The tension between free will and destiny:
Which one is more powerful?
‘I would say that there are three main questions: One, do people have free will? Two, is determinism true? And three, are free will and determinism compatible? ’
Throughout history, human beings have always tried to be the ones who have the power to rule their own lives. However, there exists a debate which questions whether that is really possible or not. In other words: are human beings capable of deciding what to do with their lives or is there a greater force that rules over our destiny?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines destiny as ‘that which is destined or fated to happen to a particular person, country, institution, etc. (…).’ Consequently, this term is opposed to free will, defined as ‘the power of an individual to make free choices, not determined by divine predestination, the laws of physical causality, fate, etc. (…).’ Human beings have thought of these antithetic concepts as something to worry about since the beginning of civilization. Because of that, playwrights have taken them into consideration when writing different plays all over the years.
This essay seeks to explore the tension existing between the concepts of destiny and free will in the world of drama through the study of language as well as the analysis of character and situation development. In order to carry this research out, I will take Oedipus Rex by Sophocles (429 BC) and Dr Faustus by Christopher Marlowe (1604) as the basis for the analysis. Although the plays were written in different eras and consequently were inspired by very different social and historical backgrounds, the limits between destiny and free will play a very important role in both of them. But how does drama manage to explore this tension? How do playwrights convey the paradox that exists between destiny and free will?
Over the course of the years, theatre ―always engaged with social worries and beliefs― has been concerned about the paradox of free will and destiny. This question is always studied from a dualistic point of view: it is whether free will or destiny that has the power to decide what will happen in one’s life, it seems that there cannot be anything else in between.
Two clear examples of this paradoxical duality are Oedipus Rex and Dr Faustus. Both plays narrate the story of a character who goes through diverse situations and tries to overcome different circumstances only to see his downfall at the end of the story. It could be argued that both plays present a character whose ending is already predetermined by destiny or fate. However, they seem to look at this ambiguous topic in a different way.
On the one hand, we will analyse Oedipus Rex. This play is an example of classic tragedy. It was written in a period in which Ancient Greece citizens believed that there were different gods who “reigned” over each aspect of their lives. Following Jon D. Mikalson, these gods were believed to be immortal and responsible for everyone’s destiny. Bearing that in mind, we can say that the fact that Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex in a very theocentric context affected the way in which the tension between destiny and free will was conveyed, whether the Greek playwright was aware of it or not.
In this play, we can observe how Oedipus, since the moment that he was born, goes through diverse crucial events that change his life in one way or another. In each situation, the king of Thebes has to make different decisions which ultimately lead him to what destiny had already predetermined for him. In order to explore the tension between free will and destiny, we need to analyse both sides of the coin in each of these situations.
It is very important to highlight the fact that the Greek society firmly believed that one’s personal traits affected how life would treat you; in other words: the way you acted would define your destiny. One of Oedipus’ most remarkable characteristic was his desire for knowledge. Throughout the play, Oedipus is always looking for answers. He needs to find the reason why his city is going through such a terrible situation. In order to get such answers, he is constantly asking Tiresias, the Oracle, the messenger, etc. for information. All of them, in one way or another, try to stop him. But he chooses not to stop. We can find an example of this when he is speaking with Tiresias:
Tiresias: What will come will come.
Even if I shroud it all in silence.
Oedipus: What will come? You’re bound to tell me that.
Tiresias: I’ll say no more. Do as you like (…)
With his own decisions, he blindly walked into his downfall. Should he have chosen to stop looking for answers, maybe he could have changed his own destiny. But he was so eager for knowledge that he could not see that it would bring him to his own destruction.
The battle between destiny and free will begins when Oedipus is born. Laius and Jocasta ―Oedipus’ biological parents― are given a prophecy which says that the new-born will kill his father and marry his mother. In order to escape the prophecy, they decide to get rid of their baby and ask someone to kill him before the prophecy became reality. With their free will, they were just trying to solve a problem. However, although they tried to remove Oedipus from their lives, we can say that destiny brings him back and he ends up doing what the prophecy had predicted. If Laius and Jocasta’s decision had been different, if they had kept their son, everything could have been different. But, here, destiny seems to be more powerful that individual choice-making.
We can also see the essential role of fate in the play when Oedipus explained what he did once he reached the crossroads. The path he chose led him to kill his father, although he was not aware of it. As Oedipus says:
Oedipus: (…) Short work, by god―with one of the staff in this right hand I knock him out of his high seat, roll him out of the wagon, sprawling headlong―
I killed them all (…)”
Oedipus Rex is an example of how drama uses the development of characters and situations to explore the tension between free will and destiny. Throughout the entire play, we can see how every important event can be looked at with different perspectives. Altogether, we can see how every aspect in Oedipus’ life was influenced by both his fate and his decisions. Thus we can conclude that one can make his own decisions, but cannot easily scape fate.
On the other hand, we have Dr Faustus. As Paul Moliken maintains in his edition of Dr Faustus, the play “is a product of the Renaissance―a time of rebirth from the Medieval period.” Dr Faustus was ―an continues to be― considered as one of the most controversial plays outside the Shakespeare canon because it contains allusions to the constant fight between the good and the bad. Apart from the latter, one of the most remarkable aspects about this play is the tension between free will and predetermination and how it is explored.
Regarding this topic, there are two main interpretations: those who maintain that Faustus could have chosen to repent and change his destiny and those who claim that he was predetermined to follow the wrong path. Throughout the play, we can discern some dialogues that support both theories:
The ones who maintain that Faustus is free to choose, as Bara Deats points out, rely on the fact that the Good Angel and the Old Man make him see that what he has been doing is not right and that he has the chance to repent:
Good Angel. Sweet Faustus, leave that execrable art.
Faustus. Contrition, prayer, repentance? What of these?
Good Angel. O, they are means to bring thee unto heaven. Old Man. O gentle Faustus, leave this damned art,
This magic, that will charm thy soul to hell,
And quite bereave thee of salvation.
Though thou hast now offended like a man,
Do not persever in it like a devil.
The ones who claim that Faustus’ destiny could not have been changed support the “Calvinist orientation of Reformation theology”, which says that one is predetermined to go to Heaven or Hell and, consequently, free will is merely an illusion.
We can find a very clear example of this tension between free will and fate if we compare the two text of the play. While in text A the Good Angel says to Faustus: “Never too late, if Faustus can repent”, in text B the modal verb changes: “Never too late, if Faustus will repent”, assuming that Faustus is free to make the choice.
This play gives us an example of how drama uses language to express the limits between fate and individual choice-making, mainly with the introduction of dialogues between Faustus and his “conscience” (the Good and Bad Angels). Many critics actually defend that Marlowe’s intention in this play was to express and exploit this tensions, because he “offers no solution to our dilemma, even though he so masterfully explores it.”
Apart from Oedipus Rex and Dr Faustus, numerous plays have thoroughly explored the tension between free will and destiny or fate in different ways. For instance, in Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare, the reader is shown how destiny shapes the protagonists’ lives. We can see how all of their decisions seem to change the course of events but they actually lead them to their ultimate predetermined fate.
Antigone, by Sophocles, is another example of how important this dichotomy is. In this play, as in Oedipus Rex, the tension between destiny and individual choices is one of the central themes. The Greek playwright tries to balance both of them: some of the actions are the result of individual choices while others are related to fate, but, once again, it seems that fate is responsible for most of the tragic events of the play.
Either by using the power of language and the development of characters and situations in different ways or by confronting free will and destiny, many playwrights have tried to answer what seems to be an unanswerable question so far. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, it is said that ‘[m]en at some time are masters of their fates.’ Whether that is possible or not is what drama has explored in different plays all over the years regarding social and religious debates amongst others, as we can see in Oedipus Rex and Dr Faustus.

Bibliography
Bevington, David M, and Eric Rasmussen, Doctor Faustus A- And B- Texts (1604, 1616) (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993)
Deats, Sara Munson, Doctor Faustus: A Critical Guide (London: Continuum, 2010)
Logan, Terence P, and Denzell S Smith, The Predecessors Of Shakespeare (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1973)
Marlowe, Christopher, The Tragical History Of Doctor Faustus (Clayton, Del.: Prestwick House, 2007)
Mikalson, Jon D, Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991)
OED.com, ‘Home: Oxford English Dictionary’, 1663 <http://www.oed.com> [accessed 8 April 2015]
Ritchie, Brian B, The Plays Of Christopher Marlowe And George Peele ([Parkland, Fla.]: Dissertation.com, 1999)
Shakespeare, William, and David M Bevington, Julius Caesar (Toronto: Bantam, 1988)
Williams, Clifford, Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1980)

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Philosophical doctrine which claims that human action is not free but determined by external forces.
[ 2 ]. Clifford Williams, Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1980), p. 3.
[ 3 ]. OED.com, ‘Home: Oxford English Dictionary’, 1663 [accessed 8 April 2015] .
[ 4 ]. Jon D. Mikalson, Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), pp. 205-207.
[ 5 ]. Sophocles, Robert Fagles and Bernard Knox, The Three Theban Plays (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1984), pg. 178.
[ 6 ]. Sophocles, Robert Fagles and Bernard Knox, The Three Theban Plays (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1984), pg. 206.
[ 7 ]. Christopher Marlowe, The Tragical History Of Doctor Faustus (Clayton, Del.: Prestwick House, 2007), p. 9.
[ 8 ]. Terence P. Logan and Denzell S. Smith, The Predecessors Of Shakespeare (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1973), p. 14.
[ 9 ]. Sara Munson Deats, Doctor Faustus: A Critical Guide (London: Continuum, 2010), pg. 32.
[ 10 ]. David M Bevington and Eric Rasmussen, Doctor Faustus A- And B- Texts (1604, 1616) (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993), pg. 11.
[ 11 ]. David M Bevington and Eric Rasmussen, Doctor Faustus A- And B- Texts (1604, 1616) (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993), pg. 43.
[ 12 ]. Sara Munson Deats, Doctor Faustus: A Critical Guide (London: Continuum, 2010), pg. 32.
[ 13 ]. David M Bevington and Eric Rasmussen, Doctor Faustus A- And B- Texts (1604, 1616) (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993), pg. 16.
[ 14 ]. David M Bevington and Eric Rasmussen, Doctor Faustus A- And B- Texts (1604, 1616) (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993), pg. 16.
[ 15 ]. Brian B Ritchie, The Plays Of Christopher Marlowe And George Peele ([Parkland, Fla.]: Dissertation.com, 1999), pg. 302.
[ 16 ]. William Shakespeare and David M Bevington, Julius Caesar (Toronto: Bantam, 1988), pg. 21.