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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SEER OF OEDIPUS THE KING Beyond enabling Manto to present these descriptions, Teiresias functions in this scene as what I like to term master of the rite. Though he does not carry out the divination himself, he sets it in motion, directs it, and, above all, makes it a dramatically compelling ceremony. As a priest, Teiresias’ job is to interpret the signs. As master of the rite, it is to conduct the rite and present his interpretations in a way that interests and involves the audience. It is a dramatic function which he carries out by inviting the audience to share his apprehensions, uncertainty, and mounting dread, by building tension through the use of vague, suggestive language, and not by delivering on the closure that he promises. His first interpretation comes in response to Manto’s question about the meaning of the first set of signs she described: Quid fari queam inter tumultus mentis attonitae vagus? quidnam loquar? sunt dira, sed in alto mala; solet ira certis numinum ostendi notis. quid istud est quod esse prolatum volunt iterumque nolunt et truces iras tegunt? pudet deos nescio quid. (328-34) What can I tell, drifting amid the tempests of my dazed mind? What shall I say? The evils are dire, but deeply hidden; usually the gods’ wrath shows itself in clear signs. What is it that they want to reveal, and then again don’t want to? What grim angers are they concealing? Something shames the gods. Two stylistic features may be noted. One is that while Manto’s descriptions are specific and detailed, Teiresias couches his apprehensions in vague and portentous terms. 33 He speaks of ‘dire evils’, the ‘gods’ wrath’, and ‘grim angers’ that the gods are ‘concealing’ and ‘ashamed of’, without specifying what the evils or passions are and what the gods may be concealing and ashamed of. While the outer audience understand these hints, just as Sophocles’ outer audience had understood the hints given by his Teiresias, the terms nonetheless convey a sense of undefined menace. They operate on two levels. 34 On the level of character depiction, they serve to convey Teiresias’ apprehensions. On the level of Teiresias’ dramatic function, they are means for him to create an unresolved angst in the audience, designed to keep them on the edge of their chairs and eager for further clues. 33 Tietze Larson (1994) esp. 31-44, in her study of the difference between descriptions in Greek tragedy and Seneca’s tragedy (especially in messenger-speeches), points out that Seneca’s descriptions are much more detailed than those found in Greek tragedy. Dupont (1995) 189-93, 200-3, discusses the effects of the specificity of what she term ‘rituel perverti’ on the Roman audience. 34 Bishop (1978) 291 finds it odd that Teiresias is unable either to understand that the gods reject the sacrifice or to figure out the name of the murderer even though the smoke wraps around Oedipus’ head. He interprets this oddity as a code of covert political criticism, a code which the audience won’t have a problem of deciphering. For the play as a comment on the contemporary situation between Nero and his mother Agrippina, see also Pathmanathan (1967/68). 16
HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SEER OF OEDIPUS THE KING The second stylistic feature is the alternation of statements and rhetorical questions. This too serves a dual purpose: relaying the depth of Teiresias’ perplexity and distress, while, at the same time, including the audience in these feelings. By virtue of their open-endedness, the questions invite participation. They not only tell the audience, both inner and outer, what Teiresias thinks and feels, they also invite them to experience the same feelings and make them partners in his uncertainties, apprehensions, conjectures, and to search for answers. They cause the audience to wonder what it is that Teiresias cannot say, what the gods may be simultaneously veiling and revealing, and what it is that shames them. The second and third ‘interpretations’ are much shorter and one may, in fact, question whether they can be called interpretations at all. I use the term for lack of a better. The second interpretation, which follows Manto’s description of the movements of the slaughtered bull and heifer, is only one sentence: ‘These ominous sacrifices arouse great terrors’ (infausta magnos sacra terrores cient, 351). The sentence does not provide new information. It does not answer any of the previous questions. The ‘terrors’, ‘enormities’, the sacrifices arouse are as vague as the ‘dire evils’ of the first interpretation. What the sentence does do is raise the audience’s tension by telling them that they have cause to worry. Its dramatic function is to heighten the angst whose seeds had been planted in the first interpretation, without making any undue revelations. The third interpretation follows Manto’s description of the animals’ viscera and comes in answer to Oedipus’ questions about what it all means. It is slightly more specific than the first two. It states: ‘The desperate situation you seek to remedy, you will find enviable’ (his invidebis quibus opem quaeris malis, 387). This line, which echoes Sophocles’ Teiresias, brings the prognosis somewhat closer, but is actually a letdown. Manto had described the viscera following Teiresias’ statement that ‘prognoses from the signs are sure’ (manifesta sacri signa, 302). From a dramatic perspective, the statement is designed both to make the audience listen with interest to Manto’s description, and to raise their expectations for a resolution of the mystery. The third interpretation does not bring the promised resolution, thereby averting premature closure and keeping the audience on edge. In short, what Seneca has Teiresias do in this scene is to preside over a dramatic ceremony, which involves the audience, keeps them intellectually and emotionally focused, and creates and steadily augments a sense of tension. Also keeping the tension level—and dramatic interest—high is the fact that each interpretation is progressively more ominous. Unlike Sophocles’ Teiresias, Seneca’s seer does not serve to focus any thematic issue in the play, as far as one can tell. The three scenes in which he figures are quite disparate and do not relate very much to one another. Each raises its own themes and issues, which are quite apart from Teiresias’ persona. 17
Page 1 and 2: Leeds International Classical Studi
Page 3 and 4: HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SE
Page 15: HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SE

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?