Oedipus Rex as an Aristotalian tragedy

Greek tragedy was a form of theatre in ancient Greece which the ancient philosopher
Aristotle defined as “an imitation of an action of high importance, complete and of some
amplitude; in language enhanced by distinct and varying beauties; acted not narrated; by
means of pity and fear effecting its purgation of these emotions.”[1] In addition to this
description, Aristotle’s concept of a tragic hero notes that the protagonist of a tragedy
should proceed from a royal family and contain a flawed characteristic that ultimately
results in his or her fall from both power and happiness. In Oedipus the King by Sophocles,
the protagonist, Oedipus, exemplifies the heroic concept outlined in Aristotelian tragedy in
both his royal heritage and his hamartia.

The foremost Aristotelian requirement of a drama to be considered a tragedy is that the

protagonist must be of a high estate; that is, possessing nobility.[2] In exemplifying this
attribute, Oedipus is the noble king of Thebes, establishing his power and respect from
those whom he rules. The reason why the protagonist of a theatric tragedy must be a
nobleman who possesses both power and happiness is because for a drama to elicit pity and
fear, “the protagonist must fall from power and happiness; his high estate gives him a place
of dignity to fall from and perhaps makes his fall seem all the more a calamity in that it
involves an entire nation of people.”[3] The suffering and hamartia committed by a man
who possesses authority and respect over others is more effective than if these were to be
possessed by a commoner. This is because if a powerful man suffers, then those under his
power necessarily suffer as well; therefore, as Oedipus is the king of a people, when he falls
due to the confidence of his ability to control his fate, he suffers a tragic fall, and the people
of Thebe are accordingly affected. This provokes a stronger emotional response from the
audience by attributing widespread chaos to individual hamartia. This is because while a
tragic hero must be great as an individual, he or she must be more than an individual and
should be an artistic expression of a universal principle, appealing to the entire audience as
an understandable personage.[4]

The second requirement of a protagonist in an Aristotelian tragedy is that the protagonist

must possess a fatal flaw in his or her character. In the seventh and eighth lines of Oedipus
the King, Oedipus is depicted as either arrogant or prideful when he says, “I… Oedipus,
whose name is the greatest known and greatest feared…” Because of his pride, his
successor Creon attributes Oedipus’ fall to the fact that the latter “[sought] to be master in
everything.” In due course, it is Oedipus’ pride in his sovereignty over destiny that leads to
his downfall. One critic notes:

[I]n spite of much natural greatness of soul, [Oedipus] is, in one vital respect, the exact
antithesis of Aristotle’s ideal man. He has no clear vision which enables him to examine
every side of a matter with unclouded eyes, and to see all things in due perspective; nor has
he a calm wisdom which is always master of his passions. Oedipus can see but one side of a
matter-too often he sees that wrongly-and it is his fashion immediately to act upon such
half-knowledge, at the dictates, not of his reason at all, but of the first feeling which
happens to come uppermost. His is no deliberate vice, no choice of a wrong purpose. His
purposes are good. His emotions, his thoughts, even his errors, have an ardent generosity
which stirs our deepest sympathy. But his nature is plainly imperfect, as Aristotle says the
nature of a tragic hero should be…[5]
Per this criticism, there are two major character flaws which dictate Oedipus’s nature as
being clearly imperfect, consequently contributing to the fulfillment of heroism in
Aristotelian tragedy: 1) his lack of “clear vision” and 2) the notable absence of “calm
wisdom” in his disposition. Oedipus has no clear vision in the sense that he is short-sighted
in his approach to things. Instead of contemplating on the matter presented to him to
acquire a sense of objectivity or seeking clairvoyance from anyone wiser than he, Oedipus
acts on mere half-knowledge, a prime example of his hamartia. He lacks both a calm
disposition and wisdom. One analyst notes that “[t]he important initial decisions… are all
traceable to Oedipus’ great qualities as a ruler, his sense of responsibility for his people, his
energy, and intelligence… In all this, there can be no question of hamartia in any sense of
the word except ‘mistake,’ and… every single action of Oedipus is equally a mistake.”[6] Had
Oedipus been wiser and less rash in his decision-making, the conclusion of the drama might
be drastically less tragic. Unfortunately, because of Oedipus’s lack of clear vision and calm
wisdom, he can be understood as the tragic hero outlined in Aristotelian tragedy. The
rationalization by Oedipus concerning his noble quest to prevent the oracle’s solemn
prophecy is his pride and lack of clear vision, which will later prove to be his tragic flaw that
leads him to his ruin. Oedipus’s nature is, as the critic has said, “plainly imperfect, as
Aristotle says the nature of a tragic hero should be.”[7]

The concept of tragedy – specifically, the classical tragic hero in Greek drama recognized by
Aristotle – has proved to be an extraordinarily influential literary function in the written arts.
The Aristotelian criteria for a protagonist to be considered a tragic hero is twofold: 1) he or
she must be of nobility and 2) possess some major character flaw that ultimately leads to his
or her fall from power and happiness. Sophocles’ Oedipus the King exemplifies these
Aristotelian characteristics in a slightly unorthodox manner in that the protagonist, Oedipus,
falls from his kingly position because of his noble characteristics of loyalty and
determination. This is an ironic twist, as by attempting to alter his prophesied fate, Oedipus
actively implements it.