Oedipus at the Crossroad
of Tyranny and Kingship

Claudia Zatta (University at Buffalo, SUNY)

The political role of Oedipus in Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus evokes contrasting interpretations: Oedipus appears a king to some (Scodel 1982, Carey 1986), a tyrant to others (Knox 1954, Vernant 1982). Most recently Edmunds considers Oedipus in light of both Athenian and Panhellenic ideologies of tyranny. Edmunds also reckons Oedipus as a tyrant, but he acknowledges that several features in Sophocles’ portrayal do not fit his own model, in particular, Oedipus’ intellectual skills, and the mode he ascended to and exited from power (Edmunds, 2002). In this paper I tackle the controversy about Oedipus’ role by means of Herodotus’ account of Deioces (I, 96-9). The two narratives mutually illuminate each other, revealing a similar set of questions. They both engage with the making of a tyrant, and ultimately expose a fundamental preoccupation by Greek thought with the fine difference between royal and tyrannical forms of power. In order to understand the complexity of Sophocles’ Oedipus then, I argue, one needs to consider Greek views of power dynamics rather than apply rigid dichotomies.

Deioces was a man of private station who gradually ascended to the tyranny. He first gained prestige as a talented judge, and was later made king by the Medes who wanted to benefit from his juridical skills. Once on the throne, Deioces became a tyrant. This transformation occurred with the establishment of the fortified city of Hegdabana from where he could dominate the Median population. Herodotus’ narrative indicates that a man of extraordinary skills gains royal power, but that only the actual exercise of that power determines the nature of the government in place, whether it is a kingship or a tyranny.

Even though the play deals with the last moments of Oedipus’ rule, Oedipus Tyrannus reviews the hero’s entire political career from his condition of foreigner to the rise as king of Thebes. Like Deioces, so Oedipus too became king on account of his exceptional skills. Royal power was given to him because he delivered Thebes from the Sphynx. As in Deioces’ case, political empowerment revealed Oedipus’ autocratic attitude, but, I argue, did not turn him into a full-fledged tyrant. Oedipus’ interaction with Teiresias and Creon presents a set of features commonly associated with tyrants, from the denial of equality to his interlocutor and use of violence to the tyrant’s typical fear of a conspiracy (OT 300-630). Yet Oedipus’ wholehearted acceptance of the decreed exile confirms him in the role of a king obedient to the laws.

Unlike Deioces who moves linearly from kingship to tyranny, Sophocles shapes an Oedipus who exhibits a coexisting mix of royal and tyrannical traits, thereby offering us a problematic portrait of power. He, thus, dramatizes, through Oedipus’ character, the attitudes of a tyrant and the aspirations of a king.