Watching the History Channel's Hercules 12 Labors episode last night I was struck by the problems of contradiction posed by conflicting versions of the myths. In the story of Iphitus, Hercules grabbed the tripod because the Delphic Oracle refused to deal with people, like Hercules, who were stained with blood-guilt. Pausanias explains this:
[10.13.8] "The Delphians say that when Heracles the son of Amphitryon came to the oracle, the prophetess Xenocleia refused to give a response on the ground that he was guilty of the death of Iphitus. Whereupon Heracles took up the tripod and carried it out of the temple."
Pausanias 10
How then could Hercules have received the instruction from the Delphic Oracle to serve Eurystheus following the very bloody murder of his family, as was the version of events selected by the televised version? There are (at least) three ways:
- The no blood-guilt wasn't a hard and fast rule.
- Hercules expiated the blood guilt but still had to be punished for the crime -- a version I have read and one that allows for the travel of Hercules around Greece from Thebes, where his mortal father ruled, to Tiryns.
- Hercules performed the 12 Labors later and not to expiate the murder of his family.
There are so many stories of Hercules that contradictions are common. However, there is a tendency to have a handy explanation to account for the issues. If you know how this contradiction is traditionally explained, please post, with sources. Thank you.
Delphic Oracle © Clipart.com
Comments
He was drugged and tricked into the murder and was therefore not guilty His mother was a liar and deceiver whom Zues despised.
Hercules was not guilty of anything but trying to find the truth and the truth was in nature