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

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