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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SEER OF OEDIPUS THE KING change it. Much the same rationale inheres in Teiresias’ subsequent explanations of why he will not reveal all that he knows. I quote them again: ‘Of themselves things will come’ (341) and, ‘It is not destined that you should fall by me, since Apollo ... is sufficient’ (376f.). 15 The first says that there is no point in making painful disclosures when the truth will emerge in due course—a rather strange claim for a seer whose trade is in knowledge, but otherwise not unreasonable. The second expands on the first with the claim that revelation is pointless because it can do nothing to change fate. In other words, Teiresias splits knowledge from revelation and highlights the pointlessness of telling what he knows. This unseerlike conduct raises the question of what value knowledge has in a world in which destiny is inexorable— in a world where knowledge cannot change the course of events or even alleviate suffering. 16 This inherent contradiction between a fixed and irrevocable destiny and the idea of knowledge as a value seems to have exercised Sophocles and his audience in much the same way that generations of Christian philosophers would subsequently be wracked by the inherent contradiction between the omniscient and omnipotent Christian God and man’s free will. 17 The play leaves the question deliberately unresolved. Knowledge is treated in the play as a most ambiguous good. 18 Oedipus’ knowledge of the world, exemplified in his solving the riddle of the Sphinx, saves Thebes from siege and death, so it is clearly of benefit. Yet this same knowledge also leads directly to his election as king and, with that, to his incestuous marriage with his mother, the Theban queen, and all the terrible devastation that follows. Oedipus’ belatedly acquired self-knowledge, his learning that he is the source of the plague in Thebes, enables him to remove himself and thus put an end to his people’s suffering. But it also leads to his self-blinding and the destruction of the House of Labdacus. 19 The commonplace scholarly wisdom is that Oedipus’ self-knowledge came too late and that his knowledge of the world was insufficient without self- 15 It is therefore no surprise that Oedipus declares at the end that ‘it was Apollo, friends, Apollo’ (1329), who caused his blinding. He was told by Teiresias that Apollo would be his ultimate bane. See Parker (1999) 16f., who maintains that such attributions of divine involvement occur especially in situations of extreme emotion, usually of anguish. He does not connect Oedipus’ exclamation with Teiresias’ statements but with the fact that ‘as no one could deny, what Apollo had decreed had come to pass’. Winnington-Ingram (1980) 176-8 discusses the question: ‘Why does Oedipus attribute the accomplishments of his evils including ... his own act of self-blinding to Apollo?’ (178). 16 Lattimore (1975) 108f.: ‘It is not that the gods will not help or inform Oedipus—they cannot; their knowledge and very existence are too alien from his ... Teiresias represents the gods of the Oedipus Tyrannus and dramatizes this alienation.’ 17 Cf. Winnington-Ingram (1980) 153f. 18 Cf. Socrates’ remark in the Apology that all ‘human knowledge is of little or no value’ (¢nqrwp…nh sof…a Ñl…gou tinÕj ¢x…a stˆn kaˆ oÙdenÒj, 23a). The idea that human knowledge is imperfect was common in Greek thought long before Plato wrote down Socrates’ expression of it. 19 Cf. Hoey (1969) 298: ‘It seems to emerge that in the Oedipus Rex the two great annihilative agencies are knowledge and generation.’ 8
HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SEER OF OEDIPUS THE KING knowledge. Indeed Teiresias repeatedly points to Oedipus’ figurative ‘blindness’ (366f.) and deficiency in the basic knowledge of who he is: sÝ kaˆ dšdorkaj koÙ blšpeij †n' e kakoà, oÙd' œnqa na…eij, oÙd' Ótwn o„ke‹j mšta. «r' osq' ¢f' ïn e; (413-5) You have sight, but you do not see the trouble you are in, nor where you are living, nor with whom. Do you know of whom you are begotten? But how are these lines to be understood? The rebuke is accurate—Oedipus, indeed, does not know the sin he is committing, the full identity of those he is living with, or his own parentage. It is spoken with great vehemence. And it comes from a seer renowned for his knowledge of the truth. These features invest it with great authority and have led scholars to read it as the play’s indictment of Oedipus as a ‘blind’ and arrogant individual who brings about his own fall—even though Oedipus conducts himself, in most respects, including in his confrontation with Teiresias, as one of the most commendable rulers in all of Greek tragedy. I think that the rebuke must be understood within its dramatic context, and thus not solely with respect to the person it refers to, but also with respect to the person who makes it. Is there no irony in Teiresias charging Oedipus with being blind to himself in the very scene where Oedipus is seeking knowledge, with a mind open to what he might learn, but Teiresias himself refuses to enlighten him? Isn’t there something just a bit perverse here? I am suggesting that the rebuke should not be taken as an authoritative statement about Oedipus’ character, however accurately it describes his situation. Rather it should be understood as something that Teiresias, angered by Oedipus—by the king’s pressing him for information that he does not want to divulge and by the accusations of treachery—says to the king in the heat of the argument. Within the context of the argument, the rebuke contains two implications with regard to knowledge: one, that Oedipus’ self-knowledge would have been efficacious and, two, that Oedipus should—and could—have attained it. These implications enable the angry seer to put the onus of guilt for the tragic events onto Oedipus and to release himself from any responsibility that he might bear for them as one who, as the Chorus stated, knows the secrets of Apollo’s mind. Within the thematic context of the play’s contemplation of knowledge, the rebuke returns us again to the question of the value of knowledge. One should consider: would self-knowledge have helped? Had Oedipus known his parentage, would he have been able to avoid killing his father? The repeated assertions about the unavertability of destiny suggest that he would not. So does the way in which Sophocles sets up the action of the play. Sophocles makes sure that the audience understands that Oedipus, who had been removed from home at birth, had never seen the man he meets at the crossroads and has no way of recognizing him as his father. Moreover, none of the descriptions of the murder contains anything that indicates that Oedipus could have recognized Laius as the king of Thebes. Jocasta relates that Laius traveled with only five retainers—a small number for a king 9
Page 1 and 2: Leeds International Classical Studi
Page 3 and 4: HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SE
Page 7: HANNA M. ROISMAN, TEIRESIAS, THE SE

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?