Feet are only referenced several times in Oedipus the King, but when viewed as a larger idea they are more powerful. The most important mention of feet is in the story of how Oedipus received his name: that he was bound by his ankles in his birth. The clear symbolism is that Oedipus has been bound to his fate—to kill his father and marry his mother—from birth, and there is nothing he could have done to affect that fate. Because Oedipus was bound from birth, it represents the later binding he has with the divine destiny set for him by the gods, and repeated by all of the prophets. But I think it is interesting that while Oedipus had his feet bound “from the cradle,” all that was left was a scar (1134). While the gods may have set a path for Oedipus, it hasn’t changed since birth, and you have to believe that there were chances for Oedipus to avoid his destiny that once bound his feet together. Throughout the story, he has been free to move his feet, and free to alter his life, but the damage was already done when we are first introduced to Oedipus.
I think the conflict of fate vs. free will in Oedipus the King is quite interesting, as neither totally dominates. Jocasta does not believe in fate (prophecy) and it is out of Oedipus' fear of it that it ultimately overcomes him. It's like in The Matrix when the Oracle tells Neo not to worry about breaking the vase, and as he turns to look at it he breaks it.
ReplyDeleteTo go even more meta, is free will more comforting than fate?