Issue of Fate Vs. Free Will In Oedipus the King

        The environment had the most significant effect on Oedipus and other characters in the play which demonstrates the matter of fate being overall more effectual on characters in the play than free will. From the time that Oedipus was born, everything around his has determined his outcome, all the way down to his personal characteristics (the theory of biological determinism). His parents had to make decisions for him at a young age, and because of their desire to avoid the prophecy, they decided to send him away to Mount Cithaeron to die. This resulted in the transfer of Oedipus to the Theban shepherd, who could not bear to kill a child and so gave him to a shepherd from Corinth without a reason to kill a child, who then gave Oedipus to the king and queen of Corinth (who were unable to bear offspring naturally). You can see that, because of the way that the Theban shepherd was brought up, he was not desensitized in a way that would have allowed him to kill the child without a second thought, but he was empathetic to Oedipus’ situation and gave him a second chance at life. Of course, this could also be seen as an act of free will, but taking into account the way that the environment determines humans’ characteristics and personality, it is obvious that fate and determinism (biological) have a much bigger impact on the characters (demonstrated on the Theban shepherd above). Oedipus questions the Theban shepherd on the matter of who gave the child to him, and it is revealed that Jocasta had with the intent of killing it to avoid the prophecy. Upon asking the Theban shepherd why he gave him to the Corinthian, the shepherd says he did so “through pity, master, for the babe. [The shepherd] thought [the Corinthian]’d take it to the country whence he came; but [in the end] he preserved it for the worst of woes.” This quote further demonstrates the empathy the Theban had for Oedipus because of the way he was brought up and the environment developing his personality.

        As Oedipus grew up a prince (and therefore was most likely spoiled and treated with extreme respect as the “prince” of Corinth), he must have developed a strong sense of arrogance (Greek element of tragedy “hubris” – excessive pride). This hubris that was developed because of the environment he grew up in is Oedipus’ hamartia (Greek element of tragedy that is the flaw of the character, resulting in his own downfall), and the cathartic point of the play is when Oedipus finds out who he really is and what he has done (the release of tension that built up throughout the play). In the first few lines of the play in response to the priest’s plea, Oedipus says that he “will start afresh and once again make dark things clear. For whoso slew that king might have a mind to strike me too with his assassin hand. Therefore in righting him I serve myself.” This shows how Oedipus’ arrogance leads him to believe that he can cure Thebes of the plague with ease, as he did with the riddle of the sphinx. Furthermore, he taunts Laius’ murderer telling the assassin to murder him, the new king of Thebes. This demonstrates the extent of Oedipus’ hubris’, as he thinks he is able to avoid the assassin’s hand (the irony here is that he most certainly is not, and he blinds himself in the end, “serving” himself. Since Oedipus’ life is prosperous, the tragedy is intensified, and if the tragedy that he befell had been inflicted on a lesser member of society, we as humans most likely would not have found such tragedy in it. The idea of hamartia is that it is a flaw in the hero or main character, leading to his or her own downfall. Aristotle cites the example of hamartia as an unwitting mistake of Oedipus’ in his work Poetics, as Oedipus “acts to prevent the fulfillment of the prediction that he would kill his father and marry his mother, but by his actions instead causes those very things to happen.” Obviously, Oedipus’ arrogance (hence ignorance, hence tendency to make a disastrous unwitting mistake as mentioned above), which was a product of his environment, led to his own downfall. Concerning free will, Oedipus’ choices are made because of external stimuli in his surroundings that he analyzes. After analysis, he chooses to react in whichever way will benefit him most or is most typical to his personality, therefore his “choices” of free will are essentially determined by his environment, making invalid any idea of free will making the biggest impact on him or other characters. For example, as Oedipus was used to getting respect as prince in Corinth, the matter of being told to get off the road to make way for some old man (Laius) to pass must have been insulting. Oedipus analyzed the situation and because he was used to being respected, he (in a very human manner) chose to act in a way that satisfied his characteristics (eg. hubris). Being told to get off the road by some old man fired up his hubristic personality, resulting in the murder of this man, as Oedipus “strike[s] him with anger,” who ironically was his father and even led him to marry the queen of Thebes, his mother, when he solved the riddle of the sphinx. There can be no way that free will allowed Oedipus to take a path such as that, so the idea of determinism is demonstrated: Laius, being king, has a sense of hubris also and so he should get the right of way on a road, and Oedipus (with a very strong characteristic of reckless arrogance) must obtain the right of way. Since no compromise can be reached, it becomes a matter of life and death. It is obvious that determinism and not free will impacted the characters in Oedipus most.

        The cathartic release of tension in Oedipus is when Oedipus finds out who he is and what he’s done. This is important in the argument of fate vs. free will because, as it is the point where Oedipus realizes that he has fulfilled the prophecy, the tension that has been developing throughout the play as Oedipus searched harder and harder and neared the answer is finally purged. Oedipus realizes that fate is not something that can be escaped and comes to the realization that his whole life had led up to that moment. He found out who he was because of his personality. He pushed himself to find out who he was even as Jocasta “beseech[ed him], seek no more,” to save his beloved city of which he is the savior. His personality is created by the environment that Oedipus reacted to throughout his life, developing his personal characteristics and attitude as he grew. It is obvious that fate impacts the characters in Sophocles’ play Oedipus much more than free will (as free will has very little effect) because the environment was what actually shaped his personality, therefore demonstrating that Oedipus’ hamartia (which brings his downfall) is not his own fault, rather it is the environment’s doing.