate how
society is driven by ideals set by the
Founding Fathers with the beginning of the
American nation. The ideals that are
promised to be within the grasp of all
Americans are shown to be tantalizingly
elusive, hence unrealistic, and the pursuit of
materialistic gain is shown to be a dead-end
delusionary path fatal to the soul. The
promised progression and assured
advancement of the American Dream are
absent from the play both professionally and
domestically.
Martha, highly influenced by her
successful workaholic father who drives the
professors of his university so hard that
some of them die as a result (Albee 31; act
1), looks for the same characteristics in the
promising George. George however, despite
his academic proficiency, does not advance
in the university‟s hierarchy though married
to the daughter of its president. Martha
attributes his failure to his not having the
“stuff” it takes for such advancement (Albee
56; act 1) as he does not function socially
well at the university events and celebrations
(Albee 56; act 1, 95; act 2). This complaint
by Martha about her husband shows that it is
not knowledge or academia that guarantee
advancement in the university of Martha‟s
father, an example of success by the
standards of the American Dream, but
correct social behavior to the right people.
Nick, on the other hand, is certain to
advance (Albee 36; act 1) because he is
willing to do whatever it takes for
advancement, including sexual relations
with the right women on campus. George
and Martha thinking that he might even take
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 185
over the history department (Albee 44; act
1) although his field is biology, is further
proof that the standard for advancement and
success is not competence as much as it is
hypocrisy and lack of morality.
The difference in George and Nick‟s
personalities is also reflected in their
specialties. George, the historian, dreads the
future promised by biologists. He fears that
their eugenics will eventually produce fair
blue-eyed virile men who will not only be
indistinguishable in appearance but in
character as well. They will all be much like
the well-built virile Nick himself, the
promise of the future (Albee 45-7; act 1) and
the kind of character who would succeed in
a world ordained by the American Dream.
This notion is also reflected in the imaginary
son who is also described as being fair
(Albee 127; act 3) and having blue or green
eyes (Albee 49, 50; act 1) which strengthens
his depiction as a symbol of sought-after
success. George is equating the effects of
physical eugenics of biology with the
menacing effects of the American Dream in
unifying the nation in the pursuit of success
at the expense of individuality and
humanity. If one fails to fit the set pattern he
is marginalized as George and Martha feel
that they are marginalized and hence their
resort to illusions. In further criticism of the
American Dream, the virility of the
apparently physically fit Nick turns out to be
another illusion as he fails to perform
sexually with Martha (Albee 111; act 3),
which is also indicative of the impotence of
the Dream.
Finally, George decides to tear down
illusions and face reality courageously in
what is referred to as the “exorcism” in the
play. He kills off the illusionary son (Albee
107-8; act 2, 135; act 3) and thus exorcises
himself and his wife from this symbol of
promised fulfillment, forcing himself and
Martha to come to terms with the difficult
bare reality of disappointments. These two
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 186
Americans finally admit the falsity of the
Dream having suffered its consequences,
and deal with it as a hallucination that needs
to be exorcised. Only thus could they come
to terms with their reality and finally find
companionship and compassion in each
other after two decades of marriage (Albee
92,94; act 2). In this sense Roudane finds the
ending of Albee‟s play to be cathartic as its
exorcism offers this “spiritual regeneration”
(44), like the catharsis of Sophocles‟ tragedy
reaffirms divine values. In neither play is the
catharsis a guarantee for peace of mind as
anxiety and fear are not wiped out.
It is thus seen that the marriages in
both plays prove to be a disappointment on
both the private and public levels. Rather
than fulfilling the illusion of being the
perfect match for Thebes, Oedipus and
Jocasta‟s union completes the curse on the
city, which only ends with the tragic end of
the marriage. George and Martha, failing to
achieve and maintain personal and social
success, find their only outlet in illusions.
They are seen as victims of the power of the
American Dream, like Oedipus and Jocasta
are the victims of fate. However, George
and Martha can also be representative of
their namesakes George and Martha
Washington in which case they go beyond
only being victims of the American Dream
to being party to its very inception, just as
Oedipus and Jocasta are not mere victims of
their fate for it is basically the result of their
hubris. The promise of the marriages in both
plays comes to nothing.
2.4.The Presence Versus the Absence of
Divinity
Both Sophocles and Albee show truth to be
a power that man cannot stand against; as a
result, man is forced to embrace it.
However, because of the difference in genre
and times, truth is presented differently in
the two plays.
In the Greek tragedy of Oedipus the
King, truth is absolute and transcendental,
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 187
because truth is the divine Apollo. Once
divinity‟s role and plan are revealed, the
whole truth comes to light and no
uncertainty remains. Apollo conveys to
humans their imminent destiny allowing
them no alternative but to accept it. In fact,
Bushnell maintains, the vainness of human
efforts to undo fate in the play reflects the
Greek creed that the only free will humans
have is to be exercised in choosing to submit
to what is destined for them and in their
acceptance that they cannot do anything
outside the context of divine will (100, 102),
not even “„the All-Famous Oedipus‟!”
(Sophocles 58).
The play thus shows the reality of
fate and its ironic fulfillment in the very
attempt to exercise free will, the latter thus
proven to be illusory. However, what the
play presents is not the actions of hubristic
free will, but the painful process of
retribution. As acted on the stage, the
tragedy of Oedipus lies in the discovery of
the guilt and of the true nature of his crimes
of patricide and incest which, plainly, have
been committed before the play actually
begins. Sophocles wants his audience to
retain the images of retribution even after
the play‟s end, hence he makes them watch
the working out of Nemesis‟ inescapable
power as part of the religious message of the
tragedy.
An image that is certain to remain in
the audience‟s psyche is Oedipus blinding
himself at the end (Sophocles 87) in self-
inflicted punishment for his failure to make
use of his power of sight in being blind to
the truth of the certainty and inevitability of
the oracle. As pointed out by Mulready,
Oedipus‟ physical sight and lack of insight
form a dominant motif in the play (40)
which is boosted by the physically blind
Teiresias, Apollo‟s human agent, being
endowed with the blissful sight of truth. His
inner sightedness stems from his knowledge
of and connection with Apollo (Sophocles
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 188
64-5, 66, 68), and in his having segregated
himself from the purely physical human
senses. It is he who pinpoints Oedipus‟ lack
of insight: “Thou hast taunted me for blind,/
Thou, who hast eyes and dost not see the ill/
Thou standest in, the ill that shares thy
house” (Sophocles 67). In himself, on the
other hand, “the truth [..] is strong”
(Sophocles 66). Depriving himself of his
physical power of sight, Oedipus‟ blindness
at the end of his life graces him with
prophethood and wisdom, bringing him
closer to an ecclesiastic like Teiresias
(Grelka 24-5; Michalek 2; Winnington-
Ingram 178).
Thus the major message of Oedipus
the King is that man, despite his intellectual
and physical abilities, should not disregard
the transcendental authority that governs the
universe and should recognize his smallness
in relation to it. This applies especially to a
man like Oedipus, because, true to the
characteristics of a traditional tragic hero,
his personal destiny would reflect on his
whole community, hence the riddle and the
plague imposed on all the people of Thebes.
They are punishments for their king‟s
hubris, the gravest sin of all. His
interference in the metaphysical and
transcendental scheme of life which is far
beyond human reach and knowledge, is a
prescription for tragedy.
By contrast, in Who's Afraid of
Virginia Woolf? no divinity is shown to be
involved, and truth is relative and human-
based. If in Sophocles‟ play truth is one
whole unit that is determined and announced
by divine powers, in Albee's play, truth is
fragmentary and subject to the diversity of
human perspectives, intentions, and actions.
The audience never gets to know, for
example, whether George had actually killed
his parents or not, a testimony to the want of
absolutes and to the want of characters in
whom truth is strong. George‟s “There are
few things in the world that I am sure of”
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 189
(Albee 49; act 1), and “all truth [is] relative”
(Albee130; act 3), are indicative of modern
agnosticism and skepticism, not dissimilar to
Pilate‟s questioning truth in response to
Jesus‟ proclamation that he has “come into
the world, to bear witness to the truth” (New
International Version, John. 18. 37-38). The
want of certitudes in the play is also
reflected in the characters‟ very power of
sight, an example of which is seen in their
inability to tell the color of Martha‟s and of
her father‟s eyes. Nick thinks that Martha‟s
eyes are brown (Albee 50; act 1) to which
she replies that they are green but only “look
brown,” and later says that they are “more
hazel” than brown (Albee 51; act 1). She
then says that her father‟s eyes are green too
which George emphatically denies (Albee
51; act 1). The indecisiveness of the
characters‟ power of sight is also seen in
George coming home with snapdragons
claiming that he stole them in a garden
under a shining moon (Albee 115-18; act 3).
When Martha points out that “the moon
went down,” George replies “the moon may
very well have gone down … but it came
back up” (Albee 117; act 3). Which one of
them is right is left uncertain for them and
for the audience, showing that the
characters‟ ability of sight is not reliable or
trustworthy, and that it too is relative.
This ambivalence is connected with
the genre of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
which is not so straightforward as that of
Oedipus the King. The date of its writing
places it at a time when Modernism, mainly
heralded by the arrival of Realism on the
scene, was giving way to what later came to
be known as Postmodernism. True enough,
although the play offers a realistic
presentation of a slice of life of recent times,
it still borders on Absurdism which, as
phrased by Bolick, “permeated”
Postmodernism (1). In fact, the play‟s
realistic depiction can be viewed as ironic,
reality itself being shown as the issue.
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 190
Reality is blurred because of illusions, and
relative because of the mundaneness and
multiplicity of its perception.
Contrary to the divine oracle
denoting tragedy in Oedipus the King, the
American Dream, the worldly power to
which Albee‟s characters have succumbed,
promises happiness and security generally
interpreted in materialistic terms. The play
exposes the falsity of this promise and the
hollowness and lack of spirituality that it
leads to. Unattained, it leaves its pursuers
empty and bitter, a disappointment which
they try to cover up by self-deception. While
Oedipus and Jocasta are forced by the
unbending power of the oracle to accept the
will of the gods, George and Martha
exercise free will in finally admitting the
unattainability of the American Dream and
in denouncing its principles. This enables
them to come to terms with their limitations
and failures and to accept themselves and
each other as the human beings that they are,
and not as mere followers of a pattern of
pre-designed behavior, dreams and
ambitions. Paradoxically, it is when they
accept their weakness that they portray
human strength in acknowledging and
accepting a world which, in accordance with
Absudist notions, is stripped of all sources
of comfort and reassurance, a world of the
bare truth of the spiritual void which modern
man has brought on himself.
The play thus shakes off the
preconceived value of the American Dream
as Postmodernism shakes off and questions
all preconceptions. The promise of
happiness and fulfillment of the American
Dream proves to be an illusory power which
shatters on impact with reality, whereas in
Oedipus the King the doom denoted by the
power of the oracle proves to be reality
itself. In Albee‟s play the characters‟
attempt to reach and attain the mundane
power of the American Dream results in
their suffering, whereas in Sophocles‟ play
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 191
the characters‟ attempt to escape the
transcendental power of the oracle results in
their suffering. The power of truth, as
conceived in each play, finally becomes
evident.
Conclusion
The theme of illusion and reality which
Oedipus the King and Who’s Afraid of
Virginia Woolf? share is conveyed in the
two plays through analogous points
presented in accordance with each play‟s
individual requirements.
Failing to locate their own identities,
the characters of both plays fail, in turn, to
achieve positive and meaningful
communication with each other. The
ensuing absence of recognition and
appreciation result in dysfunctional families
whose lives are suffused with illusions. In
Sophocles‟ play Oedipus, Jocasta, and
Laius‟ belief that they have defeated the will
of the gods is so strong that their hubristic
notions are unconsciously delusional, so
firm is their faith in their free will. This goes
to explain their presumptuous and audacious
behavior and actions before the revelation of
the truth of their identities and familial
relations. On the other hand, in Albee‟s play
George and Martha consciously delude
themselves in their resort to pretense as a
refuge from the harsh reality of their barren
lives.
Parentage and filiation is central to
the theme of illusion and reality in the two
plays. Despite their attempts otherwise Laius
and Jocasta fail to undo their destiny as their
son survives their attempts to kill him
without their knowledge and comes back
into their lives with the prophesied patricide
and incest. Martha and George‟s attempt to
mitigate the dreadful reality of their
impotent lives by the creation of an
imaginary son also fails. The characters in
both plays try to create another life for
themselves as an alternative for reality. The
alternative for Laius and Jocasta is to kill
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 192
their son, but for George and Martha it is to
imagine a son. The son coming back to life
in Oedipus the King ends delusion, and the
son going out of life in Who’s Afraid of
Virginia Woolf? ends delusion.
Both plays portray powers beyond
the control of their characters. In Oedipus
the King it is divine hence the characters are
absolutely helpless against it, and their
freewill is proven to be illusory in
confrontation with fate. They are allowed no
other option at the end but to accept the
reality of fate as they are enclosed by divine
retribution for their defiance of Apollo‟s
oracle. In Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
the portrayed power is the worldly power of
the American Dream hence the characters do
have the advantage of free will against it,
which its two main characters ultimately
employ. The portrayed powers are concerns
relevant to each play‟s time. As a Greek
tragedy Oedipus the King is a celebration of
religious observance. As a twentieth century
American play Who’s Afraid of Virginia
Woolf? reflects a contemporary world
devoid of spirituality and in struggle with
more immediate mundane issues.
At the end of both plays the bitter
truth, shunned for years, is finally reinstated.
However, the two plays, being of different
genres and times, and being written for
different kinds of audiences, present the
effect of this painful truth on their characters
differently. In Oedipus the King, Oedipus
and Jocasta inflict physical pain on
themselves to express and atone for their
guilt and shame, because that is the kind of
spectacle that was expected and appreciated
at the end of a Greek tragedy. As part of the
religious purpose and teaching, such
spectacle would also strengthen and magnify
the religious message of the play. There is
no corresponding physical violence in Who's
Afraid of Virginia Woolf? as its modern
audience‟s subconscious would instantly
perceive and relate to the potency and might
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 193
of the painful truth. A pitiful and scared
Martha is shown, stripped of illusions and of
the fantasy of her son, telling her equally
apprehensive and uneasy husband, that she
is afraid of the life that lies ahead. Accepting
reality is not an easy prospect but it is a
brave stance seen in George and Martha‟s
ultimate choice of it despite its difficulty,
and in Oedipus‟ perseverance to find it at the
risk of his personal tragedy. The characters
of both plays are entrapped in a kind of life
that does not allow for happiness, hence the
melancholic tone of both plays.
Works Cited
Albee, Edward. Who’s Afraid of Virginia
Woolf?. Penguin Books Ltd, 1965.
Aristotle. Poetics. Edited and translated by
S. H. Butcher, Macmillan and Co.,
Limited, 1898, Internet Archive,
archive.org/details/poeticstranslate00arisuoft
/page/36
Bolick, Elizabeth, L. “Absurdism in Post-
Modern Art: Examining the
Interplay between „Waiting for Godot‟ and
„Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close‟.”
Inquiries Journal: Social Sciences, Art &
Humanities, 2009, Inquiriesjournal.com,
www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/36/absur
dism-in-post-modern-art-examining-the-
interplay-between-waiting-for-godot-and-
extremely-loud-and-incredibly-close
Bushnell, Rebecca W. “Speech and Silence:
Oedipus the King.” Bloom's Modern
Critical Interpretations: Sophocles’ Oedipus
Rex. Edited by Harold Bloom, Chelsea-
Infobase, 2007, pp.91-105, issuu.com,
issuu.com/ovidiutite/docs/bloom_s_modern
_critical_interpretations_-_oedipus_/244
Grelka, Maciej. “On the Question of
Knowledge and Blindness in Sophocles‟
Oedipus Tyrannus.” Symbolae
Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et
Latinae, vol. XXIII, 2013, pp. 19-33,
repozytorium.amu.edu.pl,
repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/1
Journal of the University of Garmian 7 (4), 2020
Page 194
2180/1/Grelka_Symbolae_Philologorum_Po
snaniensium_2013_1.pdf
Lear, Jonathan. “Knowingness and
Abandonment: An Oedipus for Our Time.”
Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations:
Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex. Edited by Harold
Bloom, Chelsea-Infobase, 2007, pp. 183-
205, citeseerx,
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi
=10.1.1.452.1683&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Michalek, Jakub. "Truth or Happiness?."
jmi.czweb.org/nove/data/111.pdf
Mulready, Sharon. “Oedipus the King:
Imagism and Humanism.” Journal of the
Classical Association of Victoria, vols. 16-
17, 2003, pp. 40-45, Classical Association of
Victoria,
classicsvic.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/mul
readyvol1617.pdf
Roudane, Matthew. “Who's Afraid of
Virginia Woolf?: Toward the Marrow.” The
Cambridge Companion to Edward Albee.
Edited by Stephen Bottoms, Cambridge
University Press, 2005, pp. 39-59.
Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Translated by
J. T. Sheppard. Eight Great Tragedies.
Edited by Sylvan Barnet et al., New
American Library, 1957, pp. 57-93.
The Holy Bible: New International Version.
Bible Gateaway,
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jo
hn+18%3A37-38&version=NIV
Winnington-Ingram, R. P. Sophocles: An
Introduction. Cambridge University Press,
1998, Is.muni.cz,
is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2013/DVH042/Winninto
n-Ingram_-_Sophocles-An_Intepretation.pdf