Analysis Of King's On Misunderstanding Oedipus The King

Although this argument can be supported using evidence from the text, Dodds, in his essay On Misunderstanding Oedipus Rex refutes this idea: that of Oedipus having a hamartia that seals his fate. He argues that, even if Oedipus does have several flaws that are detrimental to his otherwise noble character, none of them are relevant. He says, “Years before the action of the play begins, Oedipus was already an incestuous parricide; I that was a punishment for his unkind treatment of Creon, then the punishment preceded the crime—which is surely an odd kind of justice” (220). This observation stems from the idea of a hamartia sealing the tragic hero’s fate. Dodds is right in suggesting that, even before Oedipus’s “blindness” or lack of self-knowledge becomes relevant to the story, he already committed the crimes in question; therefore, his fate was sealed long before. It may be argued that this theory is not all correct, alluding Versényi’s earlier assertion that knowledge is the

Fate, he argues, is what brings about the play’s events, but as a “free-agent” (246) Oedipus from there on is in control of his actions. This assertion is in agreement to Dodds’ opinion on the matter. He claims, “Homeric heroes have their predetermined ‘portion of life’, they must die on their ‘appointed day’ but it never occurs to the poet or his audience that this prevents them from being free agents” (223). Dodds attempts, successfully, to refute the idea that Oedipus was merely a puppet at the mercy of the Gods. According to his essay, modern readers either “believe in free will or else [they] are determinists” (223) with no median. He brings Homeric thought into his essay to assert that this reasoning is incorrect. Even if one’s destiny is predetermined, there are a variety of ways in which one’s decisions play a major role in how one reaches his