This essay examines the interplay between fate and personal responsibility in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus through two interconnected questions. The first weighs evidence that Oedipus is a helpless victim of divine prophecy against evidence that his own choices—fleeing his parents out of hubris, killing Laius in a rage, and brutally blinding himself—contribute to his downfall. The second argues that Oedipus is far from a passive puppet of the gods: he is a man of strong will, quick anger, and genuine civic concern whose character shapes how he responds to an inescapable destiny. Together, the two responses conclude that character and circumstance exist in dialogue, not opposition, in this foundational work of Greek tragedy.
When debating whether Oedipus is fortune's fool — a pure victim of fate — or responsible for his own destiny, a reader might be tempted to pose an instinctive argument in favor of fate. The plot of Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus certainly invites that reading, yet a closer look at the king's choices reveals that personal responsibility is never entirely absent from the tragedy.
In terms of plot structure, Oedipus actively resists the destiny foretold to him by the Oracle of Delphi. Like a good son, he tears himself away from the adoptive family he calls home — the shepherd and his wife he has come to regard as father and mother — precisely to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother. Yet despite this active resistance, the future King of Thebes ends up marrying his biological mother and killing his biological father without knowing he is doing either.
The plague that afflicts Thebes is brought on by Oedipus' actions, yet the king condemns the man who caused the plague to exile without knowing that man is himself. Oedipus has no inner moral instinct alerting him to what he has done. Finally, Oedipus came to be King of Thebes by performing an apparently noble act — freeing the city from the Sphinx. He did not set out to do so; rather, the Sphinx's riddle was thrust upon him while he was merely passing by.
Despite these narrative elements, one must ultimately conclude that Oedipus bears some responsibility for his fate. First, he showed hubris in thinking that by fleeing his parents he could escape the will of the gods. Could he truly believe he was capable of outrunning divine prophecy on foot? Second, Oedipus killed Laius — his biological father and the former King of Thebes — in an act of pure rage during a roadside altercation. The younger man did not have to respond so violently to a slight. Third, and finally, no part of the prophecy required Oedipus to blind himself or to inflict so horrific a punishment upon his own body.
The example of Oedipus is so widely regarded as a classic illustration of fate's immutability that it is difficult to read Sophocles' play with fresh eyes and recognize that, at the beginning of his tragedy, Oedipus is a man of tremendous strength and will rather than a passive figure. He has actively resisted his fate by fleeing his parents alone and striking out a new life for himself in unfamiliar territory. He is also, at times, a man of dangerous anger: he kills Laius, his true father and the original king, in a fit of rage by the side of a road. He rebukes the blind prophet Tiresias simply because the seer disagrees with him and says something the king did not want to hear. Lastly, Oedipus acts impulsively when he blinds himself — an act not foretold by any prophecy.
This is not to say Oedipus is a bad character. His resistance to becoming a patricide and a husband to his mother is certainly commendable, even if an ancient Greek audience may have seen that resistance as hubristic and futile. He also showed wit in his swift response to the Sphinx, solving an ancient riddle that had destroyed others. Oedipus evidently cares deeply about the city that made him king: at the play's opening he swears to punish whoever caused the terrible plague devastating his adopted home. This edict ultimately proves his undoing, yet it also reveals him as a powerful king — a man quick to anger and determined always to be in control of his fate and his power.
"Character and circumstance coexist rather than oppose"
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.