The story of Oedipus Tyrannus, otherwise known as Oedipus the King or Oedipus Rex, is an Athenian tragedy written by Sophocles; it tells the story of Oedipus, the king of Thebes who is plagued by a self-fulfilled prophecy in which he kills his father Laius and marries his own mother, Jocasta. Not only is it widely recognized as Sophocles’ greatest work, the story of Oedipus has lent its name to what is recognized in the psychological realm today as the Oedipus complex, in which a young child feels “complex emotions” relative to that of unconscious sexual desire toward the parent of the opposite sex.
Oedipus as a leader, separate from his web of extremely strange familial encounters, is a point of contention. Oedipus’ role as the King of Thebes and as a leader is debatable as the story unfolds; as he comes to grips with the end result of seeking vengeance and of his own selfishness, he contorts the definition of what it means to be a ruler of Athens. Leadership in Athens, particularly the democratic system of government, began in 507 B. C. by leader Cliesthenes, with a set of rules titled demokratia, meaning “rule by the people.
Like the judicial system of the United States, Athenian democracy had three branches: the ekklesia, the boule, and the dikasteria, each of which wrote laws, served as a council of representatives and served as the popular courts in which citizens argued cases, much like a court trial of today. As the cradle of democracy in Western civilization, Ancient Athens influences today’s actions and policy in the areas of the government, sciences, the arts and philosophy. The story of Oedipus is laden with misfortune, curse and unintentional and unwanted sexual deviancy.
The story pans out as Oedipus searches for Laius’ killer, who had never been caught, even after Tiresias’ prophecy that he is the murderer. Oedipus, of course, as King of Thebes, holds a great deal and the highest level of authority in the city. Because of this and how he exhibits many excellent qualities as he does throughout the play, he is a trusted authority figure appreciated by his people— “you are held with God’s assistance to have saved our lives;” he is a man of great morals, vowing to find the murderer (even though it’s him) and end the plague affecting his people.
Next, although revered, Oedipus is a member of his community, put in the place of like-minded individuals whom he also rules. However, as anyone, Oedipus is mortal and flawed, best exhibited by his adamant refusal of Tiresias’ prophecy. As previously stated, his hubris is his fatal flaw. By the time that Sophocles penned Oedipus the King, Oedipus came to be King of Thebes after the murder of King Laius, leading the city with much prosperity.
Although ruling with an iron ego, Oedipus has the admirable qualities that a leader of any place would and should possess; he has a deep devotion to the Theban population, “whose fame all men acknowledge” (Sophocles, 8). At the outset of the play, Oedipus’ intentions were honorable; he was determined to Laius’ murderer and went to such lengths to end the plague on his people. His intentions were there and good. As a man of such noble status, he was dedicated to his people.
Despite his dedication and apparent likability, it is his immense pride that disallows him from seeing his true nature: a hot-tempered, proud and cocky individual who ends up, in a paradox, blind as he “sees” the truth that he murdered his own father and has married and procreated with his mother, however unaware of that fact he was. Even in seeing his own truth, no pun intended, Oedipus begs for exile as a way to escape his cursed family; he asks his brother-in-law Creon to protect his daughters/halfsisters Antigone and Ismene in a move of selflessness counteracting his normally proud behavior.
Oedipus as a leader was a man of quick action; a prime example is at the outset of the play where he seized the opportunity to avenge the death of Laius, before the interesting twist that came by way of the prophet Tiresias. He held great admiration for his predecessor (and birth father), who he described as a man as noble as King Laius was. Ironically speaking, Oedipus even avows to avenge his death on Laius’ behalf”as if this matter concerned my own father,” (309-310). He had even saved his people from the curse of the Sphinx, a monster that tyrannized Thebes by preventing exit or entry into the city.
Anyone who could not answer the riddle—”what walks on four legs in the morning, on two legs at noon, and three legs in the evening? —were killed and eaten by the Sphinx. Thanks to Oedipus, who answered correctly (a human being), the Sphinx had become extremely upset and committed suicide. Oedipus is a confident man, almost to the point of cockiness, but it is not unwarranted. However unwarranted it may be, it does not a great leader make, especially in the case of confidence turning into egoism as it does with him.
Even with Oedipus’ steadfastness in avenging Laius’ death, his encounter with Tiresias the prophet reveals the egotistical and borderline cockiness that he possesses. He can think of himself as even higher than the gods and can even be a bit melodramatic. In his meeting with Tiresias, who is reluctant to give him the prophecy that will inevitably destroy his life, he insinuates that Tiresias is denying love and prosperity to the city of Thebes that “nurtured,” also that he intends to betray Oedipus so that the city falls.
Here, he is impatient and irritated when things do not go his way, even going as far as accusing Tiresias of being involved in or perpetrating the crime of murdering Laius. The prophet, however, is unbothered as he tries to protect Oedipus from learning of his own unfortunate fate, one that might be even worse than death. He insults Tiresias and his “insolence,” making fun of his blindness and wishing the plague on him. Retorting, Tiresias reveals that Oedipus has unknowingly turned himself against his family, he will be driven to exile and his eyes will go dark (500-506). Finally,
Tiresias reveals that the man who murdered Laius, without explicitly revealing Oedipus, is in a native Theban that is also the brother and father to the children in the house, as well as the husband and son of the woman with whom he created the children. Tiresias then challenges his own prophetic ability in telling Oedipus that if he is wrong, he can say he has no prophetic skill (560-561). By the end of the play, Oedipus has fallen, albeit unknowingly because of his own actions; he has murdered his father, whom he did not even know was his birth father, he has married and had children with his mother, Jocasta, who has now committed suicide.
Oedipus is now wrought with pain and takes the gold pins from his mother’s (also, wife’s) robes and stabs himself in the eye; the world is an unbearable sight after the truth about him has been revealed. Tiresias was right and Oedipus is fuming at his fate as every part of what Tiresias prophesized has come true. His pride has become his downfall and now he is at the mercy of the same gods with whom he tried to align himself. He accepts fate and fate’s ability to dictate his death; he says that “no disease nor any other suffering” can kill him and he only wishes to grieve.
He curses the unfortunate series of events that are his life. As it relates back to leadership qualities and styles, Oedipus has the makings of a great leader, but this series of events prevents him from doing so. The surprising twists and turns that define the rest of his life disfigure his potential legacy. He is undoubtedly a devoted and noble man for the city of Thebes as king. In constant pursuit of truth and justice, his allegiance to his city is unwavering, even after Tiresias’ prophetic reveal.
Even as he creates a story that the prophet and his own brother-in-law Creon are conspiring against him, his fury fuels his attempts to find the murderer. At the point in the story where he realizes that he may be the murder, he then looks to absolve himself of all responsibility. As brave, honest and as much of a warrior for the truth he is, his temper, inability to accept fault and defiant ignorance of his own past enable him to fall short of his own leadership potential.
