Omnipotence and Free Will, Research Paper Example

Oedipus vs. Othello

The debate over the control higher power and free will has on man’s actions is best exemplified in both Sophocles’ Oedipus, and William Shakespeare’s Othello. In Oedipus, the presence and actions of a higher power (here, the gods) appears to dictate Oedipus’ downfall, whereas in Othello, the presence of free will appears to dictate Othello’s downfall. What emerges from these two stories is that the actions and reactions of other characters (such as Jocasta and Iago) play pivotal roles in the tragic events that occur in Oedipus and Othello. Therefore, to say that the downfall of Oedipus was the work of the gods while Othello’s was self-inflicted is an erroneous statement because it assumes presumes that the presence of gods and their prophecies automatically negates the consequential reactions of other key characters, while a lack of divine presence signals complete control over one’s life.

The debate over how much a man’s life is dictated by a higher power or free will is as old as time itself. Even before Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther battled out theories on free will, man had sought solace in the conflicting views of predetermination and free-choice. As explained in “Discourse on Free Will,” Luther believed that “…in all things pertaining to salvation or damnation, man has no free will, but is a captive, servant and bondslave” to the will of a higher power (Erasmus 113). However, Erasmus felt free will was “accomplished by those who attribute everything to the pulling by grace which is the first to excite our spirit, and attribute only something to human will in its effort to continue and not withdraw from divine grace” (Erasmus 85). In looking at the lives of Oedipus and Othello, it would appear that Luther’s idea of a higher power controlling Oedipus from the start was right, while Erasmus’ idea of free will correctly dictated Othello’s downfall.

The truth remains, however, that the debate over how much a man’s life is dictated by a higher power or free will boils down to one’s perception of control. As explained in an analysis of Jocasta’s reactions to Oedipus’ quest for answers, the fact that “human life is so uncertain, and there is no clear foreknowledge of events,” allows us to rationalize the control we have over our lives with respect to the events (good and bad) that happen to and around us (Rudnysky 79). For those who believe man has been imbued with the power to determine his own destiny, life is most readily dictated by free will. For those who believe that man’s destiny is not within his control, life is controlled by an outside source- a higher power. Within the auspice of free will, one’s actions are the catalyst for rationalizing life’s events. To oversimplify, if one suffers a downfall, it is the result of a negative action or series of negative actions that coalesce into a detrimental state. Conversely, under the auspice of a higher power, one’s actions are not the sole catalyst for rationalizing life’s events. If one suffers a downfall, the result is not necessarily attributed to one’s own actions, but rather, are the construct of a higher power or a combination of results stemming from both the actions of man and a higher power.

One of the easiest literary venues within which to hold a debate over free will and higher powers is in the world of tragedies. Both of the main characters of Oedipus and Othello suffer a terrible downfall. With Oedipus, a man immersed in a world of ancient beliefs and ancient gods, a cursory review of events might lead one to believe his downfall was the result of the work of the gods. With Othello, a man immersed in a world lacking the omnipotent pressures present in Oedipus, a cursory review of events light lead one to believe his downfall was self-inflicted. Both assumptions are incorrect because the downfall of both men was the result of actions initiated by and concluded by other men and not higher powers.

The tragedy of Oedipus began not with the initial prophecy of his downfall, but rather, with the reactions and actions of the people who believed that prophecy would come true. When Oedipus was a baby, Jocasta made the decision to believe the prophecy that said her child would “kill his father,” her husband (Sophocles, 1345). Her reaction to believing that prophecy was to give the child to a herdsman to “let it die” (Sophocles, 1341). The herdsman, who “pitied” baby Oedipus, then made the decision not to follow Jocasta’s orders, and instead took Oedipus “to a new home in another land” to live and possibly become a future king (Sophocles, lines 1347-48). Later on in an attempt to stop Oedipus from learning the truth, Jocasta tells Oedipus to “stop caring” and to “do nothing more” about the very prophecy she long ago believed would come true (Sophocles, lines 1129, 1224). Each action critiqued individually could be dismissed as circumstance. Yet given that Jocasta repeatedly attempted to convince Oedipus to stop his search for answers, one can safely contribute her reactions to an awareness of her own contributions to her son’s downfall.

Furthermore, in addition to the other characters in the story, Oedipus contributed to his own tragic end. When Laius’ caravan approached Oedipus, he made the decision to physically display his emotions and “smashed in anger” at the men forcing him aside (Sophocles, 940-41).  Not content to merely hit the men who pushed him aside, Oedipus took things a step further with the approaching men and “killed them all” (Sophocles, 949). Later on, his determination to find Laius’ killer resulted in Oedipus’ decision to pursue the leads that could help him accomplish his goal. That decision led him to listen to the Leader about the “rumor” that Laius was “killed by some travelers” and that a prophet, Tiresias, could help him out (Sophocles, 356-367).  Because of Oedipus’ persistent determination to find the killer of Laius and to learn of his own parentage, he harassed Tiresias (the prophet), to revealed Oedipus’ unfortunate prophecy. The same determination also led Oedipus to threaten the herdsman into revealing his true parentage (this confirming more of the prophecy). Finally, Oedipus’s determination eventually drove away Jocasta (whose initial reaction instigated Oedipus’ downfall), thus solidifying the prophecy.

Similar to Oedipus, Othello’s downfall began with the reactions and actions of the people around him. Unlike Oedipus, however, Othello’s downfall was not initiated by a prophecy and the belief in it, but rather by a dear friend, Iago, who “held [Othello] in [his] hate” for choosing Cassio as his lieutenant instead of him (Shakespeare, 1.1.7). Iago not only made the decision to his disagreement to Othello’s selection, he intentionally made the decision to seek “revenge against him” (Shakespeare, 1.3.63). To accomplish his goal, Iago exploited Roderigo (his love of Desdemona) and his wife, Emilia, destroyed Cassio (in a drunken brawl that cost him his lieutenant title), and sacrificed Desdemona (besmirching her reputation).

The other characters were not immune to the impact their actions had on Othello, as each reacted to events around them and made conscious decisions to act on those reactions. For Roderigo, his love of Desdemona and his jealously over her marriage to Othello led him to follow along with Iago’s plan to destroy Cassio. For Cassio, his choice to get drunk and put himself in a position that would compromise his relationship with Othello, drove him to listen to Iago and seek the favor of Othello through the help of Desdemona (thereby casting more suspicion on his relationship with Desdemona). For Emilia, her position as Iago’s wife led her to assisting him in his plan without questioning his motives or actions.

Likewise with Oedipus, Othello also contributed to his own downfall. Othello’s underlying belief that Iago was a person of “exceeding honesty” who “knows all qualities with a learned spirit of human dealings” served as his main contribution to his own tragic end (Shakespeare, 3.3.258-260).  His unending support of Iago enabled Othello to believe his story of Cassio’s drunken brawl. Othello’s action of then stripping Cassio of his title combined with his love for Iago helped Othello “rationalize” Cassio and Desdemona’s affair as valid. In addition, Othello’s choice to trust Iago enabled him to choose not to seek or entertain alternative explanations for everyone’s behavior around him. That choice of believing Iago at the expense of everyone else- including his trusted lieutenant, wife, and employee- cost Othello his sanity, his wife, and the life he once lived.

Sophocles and Shakespeare use gods and prophets as a way to challenge the debate over control through free will and higher powers. However, the important thing to note is that a lack of an obvious presence of gods in Othello does not negate the contributing actions and reactions of men in Oedipus, nor does it eliminate the possibility of divine intervention in Othello’s life. That the gods had allegedly prophesized Oedipus’ tragic end (and that people believed it) does not make up for the horrible decision of Jocasta to have her child murdered. In Oedipus’ case, it was not the existence of a prophecy or the gods that undermined his life- it was the way the people around him perceive and believe that prophecy to be truth. At any point and time before turning her child over to be killed, Jocasta could have chosen to not believe the prophecy. She could have chosen to ignore the prophecy and taken the chance that it might not have come true. Furthermore, if Jocasta had believed in the prophecy so much, she could have chosen to break the prophecy by never taking another man into her bed (as the prophecy foretold the killer would also be her lover). Of all these decisions (and countless others not mentioned), Jocasta chose none and her impact on Oedipus’ downfall must not be overlooked or undervalued.

As for with Othello, that he made the decision to trust Iago’s stories and opinions does not negate the impact of Iago’s decision and actions to destroy his life. At any point and time, Iago could have called his plan off. He could have chosen to be content with the removal of Cassio as lieutenant, and stopped his plan there. He could have chosen not to structure events in such a way that led Othello to believe his wife was cheating on him. Iago could have even chosen to discuss his initial disagreement of Cassio’s selection as lieutenant with Othello. However, of all these decisions, Iago chose none and his impact on Othello’s downfall must also not be overlooked or undervalued.

And yet, despite the initial reactions and actions taken by the people around them, the turning point for both Oedipus and Othello was when they decided to react to the events around them. From that point on (for Oedipus- murdering the men who pushed him off the road and then deciding to find the murderer of Laius; for Othello- believing Iago’s tales about Cassio and Desdemona and then deciding not to believe Desdemona), both men took equal responsibility in the outcomes of their own lives. At each step of the way, both men had the option to look at the facts of their situations and make informed, educated decisions. Neither took that option, until arguably, it was too late. Prophecy or not, divine intervention, or not, every character in each story faced reacting to and making a decision over that reaction. Unfortunately for both Oedipus and Othello, those actions and reactions accumulated into tragedy.

The concepts of free will and higher powers allow us to rationalize how much control we have over the events that happen around us. To be sure, this paper does not not believe in the impact of higher powers: it simply fights to make the point that regardless of such impact, man always has a choice to make- a reaction to an event and the decision to act or not to act on that reaction. In Oedipus, Sophocles used oracles and gods “to show the distance between human knowledge and divine will” (Garrison 51). Although Oedipus’ downfall initially appeared to be controlled by the gods, a closer look at his actions and those of the people around him revealed their impact to be unquestioningly influential to his tragic end. In Othello, Shakespeare’s lack of use of gods and oracles revealed the actions of the other characters to be “an integral part of the play” (Myrick 236). Additionally, while one can certainly argue that Othello instigated his downfall by choosing Cassio as lieutenant, the bottom line remains that Iago (much like Jocasta in Oedipus) chose to react in a manner so grossly and completely disproportionate as to even be considered unconscionable. To state that Oedipus’ downfall was the result of the work of the gods, while Othello’s was self-inflicted, is thereby an invalid statement because ignores the impact of the actions of key characters like Jocasta and Iago, and assumes that the presence of gods and their prophecies negates the impact of those reactions, while a lack of divine presence signals complete control over one’s life.

Works Cited

Erasmus, Desiderius; Luther, Martin. “Discourse on Free Will: Milestones of Thought.” New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Company, 1985.

Garrison, Elise P. “Groaning Tears: Ethical and Dramatic Aspects of Suicide in Greek Tragedy.” New York, NY: E.J. Brill Publishing, 1995.

Myrick, Kenneth O. “The Theme of Damnation in Shakespearean Tragedy.” Studies in Philology. Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1941), pp. 221-245. University of North Carolina Press. J-STOR. 12 August 2010.

Rudnysky, Peter L.; Spitz, Ellen Handler (ed.). “Freud and Forbidden Knowledge.” New York, NY: New York University Press, 1994. NetLibrary. Web. 11 August 2010.

Shakespeare, William. Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1958.

Sophocles. Oedipus The King. Trans. Robert Bagg. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.