The Inevitability of Oedipus' Fate

I first studied Sophocles' Oedipus the King at A level and having found this play disturbing yet intriguing regarding the tension between fate and free will, I thought it best to start off with. For this blog I used Robert Fagles' translation of Oedipus the King, Penguin Classics, 1984, with an introduction and notes by Bernard Knox.

Oedipus’ fate and free will are presented as a complex relationship in Sophocles’ play, where one cannot exist without the other. Although Oedipus attempts to avoid his fate by asserting his free will, his failure to do so and the inevitability of his fate are best exemplified by his anagnorisis. Oedipus’ fate was out of his control, and this creates pathos, especially during his more hubristic moments. This pathos is further stressed by the fact “The hero of the play is thus his own destroyer” (Knox 131). Knox’s comment here denotes the complexity of the relationship of fate and free will.

Oedipus’ character is ultimately fragmented by his unavoidable fate and resulting anagnorisis; consequently, his character can be divided into two personalities. Firstly, at the beginning of the play, Oedipus is depicted as a protective father-figure to the city of Thebes. The repetition of “my children” (159-162) in reference to the people of Thebes suggests a protective and assertive individual, willing to do anything to save his children and therefore his city. These references of fatherhood are an example of subtle dramatic irony and foreshadowing, as Oedipus is unable to save his children/siblings, - from pollution which leads into catastrophic events.

Additionally, Oedipus is depicted as a doctor due to the repetition of his aim to find a “cure” to the “sick”, plague-ridden city (162). There are a couple of dramatic ironies at play here. Oedipus has caused this sickness and plague due to his actions resulting in pollution and him being the miasma itself. Additionally, Oedipus does not recognise the full extent and understanding of the following words, “not one is sick as I” (162). Charles Segal divides Oedipus’ character into “Oedipus and his shadowy double together” (154). I think Segal’s decision to characterise part of Oedipus’ character as a “shadowy double” self (154), implies a character of malicious intent, which is certainly not Oedipus, due to his repetitive attempts to avoid fate. Oedipus’ unawareness of his eventual fate creates pathos which counterbalances his more hubristic moments of arrogance in thinking he has outwitted fate.

Secondly, the other fragmented part of Oedipus’ character is revealed after finding out the truth of his identity. Suffering from a psychological breakdown and a detachment from society, the true identity of Oedipus is characterised by the repetition of “cursed” in “cursed in my birth, cursed in marriage, cursed in the lives I cut down with these hands” (232). Up until this point, Oedipus has been characterised with light imagery, but from now on, Oedipus is associated with darkness, “O light – now let me look my last on you!” (232). Oedipus’ characterisation of darkness further highlights the polluted character that he has become, or rather, has always been. This view contrasts with Jean-Pierre Vernant’s who argues “from the beginning to the end of the play” Oedipus “remains psychologically and morally the same” (283). Oedipus does not stay psychologically or mentally “the same” (Vernant 283), he suffers a mental breakdown upon learning his identity resulting in a culmination of his self-inflicted blinding, upon seeing the dead body which is both his wife’s and mother’s.

Oedipus’ changed and fragmented character as a result of his psychological breakdown is best depicted by the messenger describing the events of Oedipus finding “his wife, no wife” (236) and his mother’s dead body. The Messenger’s description utilises animalistic imagery to describe Oedipus with the simile, “Circling like a maddened beast, stalking” (236). This animalistic imagery evokes the idea that Oedipus is no longer the logical, heroic saviour, but instead is now reduced to limited expressions of confusion and guilt. These emotions are epitomized by his actions of forcing the doors open to find his dead mother and wife; “bending the bolts back” (236) evokes an almost inhumane physicality and therefore exemplifies the animalistic nature that he has now assumed. I think in these actions Oedipus is being driven by the clashing of fate and free will in his attempt to deal with confusion and guilt.

Oedipus’ decision to blind himself with Jocasta’s “gold pins” that held “her robes” (237) is significant as a response to the play’s handling of fate and free will. Jocasta’s gold pins are the last objects Oedipus sees, and it was Jocasta and Laius’ original mistake of not verifying Oedipus’ death which caused his eventual fate. Jocasta’s flippant opinion of oracles, “it’s all chance” (215), depicts the hubristic characteristic that Oedipus evidently inherited. Jocasta and Laius’ failure to murder their son, means that they are more at fault for Oedipus’ fate than Oedipus is. Therefore, even though Oedipus’ fate was inevitable, the uncontrollability of it creates pathos.

Additionally, Oedipus’ decision to blind himself and not choose suicide are important for two reasons. Firstly, if he were to commit suicide, then in the Underworld he would see his parents Laius and Jocasta and be in eternal torment. Consequently, Oedipus’ decision to blind himself highlights that staying alive in guilt is better than confrontation with his parents. Secondly, in being blinded, Oedipus symbolically can now see not only the truth, but also identity. Therefore, blinding over suicide is a symbol for Oedipus’ changed and fragmented character, as a result of his inevitable fate.

The theme of fate and free will relate to Oedipus’ psychological breakdown in his act of self-blinding. Seeing and not seeing are central concepts to the play and are embodied by Oedipus and Tiresias’ presence. It is significant, that when Oedipus could see, he was metaphorically blind as he could not see the truth and therefore his identity. This metaphorical blindness is first illustrated by Tiresias’ entrance, where Oedipus begs him to tell him whom Laius’ murderer was in order to rid Thebes of the plague. Upon Tiresias’ refusal, Oedipus mocks and ridicules Tiresias with words such as “you pious fraud” (182), “old man”, “stone-blind, stone-deaf – senses, eyes blind as stone!” (181). Oedipus’ reaction of mocking Tiresias exemplifies his hubristic nature, his desperation to find the truth and a cruel irony that only the contemporary audience would have been aware of - Oedipus’ consequential self-inflicted blinding. Segal notes that there is a “reluctance to emerge into the light” (158) and as a consequent the truth. Therefore, I think Oedipus’ action of mocking is an example of his “reluctance” (Segal 158) to understand the truth, as there is perhaps a subconscious element of fear in his ignorance and lack of awareness.

Furthermore, the character of Tiresias, famously blind, sees the truth and Sophocles uses foreshadowing as a technique to characterise him. This technique permeates Tiresias’ words and examples of this are, “you’re blind to the corruption of your life” (183), “Blind who now has eyes, beggar who is now rich” and “he will grope his way…a stick tapping before him step by step” (185). These examples highlight Oedipus’ tragic fall that characterises a tragic hero such as himself and evoke everything he loses as a consequence of his fate. Consequently, Oedipus’ blinding, is an example of the complex relationship of fate and free will. It could be argued either way that it was Oedipus’ fate to be blinded or that he asserted his free will by blinding himself. However, I think it is an ambiguous and complicated combination of both fate and free will that resorted in this event. Additionally, the concept of seeing and not understanding compared with blindness and understanding structures this play, supporting it throughout the whole play and concluding with Oedipus’ blindness, which is reminiscent of Tiresias’ entrance on stage.

In conclusion, however much Oedipus attempted to avoid his fate by asserting his free will, it was inevitable he would be subjected to his fate. Oedipus’ unconscious intimate struggle with fate and free will results in a fragmentation of his character. This fragmentation exposes his psychological breakdown as a result of learning of his identity and the truth. Oedipus’ breakdown is structured by the concepts of seeing and not seeing. This concept is symbolised by Tiresias’ presence, the repetitive dramatic ironies and foreshadowing that permeate the play. Ultimately, Oedipus could never have avoided his fate due to the complicated, intertwined forces of fate and free will that were greater than his human state of mind could comprehend.

Works Cited

Knox, Bernard. Introduction and Notes, The Three Theban Plays: Antigone, Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Penguin Classics, 1984.

Segal, Charles. “Time and Knowledge in the Tragedy of Oedipus.” Sophocles' Tragic World: Divinity, Nature, Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England, 1995, pp. 138–160. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjk2txt.10. Accessed 1 September 2020.

Sophocles. The Three Theban Plays: Antigone, Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Penguin Classics.1984

Vernant, Jean-Pierre. “Ambiguity and Reversal: On the Enigmatic Structure of Oedipus Rex.” The Oedipus Casebook: Reading Sophocles' Oedipus the King, edited by Mark R. Anspach, by Wm. Blake Tyrrell, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, 2020, pp. 279–308. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctvw1d58n.12. Accessed 1 September 2020.)