Although the theme of fate is one unifying both
Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus
and Virgil’s Aeneid, written over 400 years later, the
representation of fate and man’s relationship to it differs
significantly between these two ancient works. Sophocles portrays
fate as a primarily negative force, an inevitable destiny which
capitalizes on our weaknesses. Virgil, on the other hand, allows fate
to play a more malleable role. Aeneas, of the Aeneid, requires
constant reminders to “get back to the duty” of
fulfilling his destiny, a destiny which seems to be represented as
little more than the choice of the most powerful god. There are three
primary areas in which these two very different portraits of fate can
be dissected: the ultimate end to which fate brings the character and
the way in which the polis and the oikos are effected, the difference
in how concrete fate seems to be, and finally, the distinction
between the moral responsibility of the characters in relationship to
the fate they face.
Perhaps the most obvious distinguishing factor between
Oedipus’s fate and Aeneas’
fate is the end to which it brought them. For Oedipus, that meant
fulfilling the oracle, bringing death to his family, and bringing
shame upon himself. For Aeneas, however, the fulfillment of fate
meant leading the Trojan refugees to a new land where he would father
the founder of Rome and thus allow the Trojan blood to rise up in the
Romans and be an even greater culture than they were before. While
Oedipus was, from birth, fated for suffering, destruction of his
oikos, and negatively impacting the polis, Aeneas seems to be fated
by the gods for glory, construction of a favored oikos, and creating
what would become the most significant polis ever. Each action of
Oedipus and those around him seems to contribute to the ultimate
fulfillment of the oracle, even if those actions seem contrary to or
anti-fulfillment of the prophecy. Conversely, each decision on the
part of Aeneas and the mortals around him seems to detract or move
him away from the fulfillment of his fate. Rather than his misdeeds
and misdirections “falling into place” to fulfill
prophecy, as did Oedipus’, Aeneas requires constant prodding
and reminders of his fate to get back on the course decreed by the
gods. Additionallly, the revelation of these men’s fates was
distinctive in that Aeneas had to finally “give in” and
accept his fate while Oedipus had no such epiphany, only the
realization that his fate had already been fulfilled.
The way in which fate is portrayed is also of
significant value in identifying the differences between these two
portraits of the ancient belief in fate. In other words, in some
cases, fate seems malleable. Different ancients portray it as either
an absolute, a god’s whim, or even the natural, unavoidable,
result of one’s accumulated actions. As discussed previously,
Oedipus seems to be a product of the latter. Despite what he does to
avoid his prophesied fate, he cannot escape it. Although those around
him make a conscious and resolute decision to prevent it, and he
himself is ignorant of the people whom he was foretold to kill, fate
twists his life to achieve the very end that was destined. It is easy
to conclude the Oedipus has no freewill, but his soliloquy on page 29
might sway such an opinion, “No longer shall you see the
suffering you have known and caused.” A statement translated in
other editions as “The horrors of my own doing!” -- which
would seem to suggest Oedipus believed that he alone was responsible
for his actions-- except for the his dialogue on the next page which
asks “Oh Fate, What have you done to me?” Thus placing
the reader in a precarious position as to whether to blame Oedipus or
fate alone for his actions. In Virgil’s Aeneid, however,
fate seems to be in constant battle with Aeneas’ freewill.
Aeneas is constantly reminded that he must “obey” fate,
as in Book 5 line 31, when the pilot, Palinurus shouts to Aeneas
“T’is
fate diverts our course, and fate we must obey.” Each character
in the Aeneid
seems to be working for or against fate. Interestingly, however, it
is almost always the women, human and divine, whose actions are
consciously “anti-fate”. When Aeneas turns from the
course fate has laid out for him, he is almost always being drawn
subconsciously, and when he remembers or is reminded of his fate he
returns to his course. It is obvious that both Aeneas and Oedipus
play some role in the fulfillment of their fate. Although Oedipus
might have consciously abhorred the idea that he would kills his
father and marry his mother, his violent actions on the road and
conquering spirit towards the former queen contributed to his
ultimate demise. In Aeneas, we see a character whose actions might
deter him from his fate but for constant reminders of his purpose.
Each of these characters interacts differently with their fate, but
remains, on some level, an active participant.
Finally, these two ancient works portray very different
ideas of moral responsibility in the face of one’s fate. If we
conclude that both Oedipus and Aeneas play some sort of role in their
fate, it then follows that they assume a proportionate amount of
moral responsibility. It can be argued that despite this, it would be
unfair to convict Oedipus of killing his father and committing
incest- since he did so innocently and without intent. Oedipus’s
“tragic flaw,” or moral downfall, seems to be his sin of
hubris (pride). Oedipus believes he can escape the fate brought down
on him and in trying to do so he falls. Moral responsibility seems
more difficult to isolate in the case of Aeneas. There are relatively
few immoral actions committed by Aeneas to analyze. Perhaps the best
example would be Aeneas’ abandonment of Dido. To examine
whether he was responsible we have to look at the concept of fate, as
Virgil pens it, and ask whether the affair with Dido was at the hand
of Aeneas or his fate. Although the abandonment of Dido was necessary
in order to continue to Italy and found Latinum, the manner in which
Aeneas parted with Dido was by his own choice. Although fate decreed
they must be separate, it was Aeneas who chose to engage in the
affair with her and Aeneas who chose to cast her aside so callously
when he left- in effect, making him morally responsible for her
death. While neither of these characters can carry 100% of the blame
for all the evil things that happened during the course of the
narratives, it is clear that on some level, despite the power of
fate, they both took on differing levels of responsibility for their
actions.
Though one can speculate over the authors intentions in
portraying fate in such different ways, the most appropriate
explanation may be that these ancient works are of significantly
different genres and written for very different purposes. While
Virgil composed a heavily nationalistic poem, Sophocles, we assume,
set forth to create a decidedly tragic drama. In contrasting tragedy
with the nationalistic myth of the founding of a mighty empire, it is
no surprise that the main character of the tragedy met with an
unavoidable demise to which he has little responsibility, while the
hero of the poem is exalted and viewed as having made bold choices
and achieving great things. Regardless of the genre and approach of
these very different authors and the somewhat elusive answers
regarding the reality of—or lack of—fate, it is obvious
that each of these works is a significant contribution not only to
literature but also to the understanding of the ancient ideas of fate
and destiny.
