In Oedipus the King, Sophocles describes the destiny of Oedipus, the son of Laius, the Theban king. As it is known from the plot of the legend, Laius was destined to die by the hand of his own son. Hence, he ordered to pierce the baby's legs and leave him on Mount Kithairon. However, the slave who was ordered to kill the little prince saved him, and Oedipus whose name is translated from Greek as «having tumefied legs» was educated by Polybus, the Corinthian King. Still, Oedipus was unlike his father in many aspects, and appeared to be a wise ruler of his homeland. The destiny, however, was preparing a sorrowful end for the great King of Thebes, thus proving that the initial determinants of the human soul and personality will eventually manifest themselves in one way or another. It is important, therefore, to analyze the factors the led to the unfortunate and seemingly undeserved end of Oedipus.
Sophocles' tragedy started exactly from the moment when the citizens of Thebes begged Oedipus the King to save the city from the severe plight. The Delphian oracle declared that the cause of this misfortune was hidden in the fact that there was a murderer among citizens who should be exiled (Sophocles, Berg, Clay, 1978). Oedipus does his best to find the murdered, at the same time remaining unaware that it was he. However, when Oedipus discovers the truth, he blinds himself considering this as the deserved punishment for the crime he committed.
Thus, Oedipus the King appears to be the central figure in Sophocles' tragedy. With that, however, people were accustomed to seeing him as a righteous ruler. The priest calls him the best of men. It was he who saved Thebes from the monster that terrorized the citizens, and glorified the country by his wise government (Edmunds, Dundes 108-114). Soon Oedipus begins to feel responsibility for the destiny of people, for his homeland, and gets ready to do everything in order to cease the plague that befell the country. Thinking only about the welfare of the country, Oedipus suffers from seeing the citizens' misfortunes. Indeed, the driving force that was leading the King was the desire to help the weak and suffering people. Therefore, Oedipus is not a tyrant, because he finished the quarrel with Creon according to people's request (Sophocles et al, 1978). On the contrary, Oedipus considers himself as the mediator between gods and humans, and several times he calls himself gods' helping hand. Gods give orders, Oedipus implements their will, and citizens must follow these orders. Even the priest sees the presence of gods in the salvation of Thebes, thus believing Oedipus to be the tool of gods through which they implemented their will. However, Oedipus was not able to know gods' will, and, believing in priests' sagacity, he turns to Tiresias (Sophocles et al, 1978).
However, just a little suspicion that the priest was hiding the murderer's name was enough to launch the thought in Oedipus' mind that Tiresias himself participated in the murder. Oedipus' respect towards the priest quickly becomes replaced by anger to which the King willingly gives in. With that, it is easy for him to depict the one who urged to save himself and Thebes as the worst person that has ever lived and bombard him with insults. Likewise, Oedipus becomes absorbed with anger during his conversation with Creon (Sophocles et al, 1978). Suspecting Creon's machinations, Oedipus throws offenses in the state of complete irritation: his face is impudent, he is the murderer, the one who planned this foolish act to struggle for power without money and allies.
The intemperate character of Oedipus was also the cause of killing the old man on the road. It was enough for the charioteer to simply push Oedipus to become beaten by the latter. At the same time, Oedipus was able to feel compassion. Suffering as a result of the committed crime is worse than death itself. He was guilty before parents, before his children who were born through a sinful marriage. Due to this fault, though an unwilling one, Oedipus severely punishes himself.
The tragedy of the story is further culminated by the final part when Oedipus pronounces three long speeches. None of these three speeches depict the Oedipus who would consider himself as the savior of his homeland. Now it was only a miserable person who tried to atone his faults by harsh suffering. Sophocles' tragedy then ends with the chorus' words regarding the volatility of human destiny and the impermanence of happiness (Kaplan 1-4). The chorus' carols often depicting the opinion of the author himself are closely connected with the developing events.
The language of the tragedy, as well as the comparisons, metaphors, epigrams, antitheses and the composition of the story - all these elements are subordinated to Sophocles' primary idea aimed at revealing the crime and punishing for it (Sophocles et al, 2010). Every new position by which Oedipus was attempting to prove his innocence led to the admission of guilt by the hero himself. This, in turn, even strengthens the tragedy of Oedipus. In support of the idea that the plot in the story should demonstrate the transition from happiness to misfortune , it becomes clear that this transition takes place not as a result of a crime, but rather as a result of a big mistake of a person. The deployment of the realistically justified events in Sophocles' tragedy, the intensification of doubts and anxiety, peripeteia, the culmination of the action when, in his arrogance, Oedipus fancied himself as the son of destiny, and the final outcome that is not imposed by supernatural power, but rather appears to be the logical completion of all experiences - all these elements keep the readers in a state of suspense that entails fear and compassion towards the inescapable destiny of Oedipus.
The rejection of personal life for the sake of a certain intangible high norm perfectly characterizes Oedipus' destiny (Kaplan 1-4). The choice between the useful and the beautiful in favor of the latter which seems foolish to ordinary people led the hero to a tragic end. Nonetheless, it cannot be stated that the life of a tragic person stands against universal laws and norms. On the contrary, a tragic person appears to be in accordance with these norms and implements them. And this generates a tragic situation, whereupon the destruction is no concurrence, since a tragic person consciously rejects his life for high norms. The high image of thoughts and bravery mostly relate to this tragic behavior that, in its turn, is based on the high motive of actions (Edmunds, Dundes 108-114). This high motive of Oedipus is represented by his self-affirmation and activity, as well as by the most sincere understanding of values and the truth that are found in the deepest corners of his being.
In Oedipus the King, the hero fights not with his destiny, but rather with himself. According to Sophocles, this demonstrates the power of a person: to give account for one's personal actions. Apparently, a poet that portrays the main character of his major drama as a person who was able to not just commit severe crimes, but also to become aware of his guilt, is quite familiar with this opinion.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the power of destiny is reckless and blind. On the contrary, the actions of destiny amaze with its logical harmony. Oedipus had to come through severe suffering, and occasions gradually guided him to his final remorse. Destiny helped Oedipus to make a connection with himself, it reminded him of the fact that he was a human-being. The tragic duet of Oedipus and his destiny constitute the pivotal element of the drama. And in the story, the duet acts powerfully, reasonably, and consistently. In the final analysis, there remains no doubt regarding the inescapable character of Oedipus' destiny. However, it was via destiny's help that Oedipus managed to realize his sins and atone them. Though it prepared harsh tests for the King, it eventually proved to be its most reliable ally, since Oedipus would be unlikely to change his chain of sinful deeds without the interference of destiny.
Works Cited
Edmunds, Lowell, and Alan Dundes. Oedipus, a Folklore Casebook. New York: Garland, 1983. 108-114. Print.
Kaplan, Kalman J. Oedipus in Jerusalem: A Play in Two Acts. S.l.: Resource Pubns, 2015. 1- 4. Print.
Sophocles, Stephen Berg, and Diskin Clay. Oedipus the King. New York: Oxford UP, 1978. Print.
Sophocles, Peter Burian, and Alan Shapiro. The Complete Sophocles. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
