The Destiny of Choices

Oedipus Rex and King Lear are, as their titles announce, both about kings. These two plays are similar in theme and in the questions they pose to the audience. The kings in each play both fall from the pinnacle of power to become the most loathed of all classes in society; Oedipus discovers that he is a murderer and committer of incest, and Lear becomes a mad beggar. Misjudgments occur in both plays, and the same questions about the gods, fate, and free will are posed. In spite of these similarities, however, the final effects of these two plays differ greatly.

For me, as I read Oedipus Rex again this fall, I experienced a sensation nearly of agony. Because I had already known the myth as well as read the play, I was in the Greek's position of foreknowledge. This caused me to feel acutely the irony of Oedipus' confident declarations that the murderer of Laius should be "driven from every house, / Being, as he is, corruption itself to us," and again on the next page,

As for the criminal, I pray to God—
Whether it be a lurking thief, or one of a number—
I pray that that man's life be consumed in evil and wretchedness.
And as for me, this curse applies no less
If it should turn out that the culprit is my guest here,
Sharing my hearth. (13-14)

Oedipus has absolutely no idea that the murderer he is denouncing so vehemently is, in fact, himself. The fact that the reader knows that, and he does not, becomes increasintly painful, especially in the line where Oedipus says, "And as for me, this curse applies no less...." Oedipus means only that he will not protect the guilty, even under the constraints of hospitality; he has absolutely no idea that he is, in fact, condemning himself. the second time reading or seeing the play, there can be no suspense or surprise at all; the major feeling is the agony of waiting and longing for the play to be over.

In Oedipus Rex, there is nowhere for Oedipus to go but down. The active, decisive part of his life has already happened and is recounted in the play through flashbacks; now, however, there is nothing Oedipus can do about his own fate. He has already killed his father and had four children with his mother, and there is absolutely no way to change that. For that reason, there is a dreadful sense of the unavoidability of fate. Oedipus' parents tried to get away from it but obviously failed miserably; so did Oedipus. their efforts at tricking fate only succeeded in creating the very circumstances they were trying to avoid. There is really no free will or choice, because in a way, their choices are fated to lead them, in the end, to exactly what they think they are avoiding. The line uttered by Creon, "You can not judge unless you know the facts" (28) is telling. No one can judge correctly unless he has all the information; however, no one in this play has enough information to make a correct choice when it matters. Laius does not know that his son survived, so he thinks he is safe from his fate; in fact, by sending his son away, he deprives Oedipus of true knowledge of who his parents are and thus of the ability to make an effective decision himself about his fate. Without sufficient information, informed judgment is impossible, and this contributes to the feeling of inevitability in Oedipus Rex.

In King Lear, however, such an intense feeling of crushing doom is absent. Lear and Gloucester both make hasty, false judgments about their children's relative virtue; however, their misjudgments stem from character rather than from such external circumstances as lack of information. Gloucester wrongs Edgar by believing Edmund's elaborate pretenses. While Edmund is undoubtedly good at acting and has planned everything well, his execution is far from spotless. gloucester is given several clues and opportunities to see through the farce. For example, at the beginning of the second act, when Edmund stages the mock fight with Edgar, he wounds himself for verisimilitude. Gloucester comes in, and Edmund over-emphasizes the fact that he has fought with his brother; when his father asks, "But where is he?" Edmund replies, instead of responding, "Look, sir, I bleed" (2.1.43-4). This sounds rather artificial; he does not answer a direct question but instead calls attention to the fact that he is bleeding, as if to make absolutely sure that everyone notices this physical proof of his truthfulness. Gloucester knows both his sons well; he has no reason to believe Edgar guilty, other than Edmund's testimony. If he were thinking correctly, he would know this; however, because of his preference for his bastard son over the legitimate, and because of his rather jolly, simple, good-hearted nature, it does not even occur to him to second-guess Edmund. He does not want to believe evil of either of his sons; however, he is easily convinced. His character causes his lack of judgment, not unavailability of information.

Likewise, Lear esteems Goneril and Regan's professions of devotion over Cordelia's blunter statement of duty, even though the latter is as sincere as the former are obsequiously false. Lear has no excuse from ladck of information; he can be reasonably expected to know his daughters' characters and to be able to judge them accurately. However, he almost deliberately wrongs Cordelia, in spite of his affection for her, because his personality is one which appreciates the ostentations and splendid more than the straightforward and simple. The error stems from him, rather than from the situation. Moreover, both Lear and Gloucester have the opportunity, before the end of the tragedy, to redeem themselves by recognizing their mistaken judgments and revoking them. Gloucester realizes that Edgar has been wronged and obtains forgiveness; so does Lear, from Cordelia. In King Lear, even though harm was done, it is not totally irrevocable, whereas in Oedipus Rex, no redemption or remedy is at all possible.

Another major difference between the two tragedies is that there are no obvious villains in Oedipus Rex. In King Lear, Goneril, Regan, Cornwall, and Edmund are easily identified as sources of evil in the play. These characters tell lies, plot against justice, and cause the downfall of the protagonists. It is a very simple matter to blame much of the unpleasantness that happens on them. However, in Oedipus Rex, there are no bad characters. Laius, Iocaste, and Oedipus unwittintly cause their own fate, with understandable justification. Lais obviously wanted to preserve his own life, and Oedipus, loving the couple he believed were his parents, wanted to avoid harming them. These are comprehensible reasons for their actions. If anyone can be blamed for what happens, it is the gods, but they hardly quality, because they are not characters in the play but ideas, and it is not emotionally or intellectually satisfying to blame them. In fact, this is the major question posed in the play. Who is to blame for what happened? Did the characters bring it on themselves by the hubris of thinking they can avoid a fate decreed by the gods? Did the gods cause it? These questions are impossible to answer simply and satisfactorily, perhaps because any one of us, in the same situation, would do the same thing. Who would not try to avoid such a fate? The blame cannot be pinned down simply, so the questions hang indecisively and revolve around like a mobile, twirling endlessly but never going anywhere. On the other hand, King Lear, with its clearly guilty group of villains, is much more decisive and satisfactory. It poses nearly the same questions as Sophocles' play, but they are less obvious and pressing. The intense plot of King Lear distracts from these metaphysical potholes, while Oedipus Rex, in which all the actuion has already occurred, is concentrated fully on them. King Lear comes to a much more acceptable resolution.

At the end of Oedipus Rex, I felt nothing but relief that the worst was finally over. King Lear also made me sigh heavily with relief, but it was more cathartic than the other. There is less agony in the experience of the play, and the ending is more resolved. While Sophocles leaves the audience with a burden of unresolved issues, Shakespeare, though not resolving them, makes them less cumbersome. In this way, King Lear, though no less a tragedy than Oedipus Rex, seems less ponderous and sad.

Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Ed. Russell Fraser. Newly revised ed. New York: Penguin Group, 1998.

Sophocles. "Oedipus Rex." Trans. Dudley Fitts and Robert Fitzgerald. The Oedipus Cycle. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1939.

This page created and maintained by Laurabelle (send WebMail).
Best viewed with Internet Explorer or Netscape 6.