Oedipus

         Oedipus Rex and Hamlet are two chronologically disparate works which were influenced by the combination of culture and affectations of their prospective patrons. This being said, there is a marked similarity between the protagonist of each play, similarities which can trace their roots back to the origin of written theater. Although Hamlet deviates from the three act standard of Greek theater, the hero’s journey is coyly like Oedipus’. What actions Oedipus necessitates by virtue of his hubris Hamlet fails to disparage because of his inaction. Both plays derive much of their theme from a character’s tragic flaw. This can be further observed in other elements analogous between the two plays. This includes some few lesser characters as well as general motifs and plot progression. Each man spends much of his play acting most heavily on one tragic impulse prior to receiving a forced revelation. Oedipus tries in the beginning of his story arc to outdistance the prophecy tacked on to his birth by fleeing who he thought to be his birth parents. Already his hubris is clouding his judgement, a fact pointedly expounded upon by Tiresias. The blind prophet can ‘see’ in a way that is far superior to Oedipus. As his story progresses he continues to forcefully delay the moment of realization which his inquiries are surely beginning to illuminate. Oedipus is loathe to believe the prophecy even if Apollo himself affirms it: “Vile slanderer, thou blurtest forth these taunts,
And think'st forsooth as seer to go scot free.”(350)And think'st forsooth as seer to go scot free.”(350)This lesson would have played well with the sensibilities of the audience, as many regarded hubris in the face of the gods as the day’s mortal sin. To see Oedipus receive his comeuppance after what can be interpreted as a hostile and deceitful ascent to the throne (he killed Laius then defeated the Sphinx by sheer luck) would have gone over well with the general populace. Hamlet, on the other hand, is plagued by an excess of pragmatism. He finds himself unable to act in a direct manner, preferring to try and use subterfuge to trick the truth out of Cladius. This problem persists even after a being capable of clairvoyance (in this case his father’s ghost) repeatedly tells him the circumstances surrounding his own death. Cladius shares some traits with Oedipus which are in fact more pronounced albeit not as important as the title character’s. He gained the throne by killing a member of his family and is carnally involved with his wife, as Oedipus is with his mother. His hubris shines through in the final act, wherein he poisons the drink and sword, confident that one will finish off Hamlet. The people of Denmark are implied to view the relationship as incestuous, and while it is obviously not one can easily sympathize with their views. Oedipus’ relationship is literally of this nature.  The resolution of each work is a statement about royalty in general. Both seem to be subtly implying that royalty is killing itself off through incest, intrigue and other unholy practices. In Hamlet the result is the death of the entire royal family. Their ceaseless attempts at power grabbing and the act of drinking from the same chalice (a feminine analogue) or death at the hands of a poisoned sword tip (probably a phallic analogue) further point toward how painfully aware both works are of the problems inherent to royalty. Hamlet himself is oddly concerned with his mother’s personal life. This can be argued as an extension of his brooding nature which in itself constitutes his fatal flaw. In an interesting inversion of the ‘earned power is better than birthright power’ convention, Hamlet is more adept and fair in wielding his public influence than Oedipus could ever hope to be. Oedipus treats the incest motif much more bluntly- he is his own mother’s personal life yet refuses to acknowledge it. Both works are rife with instances of both dramatic irony and classic, unabashed irony. The audience is aware of Oedipus’ unfortunate living arrangement from the start of the play, and the disparity between what they are aware of and what Oedipus is willing to accept only increases over time. After finally acknowledging the truth Oedipus is so disgusted that he gouges out his own eyes. This prompts his realization that true ‘sight’ is measured not in physical prowess but humility and insight. His world is essentially the opposite of the Harry Potter universe- prophecies always come true, be they ignored or emphasized. Hamlet’s flippant demeanor and Cladius’ pride clash to create ironic dialogue throughout the play. Cladius at one point tells Hamlet he should be proud to be in the position he finds himself: “It is sweet and commendable”, this after a moderately experienced reader of tragedies should have deduced that everyone will die by the story’s end. Hamlet calls his mother “common” in a manner which is lost on all bystanders. He even manages to shroud some such remarks as compliments or at the least expressions of agreement, as is often the case with Polonius. More moments of dramatic irony in Hamlet include the episode with the poisoned swords and Hamlet’s trip to England which is expected to result in the death of all on board. In each of these cases it is the tragic flaw of one or more characters which informs the theme. Although Oedipus’ birthmother cannot be faulted for a reluctance to commit infanticide, she too falls into the category of individuals who’s reservations ultimately created larger problems. Both characters are fairly static in their development until the point at which their flaws are thrown in their faces. For Hamlet this moment is a prolonged series of events beginning with Ophelia’s suicide. Seeing that he cannot win for trying, Hamlet enters the duel with his cousin with reckless abandon. This is a yet another example of dramatic irony and a sort of double entendre for the audience, as Hamlet only interprets the match to have fake consequences, this being within the play which the audience has been asked to accept as the ‘real’ layer of reality. In Oedipus’ case the horror of his life finally occurs to him in the face of overwhelming evidence, causing him to break down and lose the arrogance which had defined his actions. Hamlet and Oedipus facilitate much of the action in their plays as a result of one undesirable personality trait. Their tragic flaws help to illuminate their author’s chosen themes and drive the classic tropes of theater present in both works. In spite of the vast amount of time that passed between the point at which the two were popular, there are many elements of each work that are universal to tragic storytelling.