By all appearances, Oedipus is a character decided on controlling his own destiny using the formidable rational capacities afforded to him. His subsequent rescue of Thebes from the plague of the Sphinx is indicative of both his capacity to understand the nature of man, but later points to his lack of understanding of himself. It is his dedication to understanding the nature of man as opposed to his nature as a man which is his downfall.
As indicated earlier, Oedipus’ commitment to the polis and his quest for truth are unshakeable. In search of a ‘tragic flaw’ in his character, arguments have been made for his loss of temper and denunciation of Tiresias and Creon as political saboteurs capitalizing on the turmoil of the plague to overthrow him, does not hold up to scrutiny.
Firstly, to expect less than anger form a character of established authority when accused of incest and patricide by a man whom Oedipus already felt was obstructing his investigation would be more than human. Oedipus has survived the exodus from his adopted home and has been hailed as the savior of Thebes on the basis that he understands the human condition better than other men. From a rational perspective, his accusation of a political conspiracy is neither reactionary nor unfounded; Tiresias had failed to serve his role by not solving the riddle of the Sphinx and Creon’s claim to succeed Liaus could plausibly make his counterargument to Oedipus’s accusation appear sophistic.
In addition to the rationale of his accusation, his later indignation and torture of the shepherd who, like Tiresias, did not wish to reveal the terrible truth to Oedipus reveals a consistent and passionate desire for truth which does not deserve the title of mere flaw.
Subsequently, to argue that Oedipus’ flaw was inborn and that he was a victim of his own unchangeable destiny seems to undermine a basic tenant of tragedy. The nature of Sophocles’ interpretation of the Oedipus myth necessitates that Oedipus be free to discover his nature and to precipitate his own downfall. Oedipus’ rational faculties and his unrelenting search for the truth about himself reach their height at the point he realizes that he has neglected his own nature.
His undeniably admirable desire to alleviate the suffering of his people must come at the expense of himself as his denunciation of the murderer of Liaus indicates:
“…if by any chance
he proves to be an intimate of our house,
here at my hearth, with my full knowledge,
may the curse I just called down on him strike me!” (Soph. OT. 284-87)
Although he unknowingly denounces himself, it is his commitment to stand by his decree which makes him a hero of tragic circumstance; “Drive me out of the land at once, far from sight, where I can never hear a human voice.” (Soph. OT. 1571-72)
Oedipus is the embodiment of both triumph and tragedy, he takes the pains of the polis and his fate upon himself, Sophocles does not attempt to let Oedipus atone for his sins, nor does he try to explain the characters actions as if he were merely strapped to a “yoke of necessity,” his destiny was a product of his character, free willed and bent on determining his own fate.
There is an argument, in the case of his blinding, that Oedipus’ reaction was guided by revelation of Tiresias during their confrontation. However, if taking in the context of Oedipus’ reaction to earlier oracles and revelations, such as his visit to Delphi, and his fight against the curse of his destiny this argument would be inconsistent with his character. It is also indicated by the messenger that Oedipus’ first impulse was suicide; “Give him a sword!” (Soph. OT. 1387). His own argument, that he could not bear to see the faces of the father he murdered or the mother he shared a bed with, would again indicate that he was acting independently in accordance with the revelations.
There is also evidence from his blinding, that Oedipus was not destroyed by the realization of his true self. I would argue that the sexual parallels found in lines 1402 through 1414 of Oedipus Tyrannus, indicate a fantastic rebirth of Oedipus. This argument could be supported by Sophocles’ treatment of Oedipus in Oedipus At Colonus. Although the plays were written years apart and not intended to be performed together, I feel that Sophocles’ re-examination of Oedipus must have been undertaken after the playwright considered the resolution of Oedipus Tyrannus and found there was room for further examination. One would believe that Greek Mythology contains a rich enough variety of resource material and that the Myth of Oedipus was the basis of numerous contemporary playwrights, that Sophocles would only have chosen Oedipus a second time to develop what he had already created.
In conclusion, I would argue that Oedipus was a representation of infallible moral and ethical stature, whose capabilities and commitment to the ideals of the time presented an argument common in Sophoclean literature; “no towering form of greatness enters into the lives of mortals free and clear of ruin.” (Soph. Ant. 687-89)
I do not agree that this principle requires an inherent flaw or that any of Oedipus’ qualities could be faulted. I believe Sophocles argued that a balance between public and private or rational and spiritual personas must exist and that any excellence in one field will be to the detriment of the other. While this may be a fact of Sophoclean characters, I do not recognize that it requires a valuation of merit or flaw in those characters.
Finally, I believe that Oedipus was not destroyed but enlightened by his self-discovery and that the catharsis he endured as a consequence of his actions made him a more powerful and complete character in Sophocles’ subsequent treatment of him. His situation was tragic, but his adaptation and reaction to this situation was heroic.
Bibliography:
Sophocles, (trans. Robert Fagles) The Three Theban Plays, (New York: Penguin Classics, 1982.)