Ume Haleemat ul Fazila

Roll no. 79
M.A English Previous (Morning)
Semester. 01
Assignment: Drama I
Topic Question: "Is Oedipus a
victim of fate or victim of his own
actions? Critically analyse with the
help of text of the drama"

Page 1 of 18
▪ A man who involve in some sort of
misery entirely called by God and no fault
of his own is said to be the victim of Fate,
and a man who involve into virtually by his
ownself, by an error of judgement either
moral or itellectual, is the victim of his
own actions. This error of judgment which
causes the protagonist his downfall is
literally called 'Hamartia' and it could be
the fruit of any moral or simple offense
commited either intentionally or
ignorantly.
Now the question is that, did Oedipus in
Oedipus Rex committed any judgemental
error that later caused him his
misfortune? (was oedipus a victim of his
own actions) or not (or he was purely a
victim of fate)?

Page 2 of 18
As I observed Oedipus's case, it was not
he alone who destroyed himself, there
were various things walked alongwith him
taking his misery in hands, and I do
consider Oedupus' life as a playball
between fate, his ownself and his parents.
Certainly not all right, but here I give some
critical analysis of Oedipus Rex regarding
his fate.
▪ Is Oedipus a Victim Of Fate?
The aggregate thought that comes into
the mind eventually after completing the
drama is that Oedipus was a Great man
who unfortunately and badly came under
the wrath of god without any special fault
of his, he was a victim of fate who couldn't
help himself, and a miser who ruinned his
life by a little ignorance. His growing up at

Page 3 of 18
another king's and queen's was not his
fault, learning the Oracle that he will do a
wicked spell (murder of father and incest
to mother) made him terribly frightened
and he tried to escape from his fate, even
he left his loving foster father and mother
in this fear wanting them to be saved from
himself (probably he thought he would do
the crime with his foster father and
mother) and here is proved his inner good
and innocence which hated evil or sinful
deeds.
Then in his way out to Thebes he killed his
the king (hus father) in a complete
unawareness about his mutual
relationship with the king. Besides, it
wasn't from his side to start the
controversy, and offcourse he did not

Page 4 of 18
killed him intentionally, yet it was a
concious act of self defence. Afterwards
when he entered Thebes city and saved
the Theban people from Sphinx, they
made him their king. He was not known
about the king or any other relavant
mysteries of time and place and in this his
ignorance he did all wrong.
After when he himself was made accused
of the city's adversity and impurity in
Teiresias' words:
"Upon your head is the ban your
lips have uttered... You are the
cursed polluter of this land... I know,
as you do not, that you are living in
sinful union with the one you love,
living in ignorance of your own
undoing... Your enemy is yourself.."

Page 5 of 18
he behaved wildly. Offcourse anyone
could behave so in such kind of situation
as Oedipus did. His ill mannered attitude
to Teiresias, cheap blames on Creon and
his arrogance all on the whole looks too
small before his terribly painful fate (if he
owned it in return). And truly even after
thinking on different perspectives and
other possible causes of his misfortune,
the thought that holds on until last is that,
somehow he was a sort of string puppet in
god's hands.
-----------------------------------------------------
▪ Next to this, he seems the victim of his
parent' actions (as descendants often
suffer for the deeds of their parents), and
they were actually his parents' flaws that
led him to his acute misfortune.

Page 6 of 18
We can find two tragical flaws or errors of
judgement of his parents in the case.
The first one is moral flaw that they begot
a son and tried to destroy him. The
decision to destroy God's gift could be a
certain cause of God's wrath and Oedipus
became the victim of his parents' actions
(and obviously the wrath fell on both of
his parents too). In this case, if one argues
that they did this behind a strong reason
(prediction of wicked spell), he is wrong.
Louis and Jocasta did this behind trusting
on a prediction where a prediction is not a
concrete truth as life and death is. It is a
thing to be followed by certain things or
actions but could be flawed or changed in
the absence of those certain things or
actions which a prediction was owe to be

Page 7 of 18
followed by inorder to come true. This is
an accepted fact of the Prediction since
life started on Earth (history can show
sevaral examples of this), and therefore
we cannot make the room for Oedipus's
parents in this matter.
The second flaw is that Louis and Jocasta
after hearing the oracle about their son,
unwisely and recklessly trusted on the
work of a servant. In such a case of surely
coming horrible misery, was it sensible to
behave in this damn unprudent way? This
their ignorance was an intellectual error of
judgement (the intellectal errors which
sometimes or are often committed when
doing some high sinful things like plotting
against someone or a planned murder).

Page 8 of 18
From this side of thought, Oedipus does
not seem to be the victim of fate but the
victim of the fate followed by his parents'
actions.
▪ Is Oedipus a Victim Of His Own
Actions?
Now if we analyse 'Oedipus' in the play,
somehow, even reluctantly, he himself too
seems to be the root cause of his bad fate.
Whether he was the victim of his own
actions or not, we have to evaluate his
character, deeds and behavior during the
course of the play, his moral or
intellectual flaws, big or small offences (if
he went through) and his virtues and
innocence.
The character and morality of Oedipus
could be found by his behavior to

Page 9 of 18
everyone throughout the play and every
reader can assure that he was truely a
hearthrobe to Thebes and his character is
of a wise, loyal and merciful king who is
virtually concerned to his people in their
lights and darks. Like in the start of the
play when the people are gathered before
his court for an application (complaining
him about the curse their city had been
falling into), they talk to their king with
their words blessed and manner
appreciable.
~ 'It was you, we remember, a
newcomer to Cadmus' town, that
broke our bondage to the vile
Enchantress... we truly believe,
with the help of God, you gave us
back our life... Oedipus O Great and
Glorious.."

Page 10 of 18
and in return the words of Oedipus shows
his inner leniency and concern.
"And while you suffer, none suffers
more than I. You have your several
griefs each for himself; But my
heart bears the weight of my own,
and yours.."
The people of Thebes simply claimed him
as their saviour.
On other scene, when Oedipus starts his
talks to Teiresias, it was a pure gentle and
respectful starting to speak to any elderly
or priest.
"Teiresias, we know there is nothing
beyond your ken; Lord sacred and
profane, all heavenly and earthly
knowledge are in your grasp. In
your heart, if not with the eye..."

Page 11 of 18
 Though afterwards the case changed on
his side when Teiresias accused him of the
curse.
The priest and chorus was very wel
wishers to him and they trusted him even
after Teiresias unexpected blame. They
were dithered but did not take Oedipus
wrong even on an oracle's prediction.
~"Terrible things indeed has the
prophet spoken.
We cannot believe, we cannot deny;
all's dark...
He faced the winged Enchantress,
And stood to the test, winning
golden opinions.
Never, therefore, will I consent
To think him other than good".

Page 12 of 18
Afterwards when Creon got known about
the blame that Oedipus entitled him to,
and he came to ask about, he met chorus
before oedipus and Chorus tried to favor
their king Oedipus by saying:
"The words, I think, were spoken in
the stress of anger, ill-considered....
I do not scrutinize my master's
actions."
Hence, Oedipus overall seems to have a
good moral character else than his
behavior to Creon and Teiresias when he
talked insolently to Teiresias and accused
Creon for being a Plotter against him
without any proof or witness, which
showed him a passive and obstinate who
could accuse anyone unwisely and
unjustly in his anger.

Page 13 of 18
His wrong behaviour to Creon and
Teiresias could be counted as the
hamartia but the simple point that come
into mind is that he did all this (to creon
and Teiresias) long after he had killed his
father and married mother, and one could
not be punished for his crimes before
their being committed. So this (his action)
simply does not seem to lead him to his
downfall.
The other thing we noted in the play is
that Oedipus was an arrogant. This is also
a moral flaw (although it also looks severe
that he was punished for this thing which
is too ordinary in people even in lower
levels).
Other thing that could be counted as his
disastrous flaws include his carelessness

Page 14 of 18
after hearing of the oracle ( that he will be
the commiter of his father's murder and
incest to mother). He did not keep himself
prudent from committing any sin, instead
he murdered a man in the way just after
hearing the oracle trying to run far from.
Here we can say that he was in anger, or
he couldn't help him for commiting the
thing which he was fated for, it is wrong.
Certainly he was painfully distrubed and
did all unitentionally but he did that at his
own choice.
I can mention here a short relavant true
story as an example. Two men went
through a controversy towards each other
in between a field. Their anger flew higher
and one of them bent down to pick a
stone inorder to strike other. As he bent

Page 15 of 18
and tried to pick the stone, the stone with
a small desperation of itself, came into his
hand. The man felt the thing and
frightened he threw the stone and left to
home. The other man since the time, lied
into his bed without even a small injury,
he was in pain of death which neither
letting him to die. When no cure worked, a
holy saint was called for the solution. He
heard the story of his controversy of the
field and said, the man was fated to be
murdered by that other man who took
stone for him and then he would be alive
until murdered by the man with the stone.
This is a clear example of one's free will to
commit any deed. The man who took
stone, when picking it, became prudent of
his fate, even if he was fated to do that

Page 16 of 18
murder, he threw the stone and left the
work he had to commit, using his free-will
to leave. God has written what we will do,
but what we do would be our free choice.
The same thing here. Oedipus was fated
to the murder and incest but he was free
to do so or not. He wasn't divinely ordered
for this.
His next very reckless action was this,
after committing the murder he did not
even think a while, what sin he had
committed right then, could be the one he
just had heard about from the oracle and
was fated for. Naturally he should have to
be too much concious about these type of
things.
It was quite possible if Oedipus was
prudent from committing this single sin,

Page 17 of 18
he could evade the other (the incest) but
he was not. So this could be counted as
hamartia and as per the situation and
events he is also the victim of his own
deeds too.
Despite all this fact, yes he was innocent,
and so much pathetic against the fate he
owed. His misery feels a painful misery
because he was more great and virtually
least guilty. And I think this is how his
tragedy is a Perfect Tragedy for all time.

Page 18 of 18