Oedipus Tyrannus is very fascinating and controversial. The stronger subjects in this nstory such as murder not only cause controversy between readers with different viewpoints, but they also open the readers minds to new ways of thinking. For years there have been debates over whether or not Oedipus should be deemed guilty or innocent for his actions on the crossroads. The countless articles written about this subject provide very strong points for both sides. They also feature many methods to help persuade the reader that their side is objective.
The first three authors discuss Oedipus’ fate. PH Vellacott asks the simple question; If the characters were warned about their fate, why wouldn’t they try to avoid engaging in those actions? Professor Kurt Fosso shares that his students are convinced that what happened to 1 Oedipus in the play was the result of a cruel fate. Rudynytsky mentions that each episode of 2 Oedipus is a thematic repetition of the previous. Vellacott argues against Oedipus unlike the 3 others.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The other authors discuss different areas of the story. Laszlo Versenyi’s Oedipus: Tragedy of Self-Knowledge breaks down Oedipus’ character by asking multiple questions about his traits, which will explain his eventual decisions. Based on my assessment of the story along with the information given within each article, I have concluded that Oedipus is should not be blamed for his actions as he had no choice but to partake in them. I will first counter the argument that he is guilty with information from the story and articles. After countering the opposing theory, I will provide information from the text to prove my argument.
One of the more common parts of the opposing argument is “If Oedipus knew of what the prophecy foretold, why wouldn’t he try to alter his fate or avoid making it a reality?” Lazslo Versenyi says in his article that there are no real antagonists of the story. I immediately agreed 7 with this statement as the only factors that oppose Oedipus in the story, are the circumstances of his life. Oedipus was told of the prophecy by the oracle before traveling to thebes. Upon interaction with a variety of characters, he found that the man he killed was his father The opposing argument is that Oedipus is guilty of killing his father by his own decision. PH Vellacott mentions in his article that Oedipus should be blamed for the murder as he was the one to kill laios. This prophecy was told to Laios by an oracle before Oedipus was born. Aware of this prophecy, Laios proceeded to marry Jocasta which causes Oedipus’ birth. The opposing argument is invalid as Oedipus wasn’t aware of who his father was until it was too late.
Although Oedipus is trapped by his fate, he still acknowledges what he’s done and is shameful of it. This is evident towards the end of the play as he and his mother discovered that the foretold prophecy was true. Shortly after realizing this, Jocasta hangs herself out of shame. Oedipus also regretting his actions, proceeds to stab himself in the eyes to blind himself. Lazslo Versenyi mentions that one of the most motivating factors of Oedipus’ actions is his nature. This statement is a good explanation as to why he decided to blind himself.
In Kurt Fosso’s article he assigns his students with the task of explaining their views on Oedipus being guilty but they unanimously decided that his fate was the blame of his actions. 9 The concept that Oedipus’ fate is set in stone and that it’s inevitable in the very end supports the argument that he is innocent. The prophecy technically started to take place the moment Laios married Jocasta. If the prophecy was really avoidable then Laios would have most likely not married Jocasta or have sex with her. He did take action to avoid the prophecy from coming into fruition, but that only resulted in his downfall.
In The Guilt of Oedipus, PH Vellacott asks the question “If Oedipus has solved the riddle to save Thebes, why could he not figure out that his fate was aligned with the prophecy?” While Oedipus was in fact the one to solve the Sphinx’s riddle, he was still unaware of how true the prophecy was becoming. His unknowing of the prophecy might not be the fault of his as the prophecy does not include him avoiding it. As Oedipus’ life unfolds in front of him, he slowly starts to realize how peculiar some elements of it are.
In God and Man in “Oedipus Rex” Lauren Silberman explains both outcomes of Oedipus’ fate. On one hand, Oedipus' fate was locked from the beginning and would inevitably 11 end with the outcome that was prophesied. On the other hand, the fate of Oedipus was the result of the actions he took within the story. It is really impossible to tell which theory is correct as the prophecy ended as expected. These theories support the Innocent Oedipus side as it is difficult to determine if he had a choice in the actions, or if he could have avoided them.
Silberman also makes the point that Oedipus’ knowledge and action are not absolutely separable. She uses Jocasta and Tiresias’ warnings to Oedipus as an example of this. They try 12 their best to halt his quest, but he has no real cognition of upcoming danger until it’s already upon him. While he is confident that his search for the truth won’t contain anything unexpected, he would not have been in such a precarious position had he heeded the warnings. Oedipus did not connect the lines until the end of the story, in which he is already shameful.
In Oedipus: Tragedy of Self Knowledge, Laszlo Versenyi states “If all the action in the drama is impelled by nothing but Oedipus' nature, and if this nature can be expressed by the now transformed demand, *know thyself*, then it is this demand for self-knowledge, man's possession by the demand, that is the 'tragic flaw' that leads to Oedipus' downfall.” I have taken 13 from this quote that Oedipus’ quest in this story involves a big part of finding out about himself and how he fits into this greater story. Oedipus’ curiosity has caused him to do engage in certain things that have had an effect on his outcome, which may not be his fault. If there is in fact this undeniable outcome that will come true, then it would be wrong to assume that Oedipus would have been able to do things differently. It is evident that when he kills Laios at the crossroads that he is not aware of who he is, which supports the theory of him not being able to avoid the outcome.
Lesser uses the analogy that Oedipus The King is a box within a box, a play within a play. He mentions this as the play has two parts that overlap information within the bigger story. He also mentions that both stories include conflicts and Oedipus is the result of the resolutions. This continuity between the stories makes for a better reveal when Oedipus finds out what he’s done. I have taken from this information that this style of storytelling is ideal for psychological adventures such as this. Rudnytsky breaks down the psychological aspects of this play as well.
Fosso does research on Oedipus having fear of what may come in his future. He finds that Jocasta’s report to Oedipus on Laios’s death is very similar to his encounter on the crossroads. If Oedipus was confident in his actions of killing Laios, he would not be full of fear 16 in this moment. As Tiresias warned him of his crime earlier in the play, Oedipus dismissed the notion thinking it would be impossible. Oedipus’ emotions in this part of the story are justifiable as he realizes the actions he took would come back to haunt him.
Something to note as the story progresses is Oedipus’ slow descent into his final phase. At the beginning of the story Oedipus is not even aware of his alignment with the prophecy. By the end of the story, Oedipus is fully aware of how he ties in to the prophecy and his emotions are fully reflected by his actions. The worst part of Oedipus finding out that the prophecy came true was the fact that things could have easily been avoided if he did things slightly differently.
His regret was so strong that he blinded himself so he would not have to see what he has done, he blinded himself literally and figuratively. The argument that opposes mine is Oedipus being guilty of murdering the previous king(his father). Oedipus does in fact kill Laios on the crossroads, but he did so in the belief that it was self defense. A question for those who argue this point, is a man really guilty if he is forced into this fate by greater circumstances? Due to the fact that he was not aware of his birth parents, he had no idea who he was fighting or what it would mean in the future. Versenyi’s article discusses Oedipus’ self knowledge and how the story features his life unfolding as it is in the prophecy. The Vagueness of the prophecy helps both sides of the arguments as the prophecy is stated to end in a certain way, but the journey to the end is undisclosed.
Oedipus is a character who was victim to circumstances that he couldn’t control. As the story progresses, Oedipus finds out more about himself. There are multiple warnings given to him by the characters he interacts with throughout the story that hint at what the conclusion of the story will be. Oedipus having killed Laios was not his fault due to a prophecy that was given before Oedipus was born. To argue that Oedipus is guilty is invalid as Laios set the prophecy in motion the moment he married Jocasta. In conclusion, Oedipus’ actions are the result of something that he couldn’t control he is in fact innocent due to this.
Stuck on your essay?
