Iokaste’s detailed description of the traveling party appears to complete the proof, and this causes Oidipous to emit a cry of distress. He has discovered that there was but one murderous encounter. The cry of distress should signal his acceptance of defeat; he killed Laios. Teiresias has his sight. Now Oidipous should extend this proof to other instances of prophecy, such as the ones given him and Laios at Delphi. He should question whether he is Laios’ son. If he killed his father, he should consider that he might have married his mother. Yet again, as a moment before, he instantly regains his composure to formulate yet another question. One can only marvel at his fortitude while at the same time judging him to be deluded. Just as he rebounded from the realization that Zeus was directing his fate and that he had thrown himself into the way of curses, Oidipous’s determination to subject to scrutiny every aspect of the evidence pointing towards his involvement in Laios’ death prompts him to insist upon focusing on the eyewitness, presumably to test his credibility. So, while Oidipous himself now recalls that he killed a man at the spot where Laios was killed, while he now knows that the timing of that incident coincides with Laios’ death at that spot, while he knows that the size and composition of Laios’ party were the same as those of the party he met, and while he knows that his victim’s description matches Laios’, he was alone and the witness reported the attackers to have been many. He appears to be prepared to refuse to accept the outcom without resolving this last point. But is this reasonable? Is it not easy to explain why the sole surviving eyewitness, a bodyguard, would exaggerate the number of attackers?
Again, the audience can observe that, rather than persuading Oidipous to accept the seer’s veracity, the evidence—or its implications—appears to be pushing him towards an ever more indefensible punctiliousness. The unwarranted level of proof upon which he insists betokens an unreasonable tenacity; it seems to be an act of desperation. In this regard, the Athenian audience might once more recognize itself; having taken up a position of skepticism regarding the Delphic prophecy regarding the present war, it finds itself insisting ever more incredibly that the mounting evidence against it is insufficient. It must find itself insisting that the outbreak of plague immediately following the outbreak of war is a coincidence. Just as Oidipous’s additional questions delay and thereby obstruct justice, Athens’ perseverance in an obtuse refusal to accept the evidence and act accordingly by submitting to Delphi for instruction simply prolongs the city’s suffering. More Athenians will die of plague and more will be killed in battle. [Mg] [Md [Mw]