OEDIPUS'S RECOURSE TO REASON TO DEFEND HIS HOPES
Yet, closer reflection on the Oedipus at Colonus points us beyond this pious and anti-rationalist reading of the play. For it is not clear from the play either that Oedipus truly is rewarded by the gods or that he succeeds in completely rejecting reason.
In contrast to the Ajax (1—133), but like the other two Theban plays, we never see the gods on stage in this play. We evidently do hear thunder, and Oedipus claims that it is Zeus who is thundering in order to summon him to Hades. But Antigone and Theseus are at least initially skeptical, and Theseus suggests that the thunder may simply be a natural occurrence (1503—4; see 1460—1, 1472—6, 1500—17). Oedipus apparently persuades them that the thunder is divine by reporting to them that the Delphic oracle told him when he was young that his life would come to an end when he heard thunder (1510—17). But in addition to the vagueness of the report — thunder would seem to be a rather common phenomenon — in Oedipus's earlier version of that oracle, the signs he recounted indicating the end of his life would be “either an earthquake or some thunder or lightning from Zeus” (95). Perhaps it is for this reason that Antigone, who is familiar with Oedipus's earlier version, is not persuaded that the thunder she hears is a sign from the gods that her father must now die (1459, 1474).Moreover, while a messenger reports to the chorus after Oedipus's death that he was summoned by the voice of a god and that his body was taken to Hades either by a god or by the earth itself, neither Theseus nor Antigone nor Ismene confirms the claim that a god called to Oedipus (1620—30, 1646—65). Furthermore, whereas the messenger admits that he was not present at Oedipus's death, Theseus, who alone was present, does not confirm that Oedipus's body vanished, but
puts it, “Inner vision replaces the moral blindness of the young Oedipus” (1981, 390).
Consider also Knox: “the gods give Oedipus back his eyes, but they are the eyes of superhuman vision” (1964, 148) and Adams: “physical blindness is rehabilitated in supernatural sight” (1957, 176). Knox speaks as well of Oedipus at Colonus's “blind faith in the prophecy” of Apollo (1964, 150). See also Van Nortwick 1998, 94; Wohl 2002, 253. is instead ambiguous regarding that death, suggesting, on the one hand, that Oedipus has died with “the grace of the underworld,” but, on the other hand, that he has a grave, albeit a secret one, and therefore that his death was natural, not miraculous (1751—67).[49] [50] [51] To be sure, Oedipus is rewarded in the course of the play with refuge, with protection from Creon, and with honor. But it is Theseus and the Athenians, not the gods, who bestow these benefits. It is therefore not clear from Sophocles' account that Oedipus is rewarded by the gods.10One might conclude from the obscurity of the play concerning the gods that Sophocles means to show that, precisely since the world and the gods are mysterious, humans must eschew all efforts to live by the light of reason and must rely purely on faith, on such “blind faith” as Oedipus displays, that the gods will care for them. 11 Yet Oedipus, notwithstanding his apparently wholesale rejection of reason in favor of a blind piety, has considerable recourse to at least ostensibly rational arguments in the course of the play. Indeed, much of the play focuses on arguments Oedipus sets forth to attempt to defend his hope that the gods will reward him. Those apologetics are provoked by the almost universal view, at the opening of the play, that Oedipus is hated by the gods. For even though he is praised, especially by the chorus at the end, in the course of the play Oedipus is sharply criticized, not only by Creon, but also by the chorus, Theseus, and Antigone (848—55, 9446, 226-36, 582-92, 1175-1203; Winnington-Ingram 1980, 259).
Now, one might suppose that, insofar as Oedipus has completely surrendered himself to the gods and cherishes a pure, blind faith that the gods favor him, he would not be troubled by such criticism. Yet Oedipus repeatedly resorts to arguments throughout the play in order to persuade the initially hostile Athenians that he deserves their support because he both deserves and enjoys the support of the gods (see 258-309, 445-548, 568-667, 722-1015).12The fact that Oedipus makes such efforts to win the Athenians’ assistance suggests that he does not simply count on the gods to give him the protection he needs from his enemies. More importantly, the fact that he makes arguments to demonstrate that he deserves, not punishments, but rewards, from the gods, suggests that Oedipus is seeking to persuade himself as well as the Athenians that he will be so rewarded. We see, then, that, however far Oedipus seems to have gone in renouncing reason by blinding himself and by embracing piety, he still must make use of his reason. He cannot blindly place his hope in the gods. He cannot simply assert to the Athenians or to himself that the gods support him. His hope must be defended by reasons, by an argument that convinces others and himself that he deserves divine rewards. Just as Oedipus used his reason to solve the riddle of the Sphinx and thereby saved Thebes from the monster, so must he use his reason to attempt to save himself and his hopes for divine rewards against the skepticism of others and his own doubts.
The case of Oedipus suggests that, precisely if we human beings hope that the gods will reward us, we cannot simply reject reason but must have recourse to it, in the form of apologetics of some kind or another, to defend our pious hopes against our own doubts. For, given our nature and our condition, it can never be self-evident to us what the will of the gods is. We must always wonder whether they are well-disposed, ill-disposed, or indifferent, and consequently we must always harbor doubts that they will reward us. And such doubts impel us to try to show for ourselves, to our satisfaction, and hence to our minds, that we may be reasonably confident that the gods will reward us.