Having read and commented on Sophocles’ Antigone (Robert Fagles translation), I next read his Oedipus the King, which Fagles called “universally recognized as the dramatic masterpiece of the Greek theater.  Aristotle cites it as the most brilliant example of theatrical plot, the model for all to follow.”  The Oedipus myth (where he marries his mother and kills his father) was very old when Sophocles took it up, but he made the play about the moment of discovery of his own truth.  Oedipus is granted by Sophocles many admiring qualities, which Fagles equates with Athenian qualities - insight, pondering, quickness of decision and strength of action - and the play itself essentially follows Oedipus’s investigation into his own origins.  I would describe him as primarily coherence oriented because he relentlessly follows it wherever it leads, past the point where every other stabilizer (safety, status, family) would say stop. 

As he begins to discover the truth, there are quite a few really powerful moments.  He has the opportunity to back off from the investigation as it gradually becomes clear where it is leading, but he refuses - he states that he must know the truth of his origins, no matter the cost. Prophets and oracles had told both Oedipus and his father what horrors awaited them, and it was the knowledge of those predicted horrors, and their reaction to them, which ultimately led to the final denouement.  Under Sophocles’ take free will is an illusion and fate is destined no matter what one does (or rather, the play does not show that human action is unreal, it shows that action occurs inside causal and fated structures too large for any participant to see or master) — however, there is a narrow remainder of agency.  The prophecies stated what would happen, but they did not state that Oedipus would discover what happened - that was Oedipus’s free will, to uncover his origins, something he states on a number of occasions.  The prophecy determines the catastrophic structure of Oedipus’s life, but it does not determine his relation to the truth. He cannot choose whether the past occurred; he can choose whether to evade, investigate, acknowledge, and bear it. 

The message, then, is that while fate has certain things in store for each of us, perhaps there is still an element of free will in certain aspects, and perhaps the free will in general then is in choosing or not choosing to embrace one’s own fate. Just like in Antigone, the main character is crucified between the opposites - fate vs. free will, bliss in ignorance vs. horror in knowledge, blessings in certain respects at certain moments vs. the cruelty of fate in others.  One unexamined aspect is that Oedipus’s curse extends to the whole land, a whole society punished for his unknown misdeeds.  And Oedipus, too, was cursed to this fate without having done anything of his free will to deserve it.  The play, then, is both non-redemptive and tragic, and its message is resonant with my own in the sense that we are here to bear the crucifixion of opposites and our own destinies, to receive our portion (heleq), whatever it is, and try to navigate it to the best of our abilities; but still, the crucifixion of opposites has a collective dimension that precedes and exceeds individual choice.  It’s a truly powerful play and it deserves its reputation.