Two Theme Changes in the Oedipus Tyrannus

Abstract

After Tiresias' declaration that Oedipus is the murderer of (350 ff.) and the ensuing quarrel between Oedipus and Creon (513 ff.), Oedipus tells Jocasta about Tiresias' accusation (703 ff.). Jocasta thereupon relates the story of the Laius and the exposure of her child (711 ff.). Her motive is clearly stated at 708-710; it is to show how unreliable is. Since Apollo has, as she thinks, been proved false in the case of Laius, Tiresias may well be mistaken in his assertions concerning Oedipus. Her speech, however (and this is but one example of the ' 'irony that characterises the play as a whole), though intended to bring consolation and relief to her husband, has precisely the opposite effect, and by its mention of the (716) causes him the first time to suspect that Tiresias has indeed spoken the truth (726 ff.). These fears and suspicions he reveals to Jocasta and in a narrative parallel to her own describes his own part and his fateful journey from Corinth to Thebes (771 ff.). The Chorus then suggests that the one remaining witness of the three ways episode be sent for. So far the central thought in Oedipus' and Jocasta's mind has been the accusation of Tiresias; the doubts of Jocasta concerning Apollo's oracle are only introduced by way of example, in order to throw a corresponding doubt on the seer's utterances. A marked shift, however, occurs in the following statement of Jocasta that even if he [the witness] were to diverge at all from what he has already said, he will never make the murder of true to prophecy and that for the future I would look neither this way nor that as regards divination (851-858). This is not merely a repetition of her previous anti-divination speech. The content is