Sophocles’
Oedipus
the King and Shakespeare’s
Hamlet both end in tragedy.
Were these tragedies avoidable?
If Hamlet and Oedipus would have taken
control of their own destinies they could have gone on to live full and
productive lives.
Oedipus and Hamlet
each let an outside influence control their fate.
Hamlet let the ghost of his father (or
something that seemed to be his father’s ghost) control his actions. Oedipus
let the gods, the oracles, and their prophecies control his life.
The outside bodies that influenced both
protagonists had their own agendas, agendas which did not include the welfare
of either Oedipus or Hamlet.
Each
protagonist made the mistake of giving up control of his own fate.
Oedipus’
journey began with his mother being manipulated by the gods. She was convinced by a prophecy to have her
own son put to death. She listened to
and believed the prophecy without stopping to question the reason it was
revealed to her in the first place.
Later, her son made the same mistake.
When he first heard the prophecy, he immediately moved to act against
it. This is one of the first signs of
his dangerous reactive nature. He
distrusted the prophecy enough to try to overcome it, but believed it enough
that he thought he had to try to avoid it.
Oedipus speaks of his response to the prophecy:
He said that I would be my mother’s
lover,
show offspring to mankind they could
not look at,
and be his murderer whose seed I am.
When I heard this, and ever since, I
gauged
the way to Corinth by the stars
alone,
running to a place where I would never see
the disgrace in the oracle’s words
come true. (795-801)
If the gods are truly the ones in control of the prophecies,
then they have their own agenda. Who
knows what it is they were trying to accomplish, but it is clear that they don’t
have Oedipus’ best interest in mind.
Oedipus could have ignored the prophecy and decided to simply live his
life rightly and justly no matter what.
If the prophecy did come true, he would know it was not because of any
evil in his own heart, and he would have a clear conscience. Instead he reacted in fear and gave up the
power he had over his over his own fate.
Oedipus also never took the time to evaluate the source of the prophecy
or if he should trust it; he simply gave into that source never knowing what its
true motives were. If Oedipus had
determined not to let anyone but himself guide his future, perhaps he would
have had a more promising one. Had
Oedipus ignored the prophecy (and stayed at home) he may have in effect also
saved the lives of his biological parents.
If Oedipus had trusted in himself or even in those that loved him,
perhaps he would have resolved never to listen to any prophecy, and much
trouble would have been saved.
Like Oedipus, Hamlet also let
negative influences control his life. Even
before his father’s death Hamlet, is suspected to be one who was not in control
of his own fate. In his warning to
Ophelia, Laertes notes this, “Perhaps he loves you now, And now no soil nor
cautel doth besmirch The virtue of his will: but you must fear, His greatness
weighed, his will is not his own” (1.3.14-17).
Because Hamlet is a prince, “his will is not his own” (1.3.14-17). Should Hamlet have become king, his actions
would have been determined by what was good for the kingdom, not what was best
for himself only. However, like all of
us, Hamlet had the choice to make his will his own. Unfortunately, he never made that
choice. When Hamlet was faced by the
ghost of his father, he freely gave his will and his fate over to it. It is clear to us that the ghost was only interested
in his own agenda, revenge. He warned Hamlet
not to lose his mind, but even that was aimed only at keeping him fit to
accomplish the murder of his brother (1.5.85-86). Hamlet, at least at first, did not consider that. He simply reacted and went on his way to
accomplish another’s agenda. As the play
progresses, we see hints that Hamlet is wondering if he should give up his life
for the sake of the ghost’s agenda. He
is at least a little less impetuous than Oedipus in this regard. In his famous soliloquy Hamlet wonders:
To be, or not to be,
that is the question,
Whether ‘tis nobler
in the mind to suffer
The slings and
arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms
against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end
them: to die to sleep. (3.1.57-61)
If Hamlet chose not to pursue the ordered revenge, (and his
own death) he might have had to suffer while being ruled by Claudius. If he had simply confronted the man and stood
up as the rightful king, he would have to bear burden of the crown, but at least
he would still be alive. If he did that
and took his fate back he might have to face his demons, or confront the ghost
of his father. Hamlet not only allows
his father’s ghost to control him, but he also allows his own emotions to
control his behavior. Ophelia’s life may
have been spared if he hadn’t given himself to emotional bouts of anger. In his grief he struck out verbally at
Ophelia and physically at her father.
Had Hamlet simply taken control of himself, a better life might have
been had by both him and those that he loved.
Had Hamlet been less emotional, he might not have ignored the good
advice that his best friend Horatio gave him.
When the ghost first summoned Hamlet, Horatio spoke up with wisdom: “What if it tempt you toward the flood my
lord, Or … deprive your sovereignty of reason” (1.4.70-74). In the end Horatio was right; Hamlet’s reason
was not the thing that guided him.
Both Oedipus
and Hamlet allowed outside influences to control their lives. They both had character flaws which allowed them
to be influenced easily. Hamlet had an
emotional nature, and Oedipus had a reactive nature. Had either of them resolved to get control of
himself and his own fate, their stories might have turned out very
differently. None of us should allow
others to send us down a destructive path.
Only we can take responsibility for our own lives.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmark” Literature: An Introduction
to
Reading and Writing. Ed. Edgar V. Roberts and Robert Zweig. 5th
Compact ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2012. 1010-1107. Print.
Sophocles. “Oedipus the King” Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. Ed. Edgar
V. Roberts and Robert Zweig. 5th
Compact ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2012. 968-1004. Print.
