Greek tragedy was a form of theatre in ancient Greece which the ancient philosopher Aristotle

defined as “an imitation of an action of high importance, complete and of some amplitude; in
language enhanced by distinct and varying beauties; acted not narrated; by means of pity and fear
effecting its purgation of these emotions.”[1] In addition to this description, Aristotle’s concept of a
tragic hero notes that the protagonist of a tragedy should proceed from a royal family and contain a
flawed characteristic that ultimately results in his or her fall from both power and happiness.
In Oedipus the King by Sophocles, the protagonist, Oedipus, exemplifies the heroic concept outlined
in Aristotelian tragedy in both his royal heritage and his hamartia.

The foremost Aristotelian requirement of a drama to be considered a tragedy is that the protagonist
must be of a high estate; that is, possessing nobility.[2] In exemplifying this attribute, Oedipus is the
noble king of Thebes, establishing his power and respect from those whom he rules. The reason why
the protagonist of a theatric tragedy must be a nobleman who possesses both power and happiness
is because for a drama to elicit pity and fear, “the protagonist must fall from power and happiness;
his high estate gives him a place of dignity to fall from and perhaps makes his fall seem all the more
a calamity in that it involves an entire nation of people.”[3] The suffering and hamartia committed by
a man who possesses authority and respect over others is more effective than if these were to be
possessed by a commoner. This is because if a powerful man suffers, then those under his power
necessarily suffer as well; therefore, as Oedipus is the king of a people, when he falls due to the
confidence of his ability to control his fate, he suffers a tragic fall, and the people of Thebe are
accordingly affected. This provokes a stronger emotional response from the audience by attributing
widespread chaos to individual hamartia. This is because while a tragic hero must be great as an
individual, he or she must be more than an individual and should be an artistic expression of a
universal principle, appealing to the entire audience as an understandable personage.[4]

The second requirement of a protagonist in an Aristotelian tragedy is that the protagonist must
possess a fatal flaw in his or her character. In the seventh and eighth lines of Oedipus the King,
Oedipus is depicted as either arrogant or prideful when he says, “I… Oedipus, whose name is the
greatest known and greatest feared…” Because of his pride, his successor Creon attributes Oedipus’
fall to the fact that the latter “[sought] to be master in everything.” In due course, it is Oedipus’ pride
in his sovereignty over destiny that leads to his downfall. One critic notes:

[I]n spite of much natural greatness of soul, [Oedipus] is, in one vital respect, the exact antithesis of
Aristotle’s ideal man. He has no clear vision which enables him to examine every side of a matter
with unclouded eyes, and to see all things in due perspective; nor has he a calm wisdom which is
always master of his passions. Oedipus can see but one side of a matter-too often he sees that
wrongly-and it is his fashion immediately to act upon such half-knowledge, at the dictates, not of his
reason at all, but of the first feeling which happens to come uppermost. His is no deliberate vice, no
choice of a wrong purpose. His purposes are good. His emotions, his thoughts, even his errors, have
an ardent generosity which stirs our deepest sympathy. But his nature is plainly imperfect, as
Aristotle says the nature of a tragic hero should be…[5]

Per this criticism, there are two major character flaws which dictate Oedipus’s nature as being
clearly imperfect, consequently contributing to the fulfillment of heroism in Aristotelian tragedy: 1)
his lack of “clear vision” and 2) the notable absence of “calm wisdom” in his disposition. Oedipus has
no clear vision in the sense that he is short-sighted in his approach to things. Instead
of contemplating on the matter presented to him to acquire a sense of objectivity or seeking
clairvoyance from anyone wiser than he, Oedipus acts on mere half-knowledge, a prime example of
his hamartia. He lacks both a calm disposition and wisdom. One analyst notes that “[t]he important
initial decisions… are all traceable to Oedipus’ great qualities as a ruler, his sense of responsibility for
his people, his energy, and intelligence… In all this, there can be no question of hamartia in any
sense of the word except ‘mistake,’ and… every single action of Oedipus is equally a mistake.”[6] Had
Oedipus been wiser and less rash in his decision-making, the conclusion of the drama might be
drastically less tragic. Unfortunately, because of Oedipus’s lack of clear vision and calm wisdom, he
can be understood as the tragic hero outlined in  Aristotelian tragedy. The rationalization by Oedipus
concerning his noble quest to prevent the oracle’s solemn prophecy is his pride and lack of clear
vision, which will later prove to be his tragic flaw that leads him to his ruin. Oedipus’s nature is, as
the critic has said, “plainly imperfect, as Aristotle says the nature of a tragic hero should be.”[7]

A classical Aristotelian tragedy must include some fatal flaw incurred by a relatively relatable, good,
or undeserving character—this is referred to as one’s hamartia, formally defined as one “great
mistake made as a result of an error by a morally good person.”[8] Oedipus is a morally admirable
person, seen in his strong sense of disgust and subsequent righteous passion when the oracle
predicts that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Upon hearing the oracle, Oedipus set out
to prevent such an atrocity, leaving his home and vowing never to return. In a typical circumstance,
such a noble sense of determination would be an admirable characteristic in a person, and it is
interesting to note the irony that such a virtue contributed to his demise. This is a good example of
dramatic irony, which is when a sudden reversal of fortune occurs completely unforeseen by the
protagonist. Through his virtue of determination, Oedipus’ hamartia comes to fruition insofar that
his downfall is caused by his own unintentional wrongdoings. In seeking to save his father from
death and to prevent marrying his mother, he ironically commits both unfortunate acts himself in a
series of events seemingly unrelated to the oracle’s prophecy.

Every tragic hero possesses some fatal weakness, a moral Achilles’ heel that brings him or her an
unfortunate end. Often this weakness is a hubris in some form or another,  which is the possession of
extreme pride and/or overconfidence. Oedipus was immensely proud of his prowess, perhaps overly
so in presume his ability to alter a prophecy, evident in his brother-in-law Creon’s warning for him to
“not seek to be master in everything, for the things you mastered did not follow you throughout
your life.”[9] Dr. Giles Waller, a literary theorist and teacher at Cambridge University, notes that
“Oedipus is somehow responsible and culpable for the actions of the play – that it was foolish for a
man as intelligent as Oedipus to slay a man old enough to be his father and then marry a recently
widowed woman old enough to have borne him, and that it was the hamartia of hubris and
intellectual pride which blinded Oedipus to the tragic implications of his actions.”[10] Despite the
noble intentions and characteristics of Oedipus, it is ironic that such characteristics contributed to
his ultimate downfall. Another reviewer Laszlo Veraényi comments, “Oedipus [was] for, with, and
against himself… Oedipus is his own investigator, persecutor, judge, executioner, and victim, is even,
indeed, the crime, the crime of being Oedipus.”[11