In the stories of “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles and “Hamlet” by William Shakesphere, presents two stories of tragedy about fate and free will. A tragedy in which Oedipus kills his parents by fate and a tragedy of Hamlet seeking justice for his father's death. Both stories have similarities and differences of tragedy. Tragedy is “a dramatic composition, often in verse, dealing with a serious or somber theme, typically involving a great person destined to experience downfall or utter destruction, as through a character flaw or conflict with some overpowering force, as fate or an unyielding society.”(dictionary.com) The better tragedy between the two was the story of Oedipus the King because he did not intend to do what he did but in the end it was his fate that brought his to his downfall. …show more content…
It's important because it shows what the differences of a tragedy where Hamlet accepts his fate by seeking justice for his father's death rather than Oedipus avoiding his fate told by Apollo's Oracle of killing his father and marrying his mother, but still ends up happening. But both stories had similarities of tragedy, such as the kings in the stories were both killed whether it was from the hands of Oedipus or Claudius from the story of Hamlet and about how the queens of the stories becomes remarried by Oedipus which the queen was his own mother and Claudius taking over the throne of the story in Hamlet and marrying the queen. Stories such as Aristotle's Poetics, Frederick Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy, and Nathaniel Hawthorn's Young Goodman Brown all relates to the tragedies of both
I believe that Oedipus the King was more intensely tragic and I think that if I
In Sophocles ' Oedipus the King, the themes of fate and free will are very strong throughout the play. Only one, however, brought about Oedipus ' downfall and death. Both points could be argued to great effect. In ancient Greece, fate was considered to be a rudimentary part of daily life. Every aspect of life depended and was based upon fate (Nagle 100). It is common belief to assume that mankind does indeed have free will and each individual can decide the outcome of his or her life. Fate and free will both decide the fate of Oedipus the King.
Oedipus fits Aristotle's definition of the tragic flaw and protagonist almost flawlessly. Aristotle described the protagonist as "someone regarded as extraordinary rather than typical..."(1117). Oedipus freed Thebes from the Sphinx by solving her riddle-- something nobody else had been able to do. The priest in the first scene of Act I calls Oedipus "...our greatest power" (1121) and describes him as rated first among men.
The Greek tragedy Oedipus the King, by Sophocles, was written to show the common people of Greece how powerful the gods are and that your fate is pre-determined and nothing you do can change that. He does this by showing how people in this story try to escape their fate and how it is no use because in the end, what the oracles predict comes true. In the story there are many occasions in which people try to escape their fate.
At the heart of every great tragedy lies the universal struggle between the human inclination to accept fate absolutely and the natural desire to control destiny (Stockton). Like most of his plays, in Shakespeare’s masterpiece Hamlet one of the prevailing themes centers on the question, “Does fate and providence overrule man’s own choices and decisions?” Throughout the work, the main character Hamlet views Fortune in various differing lights as he plots and plans his revenge. This complex interpretation of Fate’s influence is also shared with Horatio, Hamlet’s most treasured friend. Their assessments seem to waver in different situations, or as they experience something in particular. Fate and Fortune, and Providence in all her ambiguity are all sometimes seemingly bound to the actions of man and other times they are inescapable.
"To be, or not to be: that is the question" (Shakespeare 1750). "Human beings have no part in the craft of prophecy" (Sophocles 1582). Both quotes are part of famous plays. Although the plays appear to be completely different they do have some similarities such as containing a tragic hero. A tragic hero is a character that makes a mistake and eventually leads to their defeat. A tragic hero usually contains at least 5 characteristics such as a flaw (hamartia), reversal of fortune (peripetia), character 's actions leads to a reversal, excessive pride, and the character 's fate is greater than what they truly deserved. Hamlet and Oedipus are both great examples of what a tragic hero is because they both contain flaws, reversal of fortune, and
Oedipus from the drama, “Oedipus the King” and Hamlet from, “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” are two characters that are different, yet they both share the same title of being a tragic hero. Oedipus and Hamlet have many characteristics of a tragic hero that separates them in varieties. However, some of those characteristics show that both characters have and use similar thought processes and methods, which classify them as tragic heroes of their dramas. The five characteristics of a tragic hero are: nobility, tragic flaw, peripeteia, anagnorisis, and lastly irony. Both Oedipus and Hamlet hold or have a nobility position in their drama’s plot. Oedipus is the son of the king, and fate has foretold that he will kill his father and take over the kingdom. Hence, Oedipus was fated into his nobility, so he is required always remain in a status above all others. Hamlet is also the son of the former king that is now dead. Hamlet was born into this nobility, and this makes him the prince. Both characters are royalty, yet their morals and values are what make their nobilities the same. Their actions create heavy and dramatic outcomes, which lead to many more complications. Both men try to resolve their problems different, so their fortunes become reversed. Oedipus and Hamlet are very different, yet almost have the same fates. Out of all the five characterizes, three of them describe and separate both men best as tragic heroes. The tragic flaws, which is defined as hamartia, both men have are the main reason they are heroes of tragedy, their recognitions of their situations, which is an anagnorisis, are at different points in their stories, and lastly both men meet an ending that is meant to be an irony of their fate.
Oedipus the King by Sophocles is the story of a man who was destined to kill his father and marry his mother. The story continues in the tradition of classic Greek plays, which were based upon the Greeks’ beliefs at the time. The ancient Greeks believed that their gods decided what would ultimately happen to each and every person. Since those gods destined Oedipus to kill his father and marry his mother, Oedipus’ life was definitely fated. However, the gods only decided where Oedipus’ life would eventually lead; they never planned the route he would take to get there. All the decisions that Oedipus made in order to fulfill his destiny, and the decisions he made after the fact, were of his own free will, and were largely shaped by his mien.
One of the main themes in Oedipus the King written by Sophocles is the debate between free will and fate. There are many free choices that were made in the play, such as the decision for Oedipus to pursue the knowledge of his own identity. However, fate is responsible for many of the other critical events that took place in the play, such as Oedipus’s incest. Fate is made to seem very important in this play because it is written to seem that the characters cannot be held fully responsible for their actions due to fate.
Choices made by Hamlet, which ultimately lead to his death, are all guided by his own free will. In mourning his father's death, Hamlet chooses to do so for what others consider to be an excessive amount of time. “But to persever/ In obstinate condolement is a course/ Of impious stubbornness”(I.ii.99-100), according to Claudius. During this period of mourning, Hamlet meets his father’s spirit and promises to avenge his father’s death. However, upon reflection, he questions the validity of the ghost’s message. At this point he carefully goes about choosing a plan of action that will inevitably show that “the king is to blame” (V.ii.340) In following his plan, Hamlet freely chooses to kill Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Ophelia, Laertes, Claudius and himself.
In today's society we let our lives be led by a certain force that we believe in very strongly. Yet, a common debate that still rages today is whether we, as a species, have free will or if some divine source, some call it fate, controls our destiny. In the play, Oedipus the King, that special force is also used and is known and defined as fate. This played an important role in the lives of the characters just as it plays one in our daily lives.
As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “There is no such thing as an accident; it is fate misnamed”. Sophocles’ Greek tragedy, Oedipus Rex, demonstrates this concept through the downfall of King Oedipus. The choices he makes throughout the play seem to lead to his ultimate demise. However, as stated by Bonaparte, it is no accident that these events occurred, which in turn means his downfall is not his fault. Oedipus does not have a tragic flaw; rather, his downfall is a combination of others’ choices, others’ disregard for the gods, and overall fate.
By definition a tragedy satisfies the moral sense, it brings forth pity or fear and it tells a story of misfortune by reversal of situation, all of which are fulfilled by Sophocles' Oedipus the King. This being said, I will argue that this play is actually a tragedy of fate: "its tragic effect depends on the conflict between the all-powerful will of the gods and the vain efforts of human beings threatened with disaster." In tracing the events throughout Sophocles' play it becomes evident that the will of the gods wins out, causing the collapse of Oedipus, his land and the people of Thebes. Being a leader of high stature and having won acclaim as the savior of Thebes, Oedipus was well regarded by the Thebian people; however with all of his worldly accomplishments and high standing, he could not overcome the destiny prescribed to him by Apollo, at Delphi. In order to call Oedipus the King a "tragedy of fate" we have the burden of proving that the tragedy does not develop from acts of free will, but rather are unavoidable events of chance. We must show that Oedipus' journey to the oracle indeed sealed his fate and though try as he may the will of the gods is all to powerful for any human to overcome. This I will argue is the very essence of the tragedy, the fact that no matter how great of a man Oedipus has become and no matter his earthly "power" he, or no other human could vary the life in which he is destined to live. This predestination or this curse, if you will, that Oedipus would "lie with (his) mother and beget children men's eyes would not bear the sight of -- and to be the killer of the father that gave (him) life" (Sophocles pg 56) gives meaning to the play and allows irony to unfold into a tragic tale of misfortune and the ultimate reversal of situation. After Apollo foretold a "dreadful, calamitous future" for Oedipus he ran away, far from his supposed parents who lived in Corinth, in an attempt to dodge the horrible fate he was to face. This was done in vain. Ironically, he was not running away from his destiny, but rather running towards his demise. His journey carried him to Thebes the city he would save from ruins, the city that would cherish him, and the people he would live to protect.
Both are tragedies that occur within the family and not on the battlefield. Both stories contain mothers with pivotal roles. Their actions seal the fate of both kings. Contrasts-- Oedipus' story , however, is governed by prophecy. A fate in which he is unable to change and unable to see to change.
Consequently, this idea of human free will and self determination is another tenet shared by seemingly all Existentialists. Upon concluding that the world has no natural purpose or meaning, that humans have no destiny, and no fate, the Existentialist makes their next discovery, free will. Or in some cases, like Nietzsche’s, it happens in reverse; the realization of free will exposes life’s meaninglessness. If one were to once again look to the story of the young prince of Denmark, Hamlet, they would see this shown when the his father’s ghost tasks Hamlet with the avenging of his death. Hamlet struggles with this, feeling it is his destiny to avenge his father and therefore condemn himself by murdering the new king, but as seen earlier, he has