At least in the beginning of the play, Oedipus is seen as a capable leader who cares for and listens to his people. He is shown to respect the gods and have faith in prophecies since he is determined to consult both the Delphic Oracle and the prophet Tiresias to find out what to do to save the city. He is a fair leader, as shown by the fact he chooses to exile rather than kill Laius’s killer, but also banish anyone who tries to hide the truth. However, as the play progresses we can tell that Oedipus has a short temper, and this influences his decisions. His anger makes him falsely accuse Creon and fight with Tiresias, both of which do him no good. He has also lost faith in the accuracy of prophecies, which makes him disrespect the gods by trying to avoid his fate. He is quite a proud character, and this makes him become obsessed with finding out the truth behind his birth, which eventually leads to his downfall.
Oedipus has moments of both good and bad leadership. In the beginning of the play, Oedipus agrees to do everything he can in order to save his people from the plague. This is good leadership, since Oedipus is working to benefit his people. When his people ask him to consult the Oracle of Delphi, he says he has already done this. When they ask him to consult Tiresias, he says he has already asked to see him. (Oedipus: “Yes, yes, I know of him (Tiresias) and I have not neglected that action either. By Creon’s suggestion I’ve sent two men to fetch him.”) This could be considered good leadership, since he is doing what the people want. On the other hand, he did both of these things before consulting the people, and so didn’t know this was what they wanted. Therefore, this could be seen as bad leadership since he should have consulted the Theban people before taking action. However, if he did this it could have wasted time during which many more Thebans would have died. Acting quickly and decisively can be an important trait in a leader, and Oedipus is demonstrating that here.
When Creon returns after having received advice from the oracle at Delphi, he asks Oedipus whether they should discuss it privately inside or publically outside. Oedipus replies that they should speak in front of the people, because it is they who are affected most by the plague. (Oedipus: “Speak here, in front of them. I mourn for their lives more than I do for my own.”) This could be regarded as good leadership, since Oedipus is determined not to hide anything from his subjects. Transparency is generally regarded as good leadership. On the other hand, it is possible that what Creon had to say would have caused panic among the people, which would have had a detrimental impact on the city and made Oedipus less able to lead Thebes effectively. Therefore, it could also be argued that it would have been good leadership to hear what Creon wanted to say first before telling the people.
Oedipus shows bad leadership later on by allowing his anger to control his actions. He is quickly enraged by Tiresias and disrespects him because of this. (Oedipus: “Alright! I will leave nothing unsaid in my wrath. And I say to you then, old man, that in my mind I have you as one of those who has helped in Laius’ murder! Yes, old man! You have worked with them.”) Since the Theban people greatly respected Tiresias, this is bad leadership because Oedipus is not properly representing the people. Tiresias may also have been able to help Oedipus find Laius’s killer if Oedipus hadn’t become so angry, demonstrating again that this is bad leadership on Oedipus’s part.
Oedipus also gets angry at Creon, whom he accuses of paying Tiresias to say bad things about him. This causes him to try to sentence Creon to death. (Oedipus: (to Creon) “Send you away? Absolutely not! I want you dead! Dead here, before me rather than alive elsewhere.”) This is bad leadership because Oedipus is being unfair and using his authority to punish a man without evidence. It is also bad leadership because if Oedipus hadn’t been so fixated on Creon being at the root of Laius’s murder he may have realised the true killer sooner.
Finally, Oedipus gets angry at the shepherd who refuses to tell him who his parents are. He threatens to kill him if he doesn’t tell him. (Oedipus: “You will certainly die today if you don’t tell me the truth!”) This is bad leadership because Oedipus is using his power to unfairly intimidate a powerless man.
Oedipus also shows bad leadership by getting distracted from finding Laius’s killer. Oedipus instead becomes fixated on who his parents were. Finding out who his parents were does eventually allow Oedipus to find out who the murderer was, but Oedipus couldn't have known this would be the case. Therefore, Oedipus gets distracted from saving the people of Thebes from a deadly plague to satisfying his own ego and curiosity. This is clearly bad leadership. On the other hand, Oedipus shows good leadership when he continues to search for Laius’s killer even though it becomes increasingly clear that that he himself is the murderer. A lesser man may have stopped searching in order to protect themselves. Furthermore, when he finds out that he was indeed the killer he asks to be banished, therefore saving Thebes from the plague. Even when it leads to his own downfall, Oedipus is determined to save Thebes. These are both examples of good leadership, since Oedipus is trying his best to help his people even though this would be detrimental to his own well-being.
One of Oedipus’s main conflicts is with the blind prophet Tiresias. Oedipus wants Tiresias to tell him who the murderer of Laius is but Tiresias refuses. This is a religious conflict, since Tiresias is a religious figure and Oedipus questions his legitimacy as a prophet. (Oedipus: “Nor would I have called you here had I known you would be talking sheer, stupid nonsense!”) It may also be useful to question who is at fault during this conflict. Although Oedipus gets angry easily, Tiresias also gets mad very quickly. He provides no reason for refusing to tell Oedipus the truth, and as a wise old man it could be argued that he should have acted better.
Another of Oedipus’s major conflicts is with Creon. Oedipus believes Creon is conspiring against him to take power but Creon denies this, saying that he doesn’t want to be king anyway. (Oedipus: “You dare live in the chambers of my palace and you dare work plots against my throne, against my very life, and you do all this in the bright light of day, obvious to all who have eyes to see!”) This is a family conflict because it is between Oedipus and his brother-in-law (and uncle). It is also a hierarchical conflict, because it is between a king with a lot of power and a subject with less power. Oedipus accuses Creon of trying to take his power, which also emphasises that this is a hierarchical conflict.
Oedipus also has a small conflict with the Shepherd: Oedipus wants the Shepherd to tell him who his parents were, but the Shepherd knows the truth will bring nothing good and refuses to tell him. (Oedipus: “You will certainly die today if you don’t tell me the truth” Shepherd: “It’ll be even worse for me if I do tell the truth!”) This is a hierarchical conflict, since Oedipus has power as a King whereas the Shepherd has very little power. Oedipus uses his power to win the argument, by threatening to torture then kill the Shepherd.
Oedipus became a hero before the beginning of the play. He defeated the Sphinx and saved Thebes. It is fair to assume that the adoration Oedipus received from the Theban people because of his heroic actions led him to become quite proud. Because he saved Thebes, he was allowed to marry the previous queen, Jocasta, and become King. This would also be likely to lead to quite a lot of pride. However, these heroic actions of Oedipus only led to his downfall: if Oedipus hadn’t defeated the sphinx he never would have married his mother, Jocasta, or known that he had killed his father.
It can be argued that Oedipus’s pride, caused by his heroic actions, led to his downfall. If Oedipus hadn’t been so proud he might not have expected it to be so easy to escape his fate, and may have taken the more sensible approach not to marry anyone older than him (therefore making sure he didn’t marry his mother). Furthermore, he may not have acted so prideful and haughty with the respected prophet Tiresias, which also contributed to his eventual downfall.
Oedipus’s other major heroic act is that he finds Laius’s killer in order to end the deadly plague that had been killing the Theban people. This clearly led to Oedipus’s unhappiness, since if he hadn’t investigated he would have remained blissfully ignorant of the fact that he was his wife’s son and that he had killed his father, Laius. (Jocasta: “Poor, unfortunate man! I hope you never live to learn who you are.”) On the other hand, it could be argued that in this case his heroism didn’t lead to his unhappiness, since he was unable to be happy either way. If he hadn’t sought the truth, the plague would have continued to kill off his people, including possibly his close family. However, his heroism did certainly secure the happiness of the people of Thebes, since they were no longer tormented by the plague. Therefore, it could be argued that Oedipus’s heroism only switched one unhappiness for another, but also ensured the happiness of the people of Thebes.
Oedipus Rex also has much to say about the issue of fate vs. free will. Oedipus’s view on this in the beginning of the play is clear: his fate is horrific, so he has no choice but to believe that he can beat his fate using his own free will. This is why he leaves his home city, Corinth, travels to Thebes and marries Jocasta. (Oedipus: “At that I let the stars guide my path and left Corinth behind me. I walked away from there so that I wouldn’t give the slightest chance for these awful prophesies to be realised.”) By the middle of the play, Oedipus is convinced that his free will has triumphed over fate: his “father” back in Corinth, Polybus, has died a seemingly natural death, certainly a death that had nothing to do with Oedipus. Therefore, Oedipus believes that in the battle of fate vs. free will, free will is supreme. (Oedipus: “What do you think now, wife? How can one give credence to Delphi’s oracle, or to the birds that sing above us when all these have prophesied that I would be my father’s murderer? There he is now, beneath the earth and here I am, no sword in my hand!”) However, by the end of the play Oedipus becomes aware that this was just a false impression, and that Oedipus had fulfilled his fate all along. This seems to suggest that free will is just an illusion, and that in the end characters in Greek plays will ultimately fulfil their fate. The gods only use an illusion of free will to ensure that all mortals act out their destiny.
However, other elements of Oedipus’s story seem to suggest that there is a certain element of free will available for Ancient Greek characters. A number of the prophecies in the play seem to include a choice: If Laius has a son, the son will kill him. If the murderer of Laius is exiled or killed, the plague will be lifted. Therefore, it seems possible that a person’s fate can be decided by a key choice a person makes out of their own free will. In other words, a person chooses their destiny. For example, if Laius hadn’t had a child with Jocasta he wouldn’t have been murdered. On the other hand, it seems there are only certain moments when a person can choose their own fate, and at other times their fate is unavoidable. For example, Oedipus was told that he would marry his mother and kill his father, and there was nothing he could do to stop this. Nevertheless, this suggests that at certain points in a person’s life they are able to choose how their life will unfold.
It is interesting to note that the only reason why Oedipus is able to fulfil his fate is because he believes in free will. He leaves Corinth and travels to Thebes, killing Laius on the way, because he believes that by doing this there is no way to kill his father and marry his mother, who he believes are still in Corinth. If Oedipus hadn’t believed in free will and submitted to his fate, he would have stayed in Corinth and wouldn’t have been able to kill his father or marry his mother. This is the same with Laius and Jocasta: if they hadn’t believed that they could escape their fate by abandoning Oedipus, he would have been brought up knowing who his real parents were and he never would have fulfilled the prophecy. This seems to suggest that a person’s fate can only be fulfilled if they believe in free will: rather confusingly, if they believe fate has complete control over their actions, their fate can’t be fulfilled.
Oedipus makes a distinction between his actions at the end of the play. While he believes that Apollo, god of prophecies, made him kill his father and marry his mother, it was his own hands that blinded him. (Oedipus: “Apollo did this my friends! Apollo! He is the one who is sending me these foul pains. As for my eyes, no one else has struck them. No one else but me.”) While it was his fate that led to his downfall, his actions after his downfall were solely his own, made through his own free will. This suggests that there is a limited place for free will in Classical literature: some events in life are controlled by fate (such as Oedipus marrying his mother and killing his father), but those that aren’t can be affected by a person’s free will. On the other hand, this could also just be seen as Oedipus refusing to learn his lesson and believing in free will despite being incorrect, particularly since the fact that Tiresias previously prophesied Oedipus’s blindness suggests that him gouging out his own eyes was part of his fate. Rather than the presence of free will, this may just show that it is in human nature to believe in the illusion of free will, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Jocasta is largely depicted as a dutiful wife, as she supports and reassures Oedipus throughout the play. However, she is able to go against her husband when she believes he is not taking the correct course of action: she stopped Oedipus from fighting with Creon, and pleaded with him not to find out his true identity. Jocasta can be described as having a certain amount of arrogance, since she believes it is possible to escape fate. She also frequently disrespects prophecies and prophets, believing that only gods have the power to tell the future. However, she is eventually punished for this arrogance and disrespect.
Jocasta tends to obey her traditional role as a woman, since she is generally seen supporting her husband. (Jocasta: “I shall do whatever pleases you, Oedipus.”) However, she also disobeys Oedipus at certain points in the play: when Oedipus is about to sentence Creon to death and when he is determined to find out who his parents are. (Jocasta: “Oedipus, I beg you, stop!”) Therefore, this implies that at times Jocasta is defying her traditional role as a woman because she isn’t submitting to the will of her husband. Even so, in these cases her disobedience is generally only caused because she believes this is in Oedipus's best interests. (Jocasta: “Oedipus, no! It is for your own good I am giving you this advice!”) Therefore, she is still very much acting as a dutiful wife and so she is submitting to her traditional role as a woman. Furthermore, it could be argued that Jocasta subconsciously falls into the role of a mother when interacting with Oedipus. In Ancient Greece, it was perfectly reasonable for mothers to give their children advice. Therefore, this again implies that Jocasta is complying with her traditional role as a woman – this just happens to be the role of a mother, rather than that of a wife.
Jocasta doesn’t have conflict with many of the characters in the play. Her major conflict is with Oedipus, when he wants to find out who his birth parents are but she doesn’t because she has already realised that she is his mother. (Jocasta: “For God’s sake, Oedipus! If you love your life, search no further!”) Oedipus thinks she is ashamed that he might be the son of a commoner or even a slave, and she doesn’t want him to confirm his low birth. He criticises her for her pride. (Oedipus: “Perhaps Jocasta’s pride is touched by shame because of my lowly birth.”) This is family conflict, since it occurs between husband and wife (and mother and son). This could also be regarded as a gender conflict since Oedipus is accusing her of failing to fulfil her role as a woman because she is being too proud.
Jocasta’s other conflict is with prophets. She believes that prophets tend to be liars, since gods are the only ones who can truly predict the future. (Jocasta: “No mortal knows the will of the gods… If the god wants something done he will tell us himself.”) However, it should be noted that Jocasta isn’t directly questioning the existence or power of the gods themselves, but believes that it is impossible for any mortal to know what the gods are thinking. It is prophets, and only prophets, that she is attacking. However, by attacking prophets she is indirectly attacking the gods, since as it turns out the prophets are accurately portraying the will of the gods. This is clearly a religious conflict, since it involves a difference of opinion about the validity of prophets, who were important religious figures in Ancient Greece.
In the beginning of the play Jocasta, like Oedipus, believes she has the power to escape her fate through her own free will. This is because she abandoned her own son so that he would die and wouldn’t end up marrying her. This seems to have been successful, since Laius was murdered by a stranger rather than his own son. (Jocasta: “And so, neither the child was allowed by Apollo to kill his father, nor did Laius suffer murder by his own son’s hand. That was god’s real intention, not what some seer said would happen.”) However, her attempts to escape her fate only allowed her to fulfil it, since if Oedipus had been raised as Jocasta’s son it is unlikely he would have chosen to marry her, knowing she was his mother. Therefore, this implies that Jocasta never had any free will, since what she thought of as her own choices only led to the fulfilment of her fate. It was Jocasta’s pride, her hubris, that made her think she could escape the all-powerful Fate. By trying to defy her fate, Jocasta was also trying to defy the gods, and this always has to be punished. Rather confusingly, Jocasta’s fate (that of marrying her son) is her punishment for trying to escape that very same fate.
