Heroics Oedipus Rex Vs John Proctor (The Crucible) Essay, Research Paper

While the two books we are about to discuss here are both similar in several aspects such as fate and human error they are also very different in that the climate of both pieces differs greatly in that of the time period in which they are set and the situations in which both men are placed in. The ways in which they are heroic as such is also different; as leaders, as men or even as just people who existed and fought to overcome a particular situation in their own way or to the best of their capabilities. Thus here we have a closer look at the exact reasons for which we call these men heroes and thus conclude whether or the amount of their worthiness each has of the title of hero.

Oedipus Rex is set the time of Ancient Greece during the time of myth and legend, where gods and seers come into play to wreak havoc in the lives of mortals on earth. In this case, Oedipus Rex was born the son of the king and queen of a Greek city. Upon his birth, it was pronounced that he would one day kill his father and marry his mother. In fear, the king immediately called that the child be removed and instructed one of his men to kill him. However, the man had no heart for such a cruel deed and abandoned the baby instead. He was later found, raised and grew into a strong and intelligent young man. One day, when Oedipus was walking along a road outside the city he ran into the king, whom at the time he did not recognise nor did the king recognise him. Under the provocation of the king and his men, Oedipus drew his sword and unknowingly killed the king and his men, leaving only one survivor to this incident. Soon after, Oedipus chanced upon a city in trouble with the deadly powerful sphinx- the same city that belonged to his parents- and using his intelligence solved the riddle required to ascertain the freedom of the people. He then became the ruler of the land, taking his mother as his wife, once again without the knowledge that he had fulfilled the destiny that the seer had predicted at his birth. When he found out about the curse and then discovered the body of his mother and wife- she hanging herself in her anguish when she found out too- he blinded himself with her dresspins. He was subsequently banished from the land.

The Crucible was based on the lives of the early American settlers and mainly on a particular incident- the famous Salem trials where many innocent people were accused of witchcraft and hanged for refusing to confess to a deed which they had not committed. It was also loosely based on the case of Senator Macarthy, in which on many of his by-now notorious campaign he accused many of the opposition parties’ members to be endorsers of communism to gain the support of the people and thus, more votes. John Proctor, a farmer and significantly respected member of the community, has an affair with his maidservant, the beautiful and devious eighteen year old Abigail Williams. His wife, a good loving but cold staunch Christian woman by named Elizabeth, discovers this and dismisses her. This comes back to haunt them when the vindictive and spurned girl decides to take her revenge by accusing Elizabeth of witchcraft when she becomes embroiled in charges herself. Abby then ‘comes forward’ and claims to have seen Elizabeth Proctor with the devil in the hope that then she may have John for herself. But although John may have some feelings for Abby, he loves his wife more deeply and goes on a rampage, trying all that is possible to prove her innocence. In the process of his untiring attempts to free her, the affair comes to light and John’s name is destroyed. But worse still, Elizabeth, not knowing that her husband has already confessed it, lies about her knowledge of it, thinking that it will save her husband’s reputation. It destroys her credibility in court and she is sentenced. John is also sent to hang when Mary Warren, turns against him and says that he is in league with the devil. Elizabeth is temporarily spared from hanging as she is with child and is asked to plead with John so that he may lie to save his own life. But in the end he will not tell a lie to save himself in the knowledge that it is not the truth and he dies.

In the first story, Oedipus is displayed at as a tragic hero- an Aristotelian concept common to that style of writing at that time. It is shown that however great or strong he may be in real life he still cannot avoid his fate with has already been laid out for him and he has no control over whatsoever. Despite the valiant attempts of his family he ‘returns’ to them by sheer force of nature. This is not the conventional idea of a hero because a hero is usually pictured as being in charge and in control of a situation especially so one concerning his own future and life. We are made to feel sorry for the main character in these stories because as he is addressed, he is ‘tragic’. Oedipus Rex, the man himself was a tragedy because he did not know that what he had done was the cause of his downfall instead of an excellent thing- saving the city of Thebes, becoming a king etc. The reader knows that it is impossible for him to have known of the curse while he was still a ‘nobody’ but it the circumstances that led up to his discovery of this were that of those he should have never known if he had not solved the riddle of the sphinx or married the queen, his mother. It was the qualities of physical strength and mental agility that are conventionally considered to be highly desirable qualities that led Oedipus Rex right into the trap that was supposed to be his destiny. Therefore, it is extremely ironic for to think that no matter how far away the king and his wife tried to detach themselves from their unfortunate son, the boy still came back to him and killed him in a totally unrelated encounter many years after they’d attempted to rid themselves of the child. We are meant to think that Oedipus is to be sympathised with more so than respected as our perception of an actual hero; the dictionary explanation of the word being a person with admirable and noble qualities.

John Proctor is perceived very differently from the former. Proctor becomes the hero in sense that he achieves a personal victory over himself in the form of that he conquers the turmoil and conflict within himself over what he has done in the past, his sin of lust for Abigail, and the hard decision he finally makes in the end that determines how his character is eventually perceived. In the beginning, he is seen as one who is trying to make up for his unfaithfulness to his wife and we can see the difficulty he encounters in this task with the tense interaction between him and Elizabeth. In this we can see that he is truly sorry for past events and wants to redeem himself, at least in his wife’s eyes. However, his plans are somewhat thwarted when Abigail tries to make a re-entry into his life by accusing Elizabeth of witchcraft in the hope that John will then come to her once his wife is out of the picture. But instead John becomes angered by this and challenges Abby’s word in open court but he fails to prove her innocence and instead destroys both their credibilities by showing himself to be a lecher and Elizabeth as a liar. In the end John is sentenced to death by hanging and Elizabeth is called in to convince him to say that he was with the devil in order to win his life back. But despite some measure of wavering when he is questioned, he realises that he cannot lie even if it is just to save his life. At this point, John Proctor is shown once and for all to be a good and upright man even though he has committed sins in his past. He makes the ‘ultimate’ decision in that in that he chooses truth over life; personal belief over overwhelming pressure. John becomes fearless of death in the faces of those who tell him to conform to the lies of so many others before him. In doing this, he displays himself to be a morally upright man, someone who truly believes in what he thinks is right, not easily influenced by what people say about him.

Neither of these two men are what people see as ordinary heroes in that they battle only their personal demons and not tangible ones. They are, in fact, more like anti-heroes than heroes. They had both committed some crime or sin which already makes them imperfect; already spoiling the flawless image that a hero is supposed to have- Oedipus killed his father, the king and John has an affair with Abigail. Both of these acts in some part cause the ruin of each character; Oedipus because it is part of his ‘destiny’ and John because that becomes the whole reason why Abigail even desires him and causes the whole incident to involve his wife. However, while Oedipus lives, though blind and disgraced, he is to be considered much worse off ‘at the end of the day’ because he has lost all that he once had and more. He is a destroyed man with no self-worth or feeling that he may ever redeem himself of murder or incest and most likely has no hope to live or achieve anything ever again. In comparison, John’s status has been elevated from the beginning of the story where we judge him as a sinner and the end where we see him as a man or real moral courage to stand his ground and speak the truth no matter what the consequences and for the glory of God. In this sense, John is definitely much more of a hero than Oedipus because he shows that he is in possession of a much admired quality that comes as an advantage to him and shows him right way in the end. The death of John Proctor the man himself is irrelevant as compared to the greatness of his belief and how he kept to it and the inspiration that it will hopefully give to others. Oedipus instead comes across as rather pathetic and helpless because he cannot change what has already been dealt to him unfairly and that his remains ignorant about this crucial knowledge until later, when it is already too late. I think this analysis comes with the bias in the form or perception of a hero. In Greek times, tragic heroes were considered the ultimate good men who could not help being crumbled by his fate because things were beyond his power and in the hands of the Gods who loved gambling with the lives of people. So to the modern reader, we may find it harder to see Oedipus Rex as a hero by our definition. But both of them have qualities of goodness which can be admired in their own ways, however different they may be.

36c