Teiresias, the seer of Oedipus the King - Leeds International ...

HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SEER OF OEDIPUS THE KING
Teiresias, but the entire play thus stresses the incompleteness and obscurity of
knowledge that people are able to attain.
At the end of the exchange, and well before the Messenger and Herdsman
arrive with their information, Teiresias leaves the stage with the Chorus
bewildered and Oedipus, who finally understands the meaning of his ‘riddles’, as
he describes Teiresias’ obscure and partial revelations, convinced that Teiresias
and Creon are plotting to depose him. Teiresias returns, not in body, but in soul, so
to speak, in the question that Oedipus flings at Creon as he grills him about the
events following Laius’ murder. Oedipus demands: ‘Why didn’t your wise man
say anything then?’ (pîj oân tÒq' oátoj Ð sofÕj oÙk hÜda t£de; 568). The
question can be discussed on three levels—on the level of the plot, the myth, and
the theme—on none of which is it answered.
On the level of the plot, the question is: Why didn’t Teiresias tell who
murdered Laius when the matter was first investigated? Creon replies simply, ‘I
don’t know’ (oÙk od', 569). 21 I mention in passing that Creon ignores the
somewhat aggressive challenge in the question—Oedipus’ implication is that he
cannot have murdered the king because it would have been investigated and
discovered then.
On the level of the myth, the question points the audience to other questions:
Why did Teiresias allow a patricide to become king? Why didn’t he reveal that
Oedipus was Jocasta’s son and so prevent the marriage between mother and son?
And why did he neither prevent nor put a speedier end to the plague that ensued
from the violation of the taboos against patricide and incest? These questions,
which are never made explicit, cannot be answered. Teiresias does not figure in
the original myth; and if he behaved like his Homeric namesake, there would be
no story. Like the question that Oedipus explicitly asks Creon, these questions,
which rankle beneath the surface of the text, are not raised by the myth itself, but
rather by Teiresias’ presence in the play and his splitting of knowledge from
revelation. They highlight the splitting of knowledge from act, as well.
On the level of the theme, the most important thing about the question is the
fact that it is raised and left unanswered. This unanswered question places at the
heart of the play the ambiguities of knowledge that Sophocles raises in the person
of Teiresias and explores throughout the drama.
Teiresias, as the all-knowing seer, privy to the secrets of heaven and earth, is
the ideal figure to focus the play’s doubts about the value and attainability of
knowledge. Though Creon might have served adequately in Teiresias’ place as
21 Lattimore (1968) 44f. says that ‘it was awkward for Sophocles to raise this ... question when he
would not, or could not answer’. He suggests that Teiresias did not answer it simply because ‘the
Sphinx is there for Oedipus to answer’; Segal (2001) 57 views the lack of answer in the text as: ‘...
probably Sophocles’ way of telling us to leave the matter there; the ways of prophets are obscure,
after all, and especially the ways of prophets awesome as Teiresias.’ But the fact that we are still
struggling to figure out why this question is unanswered may show equally well that Sophocles
wanted the question to pique us. Sophocles did not have to raise the question. After all, no one in
the play ever asks why Oedipus never investigated the death of the former king or why he didn’t
immediately summon the herdsman when he learned that he had seen the murder.
11