Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T12:25:24.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The encounter at the crossroads in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Justina Gregory
Justina Gregory
Affiliation:
Smith College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Toward the midpoint of the OT Jocasta, in a bid to convince Oedipus of the unreliability of oracles, recalls the old prophecy that Laius was destined to die at the hands of his son. Jocasta points out that this prediction proved doubly mistaken, since Laius was killed by foreign robbers at a crossroads and his newborn child was exposed on the desolate mountainside (707–25). To Jocasta's surprise, Oedipus responds with agitation. He questions her closely about the circumstances of Laius' death and then embarks on an autobiographical narrative that touches on his early life in Corinth and his journey to Delphi, reaching its rhetorical climax with the description of his own fateful encounter at the very crossroads mentioned by Jocasta.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 115 , November 1995 , pp. 141 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jebb, R., Sophocles: Oedipus Tyrannus (Cambridge 1902) xxviiGoogle Scholar (henceforth: Jebb) likens Sophocles to a sculptor who leaves inconspicuous areas rough and unfinished. Dawe, R.D., Sophocles: Oedipus Rex (Cambridge 1982) 7Google Scholar (henceforth: Dawe) compares the structural analysis of the play to examining a painting at too close range. Gould, J. in Bloom, H., ed., Sophocles' Oedipus Rex (New York 1988) 144Google Scholar comments on ‘the fact that it is a play of which the theatergoer's experience is very different from that of the reader of the play-text.’

2 Mendacity: Vellacott, P., Sophocles and Oedipus (Ann Arbor 1971).Google Scholar Gullibility: Ahl, F., Sophocles' Oedipus: evidence and self-conviction (Ithaca 1991).Google Scholar For criticism of Vellacott's assumptions see Buxton, R.C.A., JHS c (1980) 23 n. 4Google Scholar; of Ahl's, see Murnaghan, S., CP lxxxviii (1993) 162–67.Google Scholar The analogy to a detective story is qualified by Jones, J., On Aristotle and Greek tragedy (London 1962) 201Google Scholar and Dodds, E.R., Greece and Rome n.s. xiii.i (1966) 41.Google Scholar For a review of various theories of Oedipus' innocence with additional bibliography see Griffith, R.G., Phoenix xlvii (1993) 96–107.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Genette, C., Narrative discourse (Ithaca 1980) 189–94Google Scholar and Bal, M., Narratologie: essais sur la signification narrative dans quatre romans modernes (Paris 1977) 21–58.Google Scholar With the exception of Roussel, L., REG xlii (1929) 362Google Scholar, commentators have not been attentive to the rhesis as a unified first-person narrative. For example, Gould, T., Sophocles: Oedipus the King (London 1970) 101Google Scholar comments: ‘It is as though the narrative up to this point [800] had been thrown in just for fullness, that what is to come now is the only important point.’

4 For example, I have no solution to the problem of Laius' one and many murderers (cf. 122–5, 842–7 and Goodhart, S., Diacritics viii [1978] 55–71).CrossRefGoogle Scholar It may be, however, that the problem itself has been overstated. Oedipus' use of number is idiosyncratic at other points in the play as well: cf. the alternation at 960 and 962 and the emotive plurals for family members at 1406–7. On these variations of number see Bers, V., Greek poetic syntax in the classical age (New Haven 1985) 28–32 and 34–35.Google Scholar

5 The drawing of inferences is intrinsic to the theatrical situation. Spectators freely and unselfconsciously attribute histories, motives and emotions to the characters they observe on stage. Even critics determined to avoid importing anything acknowledge the necessity of building up a coherent account of the characters from relevant passages of the text. The question becomes, which passages are relevant, and what constitutes a legitimate inference? For the considerations involved see Easterling, P.E. in Characterization and individuality in Greek literature, ed. Pelling, C.B.R. (Oxford 1990) 83–99.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Lattimore, R., The poetry of Greek tragedy (Baltimore 1958) 86Google Scholar, Kamerbeek, J.C., Sophocles: Oedipus Tyrannus (Leiden 1967) 19, Dawe 15.Google Scholar

7 Pucci, P., Oedipus and the fabrication of the father (Baltimore 1992) 115Google Scholar states this assumption in its strongest, Freudian form: ‘It is difficult to be sure what has caused the repression that buried this accident in Oedipus' memory for so long a time.’ Sheppard, J.T., The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles (Cambridge 1920) on 804–5Google Scholar reflects the difficulty of reconciling the tone of the rhesis with the theory of a forgetful Oedipus: ‘Oedipus is engrossed in his story, imagination making vivid every detail of a scene he had almost forgotten.’

8 Pucci (n. 7) 115. For the Freudian approach see further Rudnytsky, F., Freud and Oedipus (New York 1987) 253–71.Google ScholarPace Becker, O., Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im frühgriechischen Denken (Berlin 1937) 201Google Scholar, the image of mental wandering in is not necessarily suggestive of disorientation. Cf. 67, where Oedipus refers to his quest for a solution to the plague as For as a ‘mental oscillation’ see Long, A.A., Language and thought in Sophocles: a study of abstract nouns and poetic technique (London 1968) 130–1.Google Scholar

9 Bollack, J., L'Oedipe Roi de Sophocle (Lille 1990) ii 458Google Scholar (henceforth: Bollack) points out that each of the three expressions casts light on the others, and comments: ‘La question de Jocaste évoque une fixation, un objet précis qui préoccupe l'esprit…’ For Sophocles' use of Ant. 857, OT 1460.

10 Cf. Bollack ad loc, who also summarizes the arguments in favour of the line's authenticity. Oedipus' use of may be contrasted to that of another Sophoclean narrator, Lichas in Trachiniae, whose concern is clearly with veracity (Tr. 474–5):

11 Cole, T., QUCC xiii (1983) 10.Google Scholar Although Cole is describing Homeric usage, Heitsch, E., Hermes xc (1962) 24–33Google Scholar shows that fifth-century writers also exploit the etymology of and its cognates.

12 Roussel (n. 3) 362 speaks of ‘la précision pittoresque du passage.’ Kamerbeek (n.6) 19 describes the narrative as ‘a real resurrection of the past before the mental eye of the hearer.’ For analysis of the tenses see Moorhouse, A.C., The syntax of Sophocles (Leiden 1982) 185–6 and 189.Google Scholar

13 Lattimore (n. 6) 87, Pucci (n. 7) 107. However, Knox, B., Oedipus at Thebes (New Haven, 1957) 92Google Scholar argues that Oedipus' introduction ‘recall[s] the courtroom speech.’ For reflections of Attic legal procedure in the play see Lewis, R.G.M., GRBS xxix (1988) 41–66.Google Scholar

14 For variations on Polybus' nationality and on the name of Oedipus' wife and mother in the mythological tradition, see Kamerbeek (n. 6) on 774.

15 For a similar narrative use of the imperfect cf. Ant. 450: Antigone, however, goes on to assert (456) her continued faith in the rather than to chronicle a change in outlook as does Oedipus. Ahl (n. 2) 18 and 142 also speculates on the significance of the imperfect at 774, but I believe that the effect is more subtle than he recognizes, since it is context rather than the tense per se that casts doubt on Oedipus' faith in the parental relationship.

16 775–6. For + indicative marking ‘decisive turning points’ see Dawe ad loc.

17 With Campbell, L., Sophocles i (Oxford 1879)Google Scholar I interpret as ‘spread widely.’ As Campbell explains on 786, ‘This interpretation, introducing a new circumstance, is better than ‘For it rankled deeply’, which adds little to

18 The note of hurt in line 789 is intensified by the dative , the possible reading of L before correction, which is preferred by Dawe and the Oxford editors to the of all the other manuscripts.

19 Cf. Vernant, J-F., ‘Oedipus without the complex’, in Tragedy and myth in ancient Greece (Brighton 1981) 81Google Scholar; Vickers, B., Towards Greek tragedy (London 1973) 511Google Scholar; Pucci (n. 7) 112; Ahl (n. 3) 145.

20 For the two possibilities see Gardner, J.F., G&R xxxvi (1989) 55.Google Scholar For the passing off of a slave's child as royal cf. E. Alc. 636–39. I owe this explanation and these references to Alan Sommerstein.

21 For the reading see Lloyd-Jones, H. and Wilson, N.C., Sophoclea: studies in the text of Sophocles (Oxford 1990) 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Lloyd-Jones and Wilson (n. 21) 99 cite Vahlen, J., Opuscula academica (Leipzig 1907–1908), i 321Google Scholar and Jebb ad loc. in support of 827. Vahlen states but does not justify his opinion. Jebb assumes that Oedipus at this point has only two choices; that is, he must believe either that Polybus is his father, or that Laius is. 827 reads like an expanded gloss; its pedantic, didactic tone marks it as suspect regardless of the order of the verbs, and despite the fact that έκ– compounds are a Sophoclean mannerism (noted by Dawe on 129 and 827; cf. also Goldhill, S., Arethusa xvii [1984] 177–200).Google Scholar

23 Moorhouse (n. 12) 161 characterizes here as ‘scornful’, but that tone does not square with the urgent imperative that follows. Moorhouse's interpretation is conditioned by his belief that ‘Oedipus at this stage does not have doubts about his parentage.’ Kamerbeek (n. 6) on 437 describes as ‘the alarming question which had haunted Oedipus ever since the indiscretion committed by his drunken table companion’, but proceeds to contradict himself in his note on 777–8: ‘Oedipus…does not entertain any doubts concerning his descent from Polybus and Merope.’ Dawe ad loc. describes the interchange as a ‘disturbing moment’ which Sophocles ‘quickly passes over.’ Sheppard (n. 7), however, notes on 436: To the audience …this [question] is a revelation of [Oedipus'] whole mental life. It is at once plain that he has brooded long and anxiously over the question he now asks’

24 As Jebb notes on 803, is ‘adverbial neuter…referring to Jocasta's whole description.’ For the identification of the with the see Dawe on 802–7. Jebb comments on 804–12 that the herald would ‘be known for such by his stave’, but heralds performed other tasks in addition to their official function, often involving driving or leading horses, for which the would have been a hindrance. Priam's herald Idaeus, for example, drives the wagon bearing Hector's ransom (Horn. Il. xxiv 324–35). One side of an Athenian votive relief (Athenian Archaeological Museum 1983; see Buitron-Oliver, D., The Greek miracle [Washington 1992] fig. 26)Google Scholar shows Echelus and Iasile in a chariot while Hermes, without his walks at the horses' heads.

25 808. is Doederlein's emendation, adopted by Dawe and the Oxford editors, but it is the participle that is decisive to the sense of ‘walking past.’ Peradotto, J., TAPA cxxii (1992) 8Google Scholar is mistaken in referring to ‘a spot too narrow for both to pass at precisely the same moment.’

26 Dawe 17. Equally anachronistic is Bollack's assertion (ii 494) that Laius should have issued orders to stop the vehicle, as if the intersection featured some kind of pedestrian crossing.

27 For gesture as a form of non-verbal communication within a cultural system see Thomas, K. in A cultural history of gesture, ed. Bremmer, J. and Roodenburg, H. (Ithaca 1991) 3–4Google Scholar, and Lateiner, D., TAPA cxxii (1992) 133–4.Google Scholar

28 There is no textual justification for assuming an abusive command issued by Laius and the herald, as does Roussel (n. 3) 368. Segal, C., Tragedy and civilization (Cambridge, MA 1981) 222Google Scholar notes that ‘not a word is exchanged’, but links this aspect of the encounter to a general regress into savagery, with Laius treating Oedipus like a beast rather than, as in my interpretation, a slave. Segal's citation of E. Supp. 669–74 (456 n. 36) is not pertinent.

29 Vellacott (n. 2) 116 and 119 objects that the presence of a herald must have revealed the traveller's royal status to Oedipus. But the whole point of Oedipus’ question and Jocasta's answer (750–4) is that the distinguishing signs of a dignitary were missing. See also n. 24.

30 Cf. Winkler, J.J. in Before sexuality, ed. Halperin, D.M., Winkler, J.J., and Zeitlin, F.I. (Princeton 1990) 179Google Scholar: ‘Inviolability of the person is a marker separating slaves from citizens: slaves may be manhandled in any way; citizens are literally untouchable.’

31 Cf. Dawe on 1019 and Knox (n. 13) 155.

32 Kane, R.L., AJP ciii (1982) 139 n.6.Google Scholar

33 Cf. Aj. 693–718, Ant. 1115–54. Tr. 633–62.

34 Cf. Segal (n.28) 207 and, in mock-truculent protest, Dawe 3.

35 For a lucid discussion of this connection see Murnaghan, S., Disguise and recognition in the Odyssey (Princeton 1987) 5–11.Google Scholar

36 For the motif of reversal see Vernant, J.-F. in Tragedy and myth in ancient Greece (Brighton 1981) 87–119.Google Scholar