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

HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SEER OF OEDIPUS THE KING
audiences will register it, the murder would probably have come across as totally
inconsistent and out of character. 8
The consistency of character thus attained is also evidence of Sophocles’
theatrical genius, especially since it is not attained at the price of onedimensionality—that
is, at the price of depicting Oedipus as a ruler who is either
impulsive, violent, or cruel. It is not only that Sophocles depicts Oedipus as a
concerned and devoted ruler at the beginning of the play, as noted above. He
continues to show him in a positive light later in the play, after the scene with
Teiresias. He shows Oedipus as unflinchingly pursuing the truth of his identity,
even when it becomes clear that this truth could harm him, and as demonstrating
extraordinary magnanimity in refraining from harming Teiresias and Creon once
he becomes convinced, albeit mistakenly, that they have plotted to depose him.
The temper that he has Teiresias bring out is shown at one and the same time to be
a character flaw that has disastrous consequences and of a piece with the king’s
great dedication and concern for his people.
Theoretically, Sophocles could have used Creon to show up Oedipus’ temper,
just as he could have had him serve as plot facilitator. But in giving Teiresias these
functions, along with a temper of his own, Sophocles endows him with dramatic
weight and presence far beyond the single scene in which he appears. That is, he
makes Teiresias an important character, whom the audience remembers. This, in
turn, enables him to use Teiresias to elaborate what is one of the play’s major
themes: the theme of knowledge. 9
A great deal has been written about the matter of knowledge in this play,
especially about the irony of Oedipus being clever enough to solve the riddle of
the Sphinx yet being utterly devoid of self-knowledge. 10 The play turns on this
irony. The Priest commends Oedipus for having saved the city from the Sphinx
(35-9). Oedipus reproaches Teiresias with not having done so, while he himself
had, ‘by my wit alone’ (gnèmV kur»saj, 398) as he puts it (391-8). Teiresias, for
his part, derides Oedipus for being strong at riddle answering (440). After the
scene with Teiresias, the Chorus sing their refusal to fault Oedipus because he
saved the city from the Sphinx (505-11). And at the close of the play they describe
him as the man ‘who knew the famous riddles’ (Öj t¦ kle…n' a„n…gmat' Édei,
1525). No one in the play repeats the riddle, but the audience could doubtless have
been relied on to recall what it was. To refresh our memories, the Sphinx asked:
What walks first on four legs, then on two, and then on three? Oedipus’ reply,
8
For the importance of consistency of character, see, for example, Aristotle Poetics 15, 1454a26-
36; Horace AP 127.
9
The theme of knowledge is reflected even in the name Oedipus, cf. Knox (1957) 127, (1986) 96-
111; Segal (1995) 141. Champlin (1969) maintains that knowledge in Oedipus the King, which is
connected with the senses, is invalid, and that Sophocles might have been influenced by the
Parmenidean doctrine that denied testimony based on the senses as a basis of true knowledge and
constructed a world of truth completely apart from the realm of sense; cf. Reinhardt (1979) 98-
107. Segal (1995) 149f. sees in Teiresias the incarnation of mysterious knowledge, and in the
Messenger the incarnation of incidental knowledge; Segal (2001) 80-4, discusses the scene in
terms of a clash between human and divine or mysterious knowledge.
10
E.g. Champlin (1969) 338; most recently, Segal (1995) 138-60, 176-9 and bibliography.
6