UN Resolution war Hitler Obama Syria 3151

7/29/2019 UN Resolution war Hitler Obama Syria 3151

1/21

American Philological Association

Prophecy and Perception in the Oedipus RexAuthor(s): Robert L. KaneSource: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 105 (1975), pp. 189-208Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283940 .

Accessed: 12/09/2013 22:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Philological Association and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.62.12.156 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:00:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283940?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283940?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/21

PROPHECY AND PERCEPTION IN THEOEDIPUS REX*ROBERT L. KANEMiamiUniversity,hio

IMore thantwenty earshavepassed incethepublicationfHansDiller's ssay n divine nd humanknowledgen Sophocles.I Sincethen, ew writers aveattemptedo buildon thefoundation hichDillerestablished. n this rticlewe propose o examine heroleofknowledge ndperceptionn theOedipusRex. First, he anguageof theplaywill be analyzedwitha view to determining hat thecharactersnow, nd howthey now t;second, he vents ftheplaywillbe examinednthe ight fthe haracters'erceptionf them.2IndiscussionsfOedipus'relativeulpability, uch mportanceasbeen ttachedothehero'sunavoidablegnorance.3But the ircum-stancewhichhas thegreatestffectnhisdestinys notsimplyhat e

* A preliminary raftof this paper was read by A. E. Raubitschek,who offeredinvaluableadvice. I am also indebted omycolleague,Thomas Fleming,who criticizedthemanuscript nd helped to minimize tsdefects.I Gottlichesndmenschlichesissen eiSophokles,ieler Universitatsreden (KielI950) I8-22.2Epistemological uestionswere at the rootofmanyofthe ssuesunderdebate n thesecond halfof thefifthentury. For an outlineof therationalist ndempiricist ositions(theformer epresented y Parmenides nd Plato, the atterby Anaxagorasand Demo-critus), see W. K. C. Guthrie,A History fGreek hilosophyII (Cambridge I969)3-I3; for a brilliant reatment f Socratic-Platonicrationalism n particular, ee M. J.O'Brien's The ocraticaradoxesnd heGreek indChapel Hill I967); thephilosophicalimplicationsof the OT are explored in T. Gould, "The Innocence of Oedipus: ThePhilosophers n Oedipus theKing,"Arion (I965) 363-86, 582-6II, 5 (I966) 478-525.3 For theview which equatesOedipus' hamartiaith factual gnorance, ee M. Ost-wald, "Aristotleon hamartiand Sophocles' OT," Festschriftapp Hamburg I950)93-I08, J.M. Bremer,HamartiaAmsterdam 969) I58, T. Gould (above, note 2) 368and 479, D. W. Lucas, TheGreek ragic oetsNew York I959) I50, R. D. Dawe,"Some Reflectionson Ate and Hamartia," HSCP 72 (I967) ii8, R. M. Torrance," Sophocles: Some Bearings,"HSCP 69 (I964) 326.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/21

I90 ROBERT L. KANE [I975is gnorantf he actsut hat,ike he eoplewhom ocrates et nthe treets,eoftenctss fheknewwhat edoes ot.4 For xample,hisplan to steer learof Corinthwas logicalenoughprovided hatPolybus ndMeropewerereally isparents.But thissexactlywhatOedipusdid notknow nd whenhe failed otake his ncertaintyntoaccount,his very"wisdom" became his undoing. The parricideoccurred otsimply ecauseOedipusdid notknow wherehe stoodbut becausehe insistedn acting s ifhe didknow. Thispointhasbeenmadeelsewhere. Let usbegin ybrieflyonsideringheTiresiasscene,whichpitsOedipus'knowledge gainst hatof thedivinelyinspiredeer. Indramatizinghe onflictetweenntuitionnd ogic,Sophocles ere evealshefoundationsfOedipus' lawi.e.,his endencyto trustnbogusknowledge).Afterutting isquestionoTiresias, edipus ees hat heprophetisreluctantospeak, utdoesnotperceive hefactwhich xplainshisreluctancei.e., thatOedipushimselfs themurderer).He thereforeconcludes hatTiresias s keeping ilent n order o protect imself(345-49):Since am oangeredwill ass ver one f hosehingshichperceive(ksynie6Fmi).or know thatyou seem to me (isthi okdnmoi) o havejoinednsowinghis eed i.e., hemurderfLaius),nd ohave arriedit out .. etc.Oedipus romiseso revealwhathe"perceives," uthisnext tatementis prefacedwiththe words: "it seems tome . . .". The juxtapositionofthese erbs sarresting.Oedipus annot eally perceive" heguiltof Tiresias,which is non-existent.Rather,he is experiencingsperceptionksyniekmi)hat sadmittedlydeduction romppearances(dok6n).5 Ofcourse, heresnothing rongwith hehero's easoning:if he ituation ere sOedipus ees t,Tiresias' alkiness ould ndeedbe cause forsuspicion.Unfortunately,he hero'sperspectives so

4 So L. Aylen,GreekTragedy nd theModernWorldLondon I964) 91-94; also D. W.Lucas,Aristotle,oeticsOxford I961) 304. For a discussion f theAppearance/Realitytheme, ee K. Reinhardt,SophoklesFrankfurt9473) I04-44.5 Later Oedipus implicitly dmits that ksynesis s what his charges lack (see 620:ei de ksyniesmeden? . . ktl.). The Chorus refer68i) to the chargesas an "unprovedseemingof words" (dokesis gnos ogon: note thatagnoia s said by Aristotle o be theopposite ofksynesis, eAn. 4IOB3).



4/21

Vol. IO5] THE OEDIPUS REX I9Ilimitedhatnydeductionsemight raw rom he ituation,oweverlogical nthemselves,anonly ead himfurtherrom he ruth.6Theprocess epeatstselffter iresias asbeengoaded ntodentify-ing Oedipus s thekiller. Oedipus eesthat heprophet asaccusedhim,buthe doesnotperceive hefactswhichmaketheaccusationtrue. Accordingly,e surmiseshat t sall a plotto drivehimfromthe hrone401-02):

I thinkdokeismoi)hat ou nd he ramerfthis loti.e.,Creon)willcome ogriefor arryingn this urge.One of thestrikingeaturesf this tatements that tsunderlyingpremisethat plot exists)s treateds self-evidentventhought isnothing uta surmise.One need not ook far o locatethesourceof this onfusion. n theverynextscene,Oedipuswill claimthatCreon is "manifestly (emphands)is destroyernd the evident(enarge's) hiefofhisingdom534-35).Thehero ubstituteseasoningfor erception.Havingdrawn nintelligenteductionromwhathesees, e squick o treathis eductionsa manifestact. Oncemore,it s notthehero's ogichat s atfault:fOedipuswerereallynnocent,nothingould explain iresias' ehaviorxcept hehero's uppositionthathe is out to "frame" theking. The difficultyfcourse ies nOedipus'perspective.Believing hat hesituation ontainswhathesees nit andnothingmore),henotonlyfails orecognizehetruthwhen t splacedbefore iseyes i.e.,hisguilt), utendsup "seeing"what snottheree.g.,the treason" fCreon).7

Theactive ide fthisyndromesseenwhenOedipus proves"thatTiresias389)"has eyes nlyforgain,but sblindn techne"i.e.,thathe isa false rophet nd must e acting n instructionsrom reon).The whole"proof" is basedon an appeal tovisible vidence orthelackof it): "Tell me," the heroasks, where are you an unerringseer?" (390: pou symantis i saphe's?). The Sphinx's riddlerequiredmanteia,utTiresias gave no manifestroofofpossessing" uch a6 Note that Tiresias diagnoses the difficultyorrectly:"You are all... withoutawareness" pantes.. ou phroneit'28-29), ". . . You blamemytemperbutyou do notsee (ou kateides)he one to whichyou arewedded" (337-38).7 Some have maintained hatOedipus' suspicions rise fromanger,e.g., M. Bowra,SophocleanTragedy Oxford I944) 202-04, also A. Lesky,Die Tragische ichtung erHellenenGottingen 9723) 22I.



5/21

I92 ROBERT L. KANE [I975gift (395: out' .. prouphanes chdn. .). If anyonedemonstratedinsightn thehourof crisis, t was Oedipushimself, ot Tiresias(396-98). Here, the visible acts endto obscureTiresias'wisdom,enabling hehero to "prove" thathe himselfs morekeen-sightedthan his accuser. But whatOedipus' "proof" reallydemonstratesis that nome'sworse hanuselesswithout comprehensiveision fthefacts. Intelligence ayhaveenabledOedipus osolvetheriddle,but it did not reveal hat he"prize" was marriage o hismother.Likewise,ogic"proves"that iresiassa false rophet, utthe ruthof his statementss concealedfromOedipusprecisely ecausetheyreflectropheticnsight.8In response o Oedipus "proof,"Tiresiasdelineates he hero'sguiltnexplicit etail ndprophesieshat his uiltwillbebroughtolight efore heendof thepresent ay 4I3-28). Analysisf thevo-cabularynd syntax f Tiresias' tatementseveals hat heprimaryemphasisalls, ot on theenormityfOedipus'misdeeds,ut on hisfailure oseethem:9

Youreyes reopenbutyoudo not ee sykaidedorkas'oublepeis)nwhatevilyou stand. . etc. (4I3-14)Itgoesunnoticedlelethas)hat ouare he nemy fyour wnkin..etc. (4I5-I6)What lace hall otbea haven or our ries hen ouperceivekatais-thanei)henaturefthemarriage.. etc. (42I-22)You do notperceiveouk paisthanei)hostofother vils .. etc. (424)

The accuracy f these harges s confirmedy thehero'sreaction,or rather yhisfailure o react. Tiresias' xplicit evelationsail obring bouta recognitionandwerenotintendedo do so: see 341and 377, withBrunck's mendation),ecause thetruthnevitably8Oedipus' rejection of Tiresias cannotbe termedhybris. Appearancesconspiretomake the prophet'scharges eem adventitious. So J. C. Kamerbeek, "Prophecy andTragedy," Mnemosyne8 (I965) 29-40, C. H. Whitman, Sophocles, StudyofHeroic

HumanismCambridge I95I) I3I, Gould (above, note 2) 504, Bremer above, note 3)158. Note also the mportantnalysis fthis cene n T. v. Wilamowitz, Die dramatischeTechnik esSophoklesBerlin 9I7) 76-78.9For themuchdiscussed attern fsightmagery, eeW. C. Helmbold, " The Paradoxofthe Oedipus'," AJP72 (I95I) 295-97, H. Musurillo, Sunken magery n Sophocles'OedipusRex," AJP 78 (I957) 42-43, J.Jones,On Aristotlend GreekTragedy LondonI962) 212.



6/21

Vol. IO5] THE OEDIPUS REX I93seemsbsurdoOedipusn hispresentlindness. ence, heheroisasked oweigh he pparentbsurdityfthe eer's iddlesgainsttheruths t sdestinedoberevealedater.The utcomesdefinednadvance s a materializationf truths hichnow seem llogical,absurd:

That manwhomyouareseeking. . is here mongus. Nominallyanalien nourmidst,ewill erevealedphanesetai)sanativeheban..etc. (449-5)Itwillbe revealedphanesetai)hat e srelatedohis hildrensbrotherandfather . etc. (457-58)Duringthis cene, heChorushave beenexposed o twodifferentkinds fknowledge,heprophet'sntuitionndOedipus'deductivegnome. Aswe learnnthe irsttasimon,hey erceivehat he onflictbetween rophecynd"judgement"s irreconcilable,utthey re asyetunableto decide which s superior.Meanwhile, owever, heChorus hemselvesxhibit othtypes fknowledge,herebyemon-

stratingtothe pectators)he trengthfoneand theweaknessf theother.A muchneglected eature fthis de is theunconsciousppositionbetween ts two halves. In thefirst,heChorus mplicitlyatifyTiresias'manteia ypredictinghatApollowilltrack owntheunseenfugitiveOedipus). Inthe econd,hey efuseocountenanceiresias'identificationfOedipusas theculprit. The dividinginebetweenthese egmentssmarked ya noticeablehiftntheChorus'mentalprocesses. Whenintheopening tanzasheChorus vokean imageof Apollo,the nfallibleunter,heir ision s summoned orth yintuition,eing projectionftheir aithnthegod. But nthe econdhalf,heChorus' hinkingecomesmiredn nearth-boundmpiricism.Takingtheir ue fromOedipus,theymeasureTiresias'manteiabythe ndexoftheir hysical erceptions.Their nstincts to trustheseer 483-88),butthey annot,n this ase,reconcileheir aithwiththe estimonyftheirenses. Intheir wnwords, heyack "touch-stone" basano6i94)onwhich orelyntakingrms gainsthefameof Oedipus to avenge an "invisible" slaying ad6lon thanato6n). Theysee no signofany quarrel etween he onofPolybus ndthe onofLabdakos thismaybe what heymeanbya "touchstone").On the



7/21

I94 ROBERT L. KANE [I975otherand, acts ithinhe horus'imitederspectiveeemoproveconcretelyhat edipuss heity'senefactor507-I I): ". . . manifestly(phanera)id hewingedeast ome pon im ndhewas eengainstthetouchstoneo6phtheasano6i)o be skillednddear o thecity."Therefore,heChorus illnotoin ncondemningedipus503-06)untilheysee thewordmade ood" prindoim'rthonpos).TheChorus' eflectionsllustratehevulnerabilityfhumanogic,whichmust raw eductionsrommbiguousacts.Here, owever,theChorusrerefutedytheirwn ntuitions.n thefinaltanzathey eclare hatOedipuswillnotbe convictedntheiryesuntiltheyaveome touchstone,"runtilheysee hewordmade ood;but hey ave lreadyivinedhat pollowill nfalliblyiscoverhecriminal469-75). The ombinedffectf hesetatementsstomakeitseemikelyhat "touchstone" ill ndeedppear.TheChorusrefuseo countenanceedipus'guilt ecause hecircumstancesfLaius'death re,to theiryes, invisible"adelohn);utthey avealreadyredictedhat heoraclewillunerringlyerretutthe in-visible" adelon)ulprit.The Chorusunconsciouslyredict heoverthrowf their wn ignorance,inpointinghepreciserea(Oedipus' quarrel"with heLabdakids)nwhich he irstevelationswillappear.

IIInthe econd pisode,he nteractionfthe haracterseads pontan-eouslyto therevelation hatOedipus probably) illedLaius. Butare we to supposethatthecharacterslone are responsible? t isJocasta'sdea to recount hestory fLaius' death t thecrossroads;and t sOedipushimself horecognizesnher ccount descriptionofhisownattack n the stranger."Whatseems rovidentialstheway these lementsuddenly ombine o produce, araprosdokian,a partial evelationfthose actswhichTiresiasworewouldbe re-vealed. Thedisproportionetweenhe haracters'ntentionsndthe

result f their fforts,ombinedwiththefactthatthis utcomehasjustbeenpredictednApollo'sname, reateshe mpressionhat hehuman ctors re "jinxed."IO Tiresias ivined hat hehero'sguilt10 On therole ofthegods, seeWhitman above, note8) I42: "The gods aspersonagesarenot in theplays." But cf. A. Cameron, The dentityfOedipus heKing New York



8/21

Vol. I'O] THE OEDIPUS REX I95wouldbe soon"broughto light"phane'setai53and457). TheChorus ubsequentlyffirmedhatApollo'soracle,having nce"shone orth"phtaneisa),ould nfalliblyiscoverhe nseenulprit(47I-76). And nthe ineswhichmmediatelyrecede he nagnorisis(724-25), Jocasta nwittinglyoretellshecomingdisaster,ttributingit to a divine ource:"whatever hegod (Apollo) desires, e willeasily ring o ightphanei) imself" When, nthenextmoments,a portion fOedipus'guilt mergesrom bscurity,ne spreparedoperceivehis s a spontaneous iracle,hematerializationfApollo'sdesign hroughhemedium f human ctions.

Onenotes hat t themoment henJocastamakes er atal eferenceto thecrossroads,he is engaged n "proving"empiricallyhat heprophet an be safely gnored. She beginsherproofby claiming(7IO) that hewill "reveal" (phano)through signs" (semeia) hatpro-phecies reuntrustworthy.he "sign,"ofcourse,sLaius'death tthehands frobbers, hich ppearsorefutehe racle. Butinsteadofproving heunreliabilityfprophecy,hesign onvinces edipusthatTiresias' ntuitions ereprobably alid. Jocasta'srgumentswell constructedutfails ecause he upportingemeionsambiguous." I willreveal.. ," shehad aid;but he utcome, ith ts rovidentialovertones,uggestshatmancannot redictwhatwillorwillnotberevealedonerecallshe ther tatementnwhich ocastases he utureofphaino, i.e., 725: ... theos .. autosphanei).Afterearninghat aiuswas killed t a crossroads,edipus ecountsthecircumstanceshichcausedhimto leave Corinth nd cometoThebes (794-97):When I heard hese hings.. I setoutintoexile to someplacewhereshould everee entha6pot'psoimeen) thereproachesfthosehameful

I968) 7I: ". . . thegodsare in theactionfrom tart o finish." B. M. W. Knox,Oedipusat Thebes New Haven I957), occupies a middleposition: while the gods in-auguratedtheprocess eadingto thecatastrophei.e., by foretelling edipus' parricideand incest),Sophocles was careful to leave themout of the drama proper. There," the searchforthe truth spressed n to the final evelationby the will ofOedipus andby nothing else" (I2). See also H. D. F. Kitto, Sophocles-DramatistndPhilosopher(London I958) 60. We accept Cameron's position,with thefollowingqualification:it is assumedthatanyassessment f thegods' rolemust startwiththeoraclesand theireffect n the action.

"I So Cameron (above, note io) 65-66, but also Lewis Campbell Sophocles (OxfordI879) I98 (ad loc.).



9/21

I96 ROBERT L. KANE [I975oraclesroughtofulfillmentorme. And s travelledn came o hoseregionsn which ou ay heking erished..

Sincetheoraclehad threatenedarricidendincest,t was "logical"that he heroshouldresolve o keephisparents ut of sight. Butlogic, n this ase,provedworsethanuseless,nd didso forreasonsthat o beyond he imple act hat e wasavoidinghewrong eople.In discussingheparricide,t is necessaryo distinguishetween hemotivesf the ndividualctorsndthe auseof theirmeeting.BothLaiusandOedipushad plausible easons ortravellingn theroadbetween hebes ndDelphi. Whatno humanmotive anexplainshowthejourneyffathernd on oincidednsuch way s tooccasiontheirmeetingta crossroads.Outwardly,hemeetingppearso haveoccurredpontaneouslyi.e., o havehad no causebeyond hosewhichare immediatelypparent),nd ifthetwo men had beenstrangers,therewould be no reason o distrusthetestimonyf appearances.Butwhenthedusthassettled ndtheresultsseenforwhat t s i.e.,a meetingetween atherndson, eading o thepredicted arricide),one scompelledoviewthe utcome sprovidential.While heherohimselferceives o connectionetween he two eventsuxtaposedin hisnarrativetheoracle nd the fatalmeetingt thecrossroads),theaudience eesthat he econd vent, ua parricide, as theconse-quence fthe irst,nd thus hatnvisibleines fforcextend etweenthem.I2IfApollo et he tage orOedipus'downfall,twas Oedipushimselfwho,bytakinghe oad oThebes ndkillinghe stranger,"urnishedthe rawmaterialutofwhichprovidenceashioned parricide. tshould enoted hat he mpulsewhich edOedipus odirect is tepstowardThebeshas thesame rootas hismisguided enunciationfTiresias. Oedipus wrongly ilifiedheprophet ecausehe was thevictim fan optical llusion: ll thevisible vidence eemed o provethat iresiaswasfalsifyingprophecy. Likewise,tDelphi, hehero

12 "Spontaneous" occurrences ometimesprove,on closerexamination, o be provi-dential see Arist.Poet. 452A). Frequentlyt is the presence f a prophecywhich pro-ducesthis ffect: ee Soph. OC 84-IOI, also Eur. Ion, nwhich a series f tychaiincludingchance meetingsbetween blood relatives)mysteriouslyulfill he purpose of Apollorevealed n the prologue. The clearest xamples arefound n theHerodoteanCroesus-Logos,esp. I.34-35 (the "Adrastustragedy"), as interpretedn F. Hellmann's HerodotsKroisos-LogosBerlin I934) 58-68.



10/21

Vol. I5] THE OEDIPUS REX I97setouttopreventhepredictedutcomeyarrangingottoseeit(796-97). I3 Itwasthe onfidencetemmingromhispplicationfopsiswhichllowed he ero oslay noldmanwithoutear fpatri-cide.I4 Therewere ogical roundsorOedipus' onfidencet thecrossroads. evertheless,heogicwasvitiatedecausehe act hichseemed osupportt i.e., he erceptibleon-identityfPolybusndLaius)wasanambiguous act.The prominencef theanagnorisisn thisepisode houldnot beallowedtoobscure hefact hat he cene ulminatesn a momentousact,Oedipus' ummonso theTheban hepherd.Thisact s a mile-stone n the lot, nd tsmotivationhould eexamined ith are. Ofcourse, heherowishes o testhissuspicionhatTiresias' ccusationswere rue. Inparticular,ehopes heherdsmanillconfirmhe umorthat aius was slainbyrobbers. But before hescene nds, nothermeaninghas attached tself o the herdsman'sutative estimony.Jocasta lready knows" what theburden f this estimonyillbe(848-60):

JO. But be assured hat hereportthat obbers lewLaius)was re-vealed in this hape,and he cannotgo back and repudiatet.For twasthecity ndnot alonewhoheard hese hings. Buteven fheshoulddeviate nsomedetail rom isearlierccount,hewillnever,my ord,reveal hat he laying f Laiustookplacepreciselyccording o letterdikaios rthon),orLoxiassaidthathe wasdestined o dieatthehands fhis onby me. Butneverdidthatpoorwretch layhim;rather, e himselferished irst.So I wouldnot,forfear fanyoracle, hereafterastan eye inthisdirection r in that ouchi... g'an outeteid' ego blepsaim'an .. oute eid' n).OED. Your udgements sound. Nevertheless,end omeone ofetchthebondsmanwithout elay, nd do not omit his.

Jocastaherededucesthe unknownfrom heknown, the nvisible rom13 Similar language is used later in connection with the matricide 823-26): "Tothink hat, f exiled, cannot ee idoimi)myown kin .. orelse mustbe yoked nmar-

riage," etc.'4 Fortheessentialnnocence fOedipus' actions at eastprior o thedrama), ee S. M.Adams,SophocleshePlaywrightToronto 95i) 85, T. Gould (above,note2) 372,J.Jones above, note 9) I45, F.J.H. Letters,TheLife andWorkofSophoclesNew YorkI953) 2I8-I9, M. Pohlenz, Die Griechische ragodie G6ttingen 954) 2I3, A. J.A.Waldock, Sophocles heDramatistCambridge I966) I46-47, C. H. Whitman above,note ) 124.



11/21

I98 ROBERT L. KANE [I975thevisible.Since he torywas "revealed"phanon)hat obbersslewLaius, hewitnessannot owtestifytherwise. n the therhand, venf heherdsmanhangesis tory,o"revelation"fhis(outoi.. phanei)5 can contradicthe impressionhatLaiuswaskilled y omeonetherhan is on. It s ronic hat ocasta,homoment efore709)declaredhat thehumanacehasno sharenprophecy,"retendsoknownadvance hat heherdsmanillbeunable o prove. However,t ishard ocondemner, ince he sdrawinghe bviousnferencerom he actssshe ees hem.Inany ase,when he hepherdrrives,edoes he eryhing hichJocastaaidhecouldnotdo, .e.,revealhat aiuswaskilled yhisown son naccordance ith he erms f the racle. Theoutcomeillustrateshat necannotalculatehrougheasoninghatwillorwillnotberevealed.Mortals hoattemptodo so must ase heirpredictionsnwhat as lready eenmade isiblee.g., he revela-tionsofLaius' ttendant).he roublesthatangibleluesmay lsobemisleading. ocasta'source as neye-witnesso thekilling,uthedidnot eveal hat esaw, hoosingo ie nstead. tshould lsobe noted hat heoutcome, hich ere trikesocastas a logicalimpossibility,ependsn a seriesf mponderableychai. hemes-senger hobringsord fPolybus'eathsfoundobethe amemanwhorescuedhe xposednfant any earsarlier.The ervanthohasbeen ummonedsawitnessothe ventstthe rossroadsrovestobe the erymanwhom ocastaharged ith he ask fexposingthe hild. Finally,hedemisefPolybus,y eadingo the ntranceof theCorinthian,nites heonly wo men n theworldwhocanpiece ogethernaccurateicturefthe ruth.Thoughrrationalnthe ightfmen, hesechances"annotewithout eaningntheperspectivefthegods, ince heirombinedffects tobringboutthe indicationf the racles.I6Butweanticipate. efore iscuss-ing he inalpisodes,etusbrieflyonsiderhe econdtasimon,hichisusefuln olvingreciselyhisroblemfwho rwhatsthemovingforceehindhe ecognition.Centraloboth he irstnd econdtasimasthe onflictetweenfaithnd he videncefthe enses. nthe irst,oubt adfallenn

'5 The prevalence ofphainond related words has been noted by W. C. Helmbold(above,note o) 298. See alsoKnox above,note o) I3 I-33.I6 See Reinhardt above, note4) I33, Cameron (above, note IO) 74-75.



12/21

Vol. I05o THE OEDIPUS REX I99thetestimonyfTiresias,hehuman rophet. But ithassincebeen"proved"that specificronouncementfApollofailed ocometrue,andanother racle eems ntheprocessfbeing hwarted.Thethreatto beliefhas therefore ecome critical. Unlike theprevious de,which fell nto discrete alves,one mirroringaith nd theotherskepticism,he resentdebeginswith pleafor ighteousnessndendswith lamenthat godlythingsredisappearing"9Io).I7The chorus egin ypraying hat heymay lways efound onor-ing thedivine aws.i8 These awswere "engenderedn the ether"(867) ... "the mortal nature of man did not give thembirth" and(868-70) . .". forgetfulnesswill never put them to sleep" (lathamepote atakoimasei).hat is, unlikehumanlaws, which fail tooperatewhenviolatedn secret,he aws of thegodsareuniversallyefficacious,incethegods cannotbe oblivious o anything."Thegodisgreatnthemnddoesnotgrowold" (872). Thecharacteriza-tionofthedivineaw as all-seeingndever-vigilants importantorwhatfollows. In the econd nd thirdtanzas,heChorus ataloguethe xcessesfthe ypical yrant883-93). Theimplicationsthat hegods must nfalliblyindicate heir aw against uchtransgressions,or forfeitheir laim orespectsdivineegislators895-903):

'7 The relationship etween the two odes is discussedby W. Schmidt, GriechischeLiteraturgeschichte. 2 (Munich I954) 366.18 Space doesnotpermit discussion fall theproblems nvolved nthe nterpretationof thisode, esp. therelevance of thetwo central trophes. Recent scholarship n thesecondstasimonncludes hefollowing:N. v. d. Ben, " Two VexedPassagesofSophocles'Oedipus Tyrannus,"Mnemosyne.2I (I960) 7-2I, G. H. Gellie, "The Second Stasimonof the Oedipus Tyrannos,"AJP 85 (I964) II3-23, J.C. Kamerbeek, "Comments onthe Second Stasimon of the Oedipus Tyrannus," WS 79 (I966) 8o-92, G. Miiller,"Das Zweite Stasimnones K6nig Oedipus," Hermes 5 (I967) 269-9i, Bremer abovenote 3) I59, R. P. Winnington-Ingram,The Second StasimonoftheOedipus Tyran-nus,"JHS 9i (1972) II9-35-Most persuasive s thetheory fG. H. Gellie,whichmaybe summarized s follows.When, in the second and thirdstrophes, he Chorus prayforthe overthrowof thosewho "set hands upon the untouchable," theirreflectionsre intended by them) tobe entirelyunspecific. But the audience will have heard hybrishyteuei yrannonsan unconsciousreference o the tyrannos f thisplay, i.e., Oedipus. Consequently,theChorus' description f the tyrant n antist.A and str.B would be perceivedas anunwitting ommentary n thehero'snarrative n theprecedingscene. The audiencewill remember hatOedipus himself set handsupon theuntouchable" i.e., in killinghisfather). When, at theend oftheode, theChorus pray for hevindication ftheoldLaius oracle,they reunconsciously raying or heexposureof the"tyrant" Oedipus)whose " hybris they amented n thecentral trophes.



13/21

200 ROBERT L. KANE [I975If uch eeds ttainheirbject, hy hould ointhe acredances?No longer ill goinreverenceo the arth's ntouchableavel, or othe hrinefAbae, r that fOlympia,f hesehingso notfit ogetherso that llmenmaypoint o themei me ade heirodeikta.. harmosei. .brotois).

In the ast entence,these hings" efer o thefulfillmentftheoldoracles fLaius. In praying or hevindicationfthese racles,heChorusare unwittinglyraying orthepunishmentby exposure)of theunconscioustyrant," edipus. But themeaning f "thesethings" s notmade explicit ntilthesucceeding erses. What isclear s that hedivineprerogatives ustbe visiblynforcedcheiro-deikta)fthey re to command ear ndrespectmongmen. It is inthe ightof this tipulationhatone shouldview the Chorus'finalappeal903-IO):

All-rulingues, f oyou re ightlyamed, asterfall, etthesehingsnotfindyouoblivious.Letthem otescape hat ominionfyourswhich severundying.ForthepropheciesfLaius rewastingwaywhilemenet hemside. Apollosnowhere anifestnhis rerogatives.Godly hingsredisappearing.

Theseverses anbestbe interpretedn the ight fthefirsttrophe,towhich heyorrespondoth hematicallyndverbally.TheChorusheremplore eustoprovehisgodhead"All-rulingeus, fyoutrulydeserve hisname.. ."), by demonstratinglisvigilance.Thisis thevery uality hich adearliereen stablishedsthemark f hedivinelaw. Thefirsttanza efinedhisaw as onewhich annot eput tosleep hroughforgetfulness"latha). Here, heChorus ray hat hechallenge o the oraclemay not findZeus "oblivious" me' lathoise). Itwas stated hat thegod isgreat" nhis aws megasntoutoishotheos),ndthat he doesnotgrowold" (ge&raskei). utnow theChorusperceivehat heoracles re ndeed wasting way" (phthin-onta),hatApollo sno onger manifest"nhis rerogativesemphane's),andthat thedivinesdisappearing"erreia heia). At take,herefore,is thepowerofthegodsto command espect s universalegislators.Ifreligionsto bepreserved,eusandApollomust isibly emonstratethat heoracles avenotfailed.



14/21

Vol. IOS] THE OEDIPUS REX 20IIII

In the losingerses f the econdtasimon,heChorusmploreZeus tovindicateheoracles yopenly evealingheir ruth. m-mediatelyhereafter,ocastantersndbegsApollo ocureOedipus'anxietyver he ossibleruthfTiresias'harges9II-23). Sinceherprayermplieswish hat heprophethould ot evindicated,it sclear hat heChorusndJocastare ttemptingomoveheaveninoppositeirections.WhentheCorinthianessengernnouncesthatOedipus' father" asdied, tappearshat ocasta'srayerasbeen nswered.Oedipuss ummonedowitnessetnotherproof"of oracularneffectiveness.he caseagainstheoracle annot erefutedromhefactssJocastaees hem; ut s soon s OedipusconfrontsheCorinthian,he evidence" eginso transformtselfhideouslyefore er yes. Therealmessagesthat edipus adbeenfoundnCithaeron ith iercednkles.Suddenlytbecomeslearthatt sthe horus'rayer,otJocasta's,hichhemessengeras eensent o answer.I9 (IfOedipus s the hildwhomJocastaaused o beabandoned,he oracles re all vindicated.) nceagain, hetruthof he racles asbeen evealedsthe onsequencef cogentttempttoprove hemworthless. nefurtherxamplef this atternowremainso bediscussed.TheCorinthianessengeras old freceivinghe oundlingroma Theban, servantf the oyal ouse. The atterrovesobe theveryhepherdho urvivedhe laughtertthe rossroads. edipusiseager osummonhiswitnessnew, utJocasta,hohas lreadyrecognizedhedentityfthe bandonedhild,mploresedipus ottopress he nquiryifhehasa careforhis ife" io6o-6i). ThetragedyowhingesnOedipus' eactionohiswife's arning.HisanswersasfollowsI076-85):Let reakorthhateverill. I,at east, ill econtento eemy irth,evenf t is insignificant.he,perhaps,ecausehehasa woman'spretensions,sashamedfmy owbirth.But ,countingyselfchildof hance,he indlyiver,hallot edishonored.orhes hemotherfrom hom am prung;nd he o-evalmonthsave efinede s'9 Althoughtheappearanceofdivineagencyhas often eennoted, theeffectsusuallyattributedo the fact hatthemessenger's rrival eemsto answerJocasta's rayer. SeeKitto, GreekTragedyNew York I955) I37, also Poiesis Berkeley 966) 2I3-I4.



15/21

202 ROBERT L. KANE [I975insignificantnd reat.Being, hroughuchineage,he ortfman am,I couldnothereafterrove ther,o asnot o earnmy rigins.

The tragedys precipitatedecauseOedipuscan "prove," againstJocasta'swarning, hathe is immune o disaster. He will not bedishonored,e says, ecause e counts imselfa child fchance,thekindly iver" (paidate's yche'se's u didouse's).f thisphrase sdestinedohave nymeaningor he pectators,tmust ear omerelationothe vents ftheplay.20 nfact,he ntireassagere-supposeshe oregoingialogueetweenedipusnd heCorinthian,especiallyhe atter'sccountfhowOedipus asbroughtoCorinth.When Oedipuscallshimself "child of chance, hekindly iver,"he means hatwhoever isbiologicalarents ayhavebeen, is ifereally egan t themoment hen, yan imponderablechance,"he became he"son" ofPolybusndMerope.Knowinghat heking ndqueenof Corinthrenot his realparents,hehero eeshimselfs the reaturefthe nonymousorcetyche')hich lacedhimntheir ands. She s the mother" rom hom ewas prung(te'sephyka e'tros). hisaffiliationivesOedipusgrounds or eject-ingJocasta'sarning: eing, hroughuchineage,he ort fmanhe s(toiosdekphys),e could no longer turnout other" i.e.,thanwhatluckandtimehave madehim), so as notto learnmyorigins"i.e.,so as to have motive or bandoninghenquirynto isbirth).2IAs statedarlier,he oundationsfthis assagere o befoundnthe recedingialogueetweenedipusnd he orinthianessenger.Note, specially,he ollowingassages:

20 It may be the obscurity f thisphrase which has led some writers o characterizethe hero'sspeechas reckless, .g., Adams (above, note I5) I02: ". . . reckless ride. . . ,"esp. Bowra (above, note 7) I98: ". . . wild exaltation .. withan exaltation hat s onthe edge of delirium .. he is so excited that tmaybe wrongto demandclearthoughtfromhim." For an interpretationf the whole speech,see C. Diano, "Edipo figliodella tych,"Dioniso I5 (I950) 56-89.2I oukan ekselthoim'ti/pot' alloshdsteme kmathein'oumon enos. These lines areusuallytaken to mean: "I shallnotnow prove untrueto mynaturebygiving up the

search ntomybirth." But oukan ekselthoimn'ticould hardlyrefer o what thehero sdoing now (i.e., summoning the shepherd),as the standard nterpretationmplies.Rather, tpointsto theoutcome f thesummons,whichhas alreadybeen issuedforthesecond time I069-70). The herowill not "come out" a differentersonas a result ftheshepherd's estimony;hence,why should he fearto turnover this aststone? Thelines were correctlynterpretedy W. B. Jones,TheOedipusRex ofSophocles, evisedEd., (Oxford I874).



16/21

Vol. I'5] THE "OEDIPUS REX 203(I) OED. How did he come tocall mehisownchild?MES. Havingreceived ouas a giftdoron)rommyhands. (I02I-22).(2) OED. And had you boughtme or happenedupon me (tych60n)whenyou gave me did6s)oPolybusMES. I hadfoundyouinthe eafy lens f Cithaeron. (io65-66)(3) OED. Terrible he tigma tookuponme inmy nfancy.MES. Yes, and t was from his troke ffortuneek tychesautes2)thatyouwerebrandedwith henameyoubear.OED. By mymother rmyfather? In god'sname, ellme.MES. I knownot. He whogaveyoutome(ho dous)wouldknowthis etterhan .OED. You meanyou receivedme from another? You did nothappen n thechildyourselfoud' utos ychon)MES. No, anotherhepherdave ekdid6si)t to me. (I035-40).The accumulation fwords withstem ych-,ncombinationwithformsof did6mi, rovidesa clue to themeaningof the curiousphrasepaidates tyches esdidouses.23Oedipus is a "child of chance, the kindlygiver,"because an unforeseeableccidentcausedhim to be bestowedas a "gift" on Polybus and Merope. This is the evidence for hisjudgementthathe can afford o summon theshepherd. (How couldlearning heidentity f histrueparents ffecthekingly egacywhichchance had once bequeathed to him?)But it is not only themessengerwho has had occasion to speak oftychen this cene. Hearing ofPolybus' death,Jocasta ays 946-48):

Oraclesofthegods,where reyou? Oedipushaslong beenshunningthisman forfear hathemight layhim, ndnow thismanhas diedbychancepros e'syches),otthrough edipus.In Jocasta'sperspective, olybus' death by naturalcauses prostyches)provesthatoracles are unreliable. Chance appearsto have thwartedprovidence. Thus, a moment ater, he has themeans to assuageherhusband'sfearof the"incestoracle" (977-79):

22 Here, tyches usedin a differentense,but tserves o remindus ofa factwhichthecharacters re prone to neglect,namely,thatnot all "luck" isgood uck. See Bowra(above, note7) I98, Adams (above, note i5) I02, J.T. Sheppard,TheOedipusTyrannusofSophoclesCambridge ig20) i62.23 eu didousesmay be a ritualformula, s Knox suggests above, note IO) 262n., butit appears thatSophocles chose thephrase n orderto reinforce helinkbetween tycheand the"gifttheme,"which sdestined oreappear n theensuing cene.



17/21

204 ROBERT L. KANE [I975What hould man ear,nrelationowhomhoi) hepower fchancerules, ndforethoughts never nerringta tes ycheskratei,ronoiad'estinudenosapne's) To live trandomsbest, owevernemay.

Jocasta's remises notfalse, utemphaticallyrue. The play tselfhasdemonstratedhat venthemostreasonablerognosticationsresubject ooverthrow yunfathomableaccidents." Here,however,Jocastaxtendshe uncertaintyrinciple"o ncludevents redictedbythe racle. Since he ourse f eventssunpredictableasPolybus'death proves"),Oedipusneednot be overly earfulf theprophecythathewouldmarry ismotheras if thegods, ikemen,weretheslaves f yche6,atherhantsmasters).One canhardly lameJocastafor drawingthisconclusion, ow that"chance" has carriedoffOedipus' father"napparentiolation fthe racle.24Nevertheless,she is mistakenn concludinghatchance'sdominion verhumanlife impliesthe unreliabilityf prophecies.Her argument ailsbecauseof theambiguity f thesupportingsign" (i.e., Polybus'death ros yche's).Aneventwhich ccurs ccidentallynman'seyesmayprove ohavebeenprovidentialhen eenn a wider erspective.Polybus ied bychance," uthisdeathwasnot randomvent nd tdoes not disprove hereliabilityf oracles. On thecontrary,t isthroughuchwell-timedaccidents that hetruth ftheoraclessnowbecoming isible asTiresias redicted).It isagainsthis ackgroundhatwe must iewOedipus' ummonsto the hepherd.His language ere sreminiscentfJocasta'sarlier"proofs" (io58-59): "It cannotbe thatafter eceivinghese igns(semeia) I shallnotrevealphan8)mybirth" cf. 10: phano. *. se'meiasyntoma).The hero s confidentecausehe already knows" whatwillberevealed hen he nquiryspursued, rrather,eknowswhatwill notbe revealed. He willnot,he says, be dishonored"io8i);

24 It has been suggested hatthe sufferingsf both Oedipus andJocastaare in partjustifiedby their blasphemous" or "unorthodox" attitude owardoracles. Jocasta'swordshavefurthereen interpreteds a negationofdivineprovidence nd a declarationofbelief n a totally andomuniverseseeKitto,GreekTragedy48, Bowra (above, note7) 208, Knox (above, note io) I79-8I). But one may disbelieve n oracleswithoutdoubting that the gods control events. That Jocasta acknowledges providence isrevealedby her own explicitstatement725), and is impliedby herprayerto Apollo(919-23). In thepresent assage, hedoesassert hedominanceofchance ndthefutilityofforethought, ut only "in relation o man."



18/21

Vol. I05] THE OEDIPUS REX 205he willnot turn ut tobe)other" han hemanhenow s Io85);asforJocasta,hewillnotbe "revealed s base" (ekphaneiakei036).But whenthe hepherdrrives, istestimonyroduces hevery esultwhichOedipushadpronouncedmpossible. See I397: "For now Iam found o be base kakos)ndsprung rom hosewho werebase"(kakon).) The herohas precipitatedhiscatastrophe y actingon"knowledge that was misconceived, ut not illogical. Moreparticularly,e has,likeJocasta, eenmisledby theambiguityftyche,hoserole nbestowingimonPolybus ndMerope eemed obespeaka "kindly" nature. It will presently e revealedthatwhereastheheroowes his ife o "fortune,"ergifts avehardly een kind."The anagnBrisistself evolves round wo separatects ofgiving:first,he shepherddmits hat twas he who gave the childto theCorinthian II56-57):OED. Didyougiveed6kas)hisman he hild fwhom espeaks?SER. I did (ed6k').Would that hadperishedn that ay!Afterextracting he information hat the child came fromsomeoneinLaius' household,Oedipus demands to know whether twas a slaveor" one of theman's relatives (see i68: he is still reoccupiedwiththeissue ofwhetherhisparentswerenoblemen or commoners) II 7o-80):

SER. It was himselfhe hild elonged o,orso we were old. But thewoman nside, ourwifc, ouldbest ayhow thesematterstand.OED. You mean twas shewho gave the child to you (e gardid6sinhedeoi)? SER. Itwas, my ord.OED. Ah, wretch! Her own child? SER. Yes, for fearof evilprophecies.OED. Foretellinghat? SER. The storywas thathewoulddestroyhisparents.OED. How thendidyouyieldhimup tothisman?SER In sorepity,my ord, hinkinge wouldcarry imoff oanotherland, the place fromwhichhe came. But it was forthe direstof fates hathe savedthe hild.

For the tragedy o unfold, t was necessary hat Oedipus' journey toCorinth eaveno traces ehind t. Thisconditionwasfulfilled hrougha providentialmultiplication f "gifts" and "givers:" Jocasta gavethebabyto the Thebanshepherd, ho gave it to the Corinthian,whogave ttoPolybusndMerope. Eachofthese ifts ada plausiblemotive,risingrom he haracterfthe giver"andthe ircumstances



19/21

206 ROBERT L. KANE [1975inwhich efound imselfWhatno humanmotive anexplainstheconstitutionf the equence. ne canonlymarvelhat hreepeople, avingheseersonalities,ffectedytheseircumstances,ereassembledn he ightlace t he ightime. Thegodhad rophesiedthataius' onwould lay is atherndmarryismother.Nosoonerhadthe nfanteenbornthan hepatternf conditionsecessaryorthe ulfillmentfthe raclematerializeds fbydesign. Who orwhatisresponsible?TheagentsfOedipus'downfallppear obethe hreemortalswhose"gifts"resultedn hisremoval o Corinth. But itisclear hat achofthese ctorsntendedomethingtherhanwhat heircombined ffortsroduced. Clearly, hetelos f their ctionswasdecidedby a power beyondthemselves.This force s correctlyidentifieds tyche6. utwhenthepicturemergingnthe nagndrisisis found o conformo the oneportrayedn advanceby theoracle(andmorerecentlyyTiresias),tbecomes learthat his orcewasnotblindhance, utratherprovidentialhance"or, as theGreeksexpressedt, hieiayche6.

IVIt seems nlikelyhat heOedipus exwasmeant oprove point.But thedrama oesreflectn theproblem fknowledge,fonly n anincidental ay.25In theperiodof uncertaintyefore hearrival f theCorinthianmessenger,ocasta aments hatOedipusdoesnot 9I6) hopoi' ne6r/ennousakaina ois alaitekmairetai"like a sensibleman, nferhenewfromtheold"). This remarks interestingecause t reflectshefundamentalntellectualattern ftheplay. As thetragedyngulfsthem,he haracterseep ryingoreasonheir aytoa knowledgefthefuture. Theirmethod onsistsninferringhenewfrom heoldinaccordance ithJocasta'sxiom.26 Thispatternssuggested,irst,inthe nalogy rawn ntheprologue etween hepresentlague ndthe arliernfestationftheSphinx: inceOedipusfound cure nthe25 This has been discussed lsewherein varyingways. See (besidesDiller), Bowra(above, note 7) 20I-02, M. Champlin, "Oedipus and the Problem of Knowledge,"CJ64 (i968) 347-56,M. O'Brien, TwentiethenturynterpretationsfSophocles'OedipusRex (Englewood Cliffs 968) i-I6.26 Her phraserecalls the sayingof Anaxagoras (fr.2ia): opsisadet8n aphainomena("appearances afford view of things nvisible;" cf. also the injunction ttributed oSolon: ta aphane oisphanesitekmairou,iels-KranZ61,63.22). Hans Diller has traced



20/21

Vol. 105] THE OEDIPUS REX 207past,he can be expected o do thesame now (35-45). In a similarvein, heherodivineshat,sLaius ppears o havebeen he ictimfThebanplot,hehimselfsnow liable o attack rom he amequarter(I39-4I). But t ischieflyncopingwithpropheciesndoracles hatthe haractershow heir ondnessor inferringhenewfromhe ld."IntheTiresiascene, edipusgauges hevalueoftheprophet'sresentcharges rom isperformancenan earlierest: inceTiresias idnot"manifest"prouphane's) gift fmanteian the crisis ftheSphinx,his solution o thepresent lague is judged fraudulent390-403).Thereupon,heChorusfind n these ame past events warrant orjudging Oedipus nnocentn thepresentrisis: incehewas "seen"(ophthe')n thepast o bewiseanddear o the ity, ewillnot ncurcharge fwickednessow. Jocasta,orherpart,uses the"failure"ofan old oracle s a se6meionherewitho reveal heworthlessnessfprophets, resent nd future7IO: phandde soi se6meiao6nde...):since aiusfailed o die at thehands fhis on,Jocasta illnever gaingivea passing lance oanyoracle857-58). Inparticular,he nfersfromthis "sign" that the herdsman'sestimonyannotvalidateOedipus'recently indled earof Tiresias85I-58). (It is thisfearto whichJocastas alludingwhenshedeploresOedipus'failure o"infer henewfrom heold, ike sensibleman.") Later, hedeathofPolybus ssumes he function hichhad earlier eenassigned othe various forms n which thisdoctrine was applied in antiquity " Opsis AdNlon aPhainomena,"Hermes67 (I932) I4-42; see also B. Snell, The Discovery f theMind,tr. by T. RosenmeyerNew York I960) 2I6-I8). Empedocles sed the known)configuration f a lampto llustrate he unknown) tructure f thehumaneye. Herod-otusdeduced the ength nd direction f the Nile (whose upper parthe had not seen)by analogy with tsEuropean "counterpart," he Danube (see 2.33: hos egosymballomaitoisemphanesi a me gignoskomenaekmairomenos:as I conclude by inferring hingsunknown fromthingsvisible"). More commonly,historians educed the natureofpastevents r nstitutionsrom heir isible ounterpartsn thepresentfor heprevalenceoftekmairesthai,ekmerionndsemeionnThucydides, ee DilIer 22). The reverse f thisprocessproduced, in the hands of the orators, tillanothervariationof thismethod.Here, the futurewas deduced by extrapolationfromthe past, e.g. Andocides 3.2:chre ar tekmerrioishresthaioisproteronenomenoiseriton mellontonsesthai" one mustuse the eventsof the past as evidence forwhat is destinedto occur in the future").One notes that this s a reasonably lose paraphrase fJocasta'sdefinition f theennousaner s one who "infers he new fromthe old" (ta kainatoispalaitekmairetai).But thephrase s a topossee Isocr.Paneg. .I4I; Eur. frr. 84 and 8iI (Nauck). For allusions o"scientificmethod" in the OT including "making the invisiblevisible," see Knox(above, note Io) I33-38.



21/21

208 ROBERT L. KANE [I975Laius'murdery"robbers." Thisevents seen syet nother isible"sign" (see987: iS thisnotthe force f opthalmos?)hatoracles reunreliable. n thesamepassage, ocasta educes hetrivialityfthe"incest racle" from nalogous ropheciesecordednthepast 98I-82): "manymen before ow (6d6)havesleptwiththeirmothersndreams" i.e., without ulfillinghe omen in a literalway); ergo,Oedipusneed not fearmarriagewith his mother980). Finally,Oedipushimselfnfers rom he favorswhichchancehas bestoweduponhim nthepast hathe hasnothingofear rom he mpendingvisit fthe hepherdI076-85).

In effect,he characterset themselvesp as prophetsn com-petitionwith the professionaleers,whose techne6heyscorn. Inplace of "inspiration"nd birdsigns,heir redictionsrebased ongnome.The unseen onsequencesf thepresentre nferredrom heapparentessons f thepast. Calculation rom xperience,otclair-voyance, ecomes hekeytopredictinghefuture.Needless o say,theplaydemonstrateshefutilityfthismethod, or very ime hecharactersmploy t,their ctions ring boutthevindicationf theoracles hey adsought odisprove.Humancalculationails ecauseit cannot llow fortheeffectsftyche6,.e.,forthose accidents" ftimingnduxtapositionhich eterminehe elosf naction. Con-versely,racles ucceed ecause hey erive romhe ery ourcewhichcontrolsych6.27One is left o conclude hat, iventhedominanceof chancenhuman ffairs,o refinementf ogicorcalculation illever ompensateor he ackof a truly racular erspective. ndeed,iftheres any essonn theplay t is that ntelligencexercized n aperceptualacuum anbe worse hanmere gnorance. Inparticular,thepracticefdeducingheunknown rom heknown, he nvisiblefrom hevisible,s shown o be a treacherousnare. How canonededuce the unknown rom he knownwhenwhatone professeso"know" is itselfmperfectlyerceived? This s thedifficultyhichplagues hecharactershroughouthedrama. It is easy to seewhythetragedy asbeen calleda "critique frationalism,"8 for tinci-dentallyemonstrateshat science"cannot ompensate or hegapsinman flawed erspective.

27 Simpliciuasommenting n Arist.Ph. 2.4 notes thatTyche ndLoxias wereinvokedjointly at Delphi (we owe thisreference o Knox (above, note O) 26in.).28 See W. K. Wimsatt and C. Brooks,Literary riticism: ShortHistoryNew YorkI957) 44n.

Documents

UN Resolution war Hitler Obama Syria 3151