My reconsideration is essentially founded in the situation with the Shepherd who was the only survivor of the attack on Laius and his men. When he came back, Jocasta says he asked to leave, but I wonder if she might have encouraged him to leave because Oedipus was on the throne: "Soon as he returned from the scene and saw you on the throne with Laius dead and gone..." I can almost see the shepherd whispering to Jocasta, telling her that he did not kill the ankle-bound baby years and years ago, that the man on the throne is, in fact, her son. I can see Jocasta scolding him for insubordination, pausing to think of her options left with Oedipus as king, and choosing to keep things hush-hush. Perhaps she was simply fulfilling her duties as a queen...perhaps she asked the shepherd to leave so his mouth would stay shut...perhaps she only reacted with suicide because her shame had been discovered...perhaps, perhaps, perhaps! I mean, she did send the shepherd "far as possible, out of sight of Thebes." Heh, out of sight. If what I just concluded is the case with Jocasta's knowledge, then I take back my adoration. How could she knowingly put Oedipus, her son, in that situation? Angry that he killed Laius? Angry that she had not defeated the prophecy after all? Silly mortal, your life decisions were subject to fate (whatever that is)! Na-na-na-boo-boo...
Commented on Lane's.
No comments:
Post a Comment