The Theatre of Apollo: Divine Justice and Sophocles' Oedipus the King

Richard W. Parker is an associate professor and chair of the Classics
Department at Brock University in St. Catharines.

The thesis of this book is that “Oedipus is justifiably punished by
Apollo,” a view that has been out of fashion since the turn of the
century (thanks chiefly to Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s 1899 attack and
E.R. Dodd’s 1966 influential essay). The book is intended primarily
for teachers; the undergraduate will find it difficult, although not
without rewards. The author assumes thorough familiarity with ancient
Greek literature and with the scholarly literature that has grown in
luxuriance around the play. References to a wide range of modern
literature will impede, but they are seldom serious obstacles to
understanding the chief arguments. Greekless readers, however, will be
at a serious disadvantage. Fortunately, the editing and writing are of a
high standard, with complex issues and scholarly polemic almost always
presented lucidly. Helpful notes (with generous acknowledgment of
contributions, written and oral), an extensive bibliography, and an
index add to the usefulness of the book.

The introduction offers a chapter-by-chapter précis that is quite
helpful and indeed essential. In the first two chapters, the theoretical
underpinnings (the author is “anti-historicist”) are laid out, and a
comprehensive reconstruction of stage directions is given. The latter
will be useful, especially to those who suppose that the play is more
than just the text. The next three chapters include a welcome demolition
of the notion that Oedipus is an innocent scapegoat, an assault on
Dodd’s argument that Oedipus is guiltless, and an attack on J.
Peradotto’s recent attempt to remove Apollo by downplaying the
tragedy’s striking coincidences and thereby diminishing the
deterministic element. Peradotto’s position seems insufficiently
represented; for example, his list of six coincidences is reduced to
five almost immediately, yet there is a later reference to
“Peradotto’s coincidence number seven.” In the final chapters,
Griffith seeks to demonstrate that Oedipus has a hubristic self-image in
that he overrates his ability to read signs and usurps a function of the
gods—namely, supplication.

This study provides a welcome counterweight to the prevailing
interpretation of Oedipus Tyrannus.