Vellacot critically analyzes the ignorant Oedipus in Sophocles" play. His theory is that Oedipus is not innocent but guilty to all accusations. He gives concrete examples of the knowledge that Oedipus most likely had about the actions he committed. Even though he possessed the knowledge and knew he had done wrong, he did not care one bit and kept denying that he was at fault. His silly search for the truth was actually used to buy him time. He probably hoped that no one would be able to accuse him of killing Laois.
Upon reading Vellacott's analysis of Sophocles" great play, I have no doubt in my mind that Oedipus knew what he was doing every step of the way and is therefore guilty in all aspects. His ignorance can be confused as innocence but in no way can he be called that. It can be seen that Sophocles probably intended Oedipus to be guilty and aware of his actions. But by using the Greek methodology of fate, Sophocles makes it "seem" as if Oedipus is honest and innocent because he had no control over his actions. It was supposedly all predestined for him-which isn't true at all. .
How could Oedipus have not put two and two together and found that it was he who murdered Laois, and that he killed his father and married his mother? If it wasn't for his ignorance he probably might have. He is, after all, supposed to be the greatest riddle solver of all. Then why could he not put together all the clues in front of him and solve the puzzle of his own life? Vellacott proposes that Oedipus had doubts about Polybos being his father and knowing this he set out on his journey. He knew that his real parents were out there somewhere in Greece. He visited the oracle because he had doubts about Polybos being his father. So to prevent killing his father and marrying his mother, the logical thing to do was to not kill a man who was older than he, and not marry a woman older than he, states Vellacot.