1006 sophocles
fortune; he slew the maiden with crooked
talons who sang darkly; he arose from our
land as a tower against death . . . now whose
story is more grievous in men’s ears? Who is
a more wretched captive to fierce plagues and
troubles . . . ?The community’s response to Oedipus’s tale, their
part in his actions, and the ultimate relationship of
all the play’s events to the needs of the society, struc-
ture a tragedy that is of public concern.
Still, the tragedy goes further than merely show-
ing the public effects of private actions in an ancient
community. The tragedy also mandates public par-
ticipation in those actions through a series of debates
and mediations. The Greek chorus, recognized as
“ideal spectactor[s],” provides an opportunity for
debate and reflection on moral questions that is a
useful tool for ancient democracy.
Thus, the Chorus delineates the struggle over
appropriate behavior in a variety of difficult situa-
tions. The members of the Chorus first express their
distress that the gods’ own seer would condemn
Oedipus while they simultaneously resist the notion
that Oedipus could be “adjudged guilty of any
crime.” They also try to quell the dispute between
Creon and Oedipus, two respected leaders, assur-
ing Creon that Oedipus accuses him due to “stress,
perhaps, of anger” and urge Oedipus to “never use an
unproved rumor to cast a dishonoring charge on the
friend who has bound himself with a curse.” Even as
the Herdsman approaches to deliver the final secret
and Oedipus is steeling himself as he prepares to
admit his guilt, the Chorus hopes that the prophecy
will prove untrue. For much of the play, the Chorus
acts as a mediator and respondent in an idealized
moral debate.
Once the mystery is solved, however, the Cho-
rus becomes the agent for articulating the broader
themes of the tragedy. As Oedipus laments his
“wretched . . . fate,” the Chorus calls him “dire
in men’s ears, dire in their sight.” In the final ode,
they call on all to look upon the great Oedipus,
whom no citizen could “not gaze with envy on his
fortunes,” and know that even a hero may fall into
“a stormy sea of dread trouble.” The final message
calls for pity and fear focused not on the specific
plight of Oedipus but on the terrors and sufferings
of life itself.
The tragedy of Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex is not
a simple moral lesson of avoiding excessive pride.
It is a complex tragedy that combines the spiritual
dilemmas of living in a world ruled by immortals
whose will is only partially and vaguely understood,
the community struggle for moral certainty and jus-
tice, and finding meaning in suffering. Sophocles’
Oedipus shows that the hero acts in the best inter-
ests of society without regard for his personal out-
come and takes responsibility for the consequences
of the hero’s actions without regard to intention. The
play may speak to the present from 25 centuries in
the past, and it may speak to a culture that promotes
individualism and takes intentions into account
when weighing guilt, but it speaks with a lesson
that is no less pertinent two and a half millennia
after its first production. A true hero understands
that the needs of the community far exceed his own.
Ben FislerHeroISm in Oedipus Rex
The most consistent argument in Aristotle’s Poet-
ics is that tragedy is action foremost, and the tragic
hero an agent of physical events. A common misap-
prehension of the character of Aristotle’s tragic hero
centers on the misreading of the word hamartia
as “tragic flaw.” In this ahistorical model, Oedipus
is brought down by a flaw, often thought to be an
excess of pride, or hubris. Hamartia is a difficult
word to translate, but linguistic research reveals little
doubt that it does not refer to an intrinsic character
flaw. The word was an ancient Greek archery term,
literally meaning “to miss the mark.” Hamartia
concerns the hero’s actions, not his character. More
important, the notion of a tragic flaw flatly contra-
dicts ancient concepts of justice, confusing intent
with result. To claim that Oedipus is characteristi-
cally flawed is to claim that he is brought down by
a deep, internal unfitness for rule. In this respect,
Oedipus errs by believing he is greater than the
gods, that he can transcend the destiny decreed by
Apollo’s own oracle. Hubris is his flaw; his actions
are the result of his excessive pride. To accept this
model, though, one must overlook, or explain away
as rhetorical or political convenience, the fact that