Where nevermore I may converse with men.
But we cannot suppose that the word ‘parricide’ which is here used by Oedipus was actually mentioned by the oracle, as, if it had been, the greatest tragedy of ancient literature, the King Oedipus of Sophocles, could never have been written. The whole dramatic evolution of the plot depends on the suppression of the murderer’s identity. The Thebans would not have understood such a description, seeing that, so far as they knew, Laius had no living child. Jevons refers to a dramatic characteristic which may help to explain this difficulty, namely the ‘irony of Sophocles.’ He says[46]: ‘For the full appreciation of the irony of Sophocles ... it must be remembered that whereas the torturing contrast between the condition of Oedipus as he fancies it, and as it really is, is only discovered by Oedipus at the last moment, this contrast is perpetually present from the beginning to the spectator.’ Oedipus implies that Kreon had used the word ‘parricide’ when speaking to him in connexion with the oracle. When Kreon replies[47] ‘Ay, so ’twas spoken,’ are we to interpret the answer literally? If Kreon had known the truth, he would have been compelled by religious fear to declare it. The character of Kreon, as revealed in the Oedipus Coloneus and in the Antigone, is that of a loyal and religious citizen rather than that of a loyal kinsman. Hence we must either suppose that this reference to parricide is a dramatic slip, an instance in which the Sophoclean ‘irony’ overreached itself, or we must suppose that Oedipus and Kreon have incorrectly interpreted the oracle in the tragic excitement brought about by the dramatic developments of the plot. From the legal standpoint we consider it most probable that the oracular declaration of the penalty was of a non-committal character. Hence it is that when Kreon discovers the true facts of the case he decides to consult the oracle again before taking any action. To Oedipus’ request to drive him from the land, he replies[48]:
Doubt not I would have done it, but the god
Must be inquired of, ere we act herein....
In such a time
We needs must be advised more perfectly.
Does Kreon then anticipate that the second consultation of the oracle will elicit a severer penalty, namely death without the option of exile, which was the historical penalty for parricide, or is he well aware that the act of Oedipus, committed in ignorance of Laius’ identity, was, at worst, wilful murder, and, if he hesitates to decree a penalty of perpetual exile, is it because he is aware that the act was provoked by Laius and was therefore quasi-involuntary? The answer to these questions cannot be found in the King Oedipus drama. The play ends while the homicide penalty of Oedipus is still undecided. We do not connect with the death of Laius the self-blinding of Oedipus or the suicide of Jocasta. These events, which are referred to explicitly or implicitly by Homer,[49] we connect rather with the crime of incest. The legal analysis of the story is complicated not only by the presence of this crime, but also by the post-Homeric doctrine of the ancestral curse in the house of Laius. But we hope to elicit from the companion play, the Oedipus at Colonus, a more satisfactory account of the legal aspect of the legend.