Camus also includes his protagonist’s rejection of a higher power. Like Oedipus, Meursault displays a lack of belief in God. He also is found to dismiss the credibility of religion. Upon being asked by the examining magistrate whether or not he believes in God, “[he] [says] no” (p.69). Although he believes that to ask himself whether or not he is sure that he does not believe in god “seems unimportant” (p.116), he still does not hide his atheistic beliefs. When the chaplain comes to speak to him about God, he tries to explain to him “that [he] [has] only a little time left and [he] [does not] want to waste it on God” (p.120). It is therefore obvious that both Oedipus and Meursault exhibit a lack of religious belief. Furthermore, for this approach to God, Meursault, very much like Oedipus, is forced out of society. After the magistrate’s first meeting with Meursault, where he learns of Meursault’s atheism, he “never really [pays] much attention to [him]” (p.70). He “seem[s] to [lose] interest in [him]” (p.70), and also seems to have reached “some sort of decision about [his] case” (p.70). This lack of interest in his case indicates that he does not feel his innocence is even worth fighting for. His reference to Meursault as “Monsieur Antichrist” (p.71) is a further sign of his apprehension towards him. After the chaplain meets with Meursault, he also believes that “[his] heart is blind” (p.120). Although the methods that Sophocles and Camus use are alike, the reasons for which they use them are quite opposite. While Sophocles upholds the value of religion, Camus denounces it. Religion has very little to do with Meursault’s murder case, yet the magistrate and the chaplain focus on it more than the case. The fact that Meursault is atheist should be irrelevant, but the religious society surrounding him grasps it and uses it as one of the reasons to sentence him to death. Unless one conforms to society’s beliefs, one is labeled as an outsider. Camus therefore portrays the unforgiving oppression that society inflicts through religion, and thus he wishes readers to see its value denounced.
However, this is not the only method that Sophocles and Camus both use to reach different goals. They also include their protagonists’ anger in the presence of religious figures in order to fulfill their respective purposes. In Oedipus, for example, Oedipus is angered by and distances himself from Teiresias. The “godlike prophet” (p.37) is truthful, but due to Oedipus’s stubborn belief that he is above the fate given to him, he dismisses Teiresias as a “stubborn old fool” (p.38). He is angered to the extent that he accuses Teiresias of being “involved in the murder of Laios” (p.39). He mocks him for his blindness, saying that he is “blind in [his] mind” (p.40). The holy prophet tells Oedipus that “the curse of [his] mother, the curse of [his] father, will whip him” (p.42), yet Oedipus refuses to listen to him and is ignorant. Again the arrogance of Oedipus is quite effectively portrayed. There is an utter lack of respect shown to Teiresias, and this drastically lowers Oedipus’s image in the minds of the readers. Sophocles portrays Teiresias as an old, frail, and wise man, and Oedipus’s discourteous verbal abuse assists the reader to believe that Oedipus is the oppressor, and not society’s belief in a higher power. The reader is sympathetic towards Teiresias, and since he is a religious figure, has a sense that religion is being oppressed by those who are arrogant enough. Again, the value of religion is upheld.
Like Sophocles, Camus includes his protagonist’s anger in the presence of religious figures in order to portray his opinion on the value of religion in his society. There is a visible parallel between the characters of Oedipus and Meursault – they both openly express their discontent when confronted by religious figures. For instance, when the magistrate lectures Meursault about God, he seems to “want to get rid of” (p.69) him and he is “not really listening to” (p.69) him. He shows that he does not care what the magistrate is saying. However, when they do not talk about God, their conversations are described to be “much more cordial” (p.70). This indicates a level of discomfort when God is mentioned. Furthermore, Meursault refuses to see the chaplain because “[he] [does not] believe in God” (p.116). The last time he meets the chaplain, his insistence to talk about God “begin[s] to annoy [him]” (p.118) and causes his presence, to Meursault, to be “grating and oppressive” (p.119). The culmination of the conversation, of course, is a verbal explosion by Meursault. Meursault’s discontent with religious figures throughout the text is thus visible. Sophocles and Camus have therefore used the same literary technique – however, they use it for vastly different reasons. Sophocles again upholds the value of religion, and Camus again denounces it. While Sophocles portrays Teiresias as a wise old man, Camus portrays the magistrate as a wildly melodramatic man. This trait is presented through his sudden brandishing of the cross, an action that, to the reader, seems to be quite startling. It is again displayed through the unfounded accusations that he makes, such as claiming that Meursault believes “[his] life [is] meaningless” (p.69). He is thus portrayed as the opposite of a wise old man – he is a man that will do anything in order to force his views onto another person. The chaplain also seems to be unable to accept that Meursault does not harbor the same religious beliefs as him. He “refuse[s] to believe [him]” (p.119) when he learns that Meursault’s beliefs are different to his own. Therefore, where Oedipus’s arrogance can be translated into his oppression of society’s religious beliefs, the magistrate and chaplain’s arrogance can be translated into their oppression of an individual that does not conform to society’s religious beliefs.
Thus, the two authors both use the same methods – the inclusions of their protagonists’ rejection of society’s religious beliefs and their anger in the presence of religious figures – in order to effectively present their individual opinions of the value of religion in their societies. Sophocles, in a society where people are turning away from the power of the gods, upholds the value of religion. Camus, in a society of imposing Catholicism, denounces its value. Religion therefore plays an important role in Oedipus and The Stranger – the authors’ opposite opinions have undoubtedly made it possible for new opinions to be derived.
WORD COUNT: 1,498
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Camus, Albert. The Stranger. New York: Random House Inc., 1988. Trans. by Ward, Matthew.
Sophocles. Oedipus The King. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Trans. by Berg, Stephen, and Clay, Diskin.