Oracles

[Everyman]

The attempt to read the future by watching the flight of eagles, or reading the entrails of birds, or traveling hard journeys (no trains or buses or motorcars, bad road, bandits, etc.) to hear some representative of the gods opine, may seem quaint and strange to us.

But is it really?

How many Americans follow the astrology column in their local paper on line and, maybe not totally believing it, at least give it some credence? How many investors search the history of a stock's movements with the same passion a Greek seer investigated the entrails of a bird -- and with about the same probability of successfully predicting the future? How many of us consult long range weather forecasts or the Farmer's Almanac when planning a vacation or scheduling a wedding or other special event?

Are the Federal Reserve economists really that different from the Oracle at Delphi in their attempt to forecast the future? And aren't their pronouncements equally inscrutable at times, or couched in equivalently ambiguous language?

Are we really so different from the Greeks?

[thewanderingjew]

Nancy Reagan regularly consulted with astrologers.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/...

Princess Diana did as well.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/arti...

[[deleted user]]

Are you saying The Weather Channel is an oracle? That has to be the geekiest spiritual practice ever, if so. But perhaps you've helped me finally discover a religion I can get behind. All praise to Local on the 8s!

It is interesting that a play where the intended audience already knows what happens would have prophecy (what's going to happen?) as one of its themes.

[Everyman]

Kathy R wrote: "Are you saying The Weather Channel is an oracle? "

Maybe not for the next few days weather, but when they try to say that the probability of rain on August 9th is less than on August 10th, so schedule your wedding for the 9th, that seems to me oracular!

[Everyman]

Kathy R wrote: "It is interesting that a play where the intended audience already knows what happens would have prophecy (what's going to happen?) as one of its themes."

Aren't the oracles there for the benefit of the characters, though? You're right, it's a wonderful touch that we know what the oracles meant, but the characters don't, so we can watch them misinterpreting the oracles.

It's much like the shower scene in Psycho, where we want to yell out to Janet Leigh "watch out! He's coming! Run! Hide!" because we know what's going to happen, but we watch her oblivious of all that's going on that we're seeing.

I wonder whether the Sophoclean audience -- which was much more casual than modern audiences, ten to fifteen thousand people sitting for hours on stone ledges in the daytime has a very different feel from a few hundred in plush seats in a hushed and darkened theater -- would have been yelling out "No, Oedipus, you don't understand!" or "don't go there, Oedipus. Let is alone" or suchlike.

[Eliza]

I was very interested in the role of the oracle and seers in the play because they are the catalyst for almost all of the action. There is a passage from the Chorus that says
Never again will I go reverent to Delphi the inviolate heart of Earth
or Apollo's ancient oracle at Abae
or Olympia of the fires
unless these prophecies all come true for mankind to point toward in wonder.

I took this to mean that they would prefer that all of the predictions, despite the horrific implications, came true over the idea that the Oracle could be wrong. I guess it would be hard to have absolute faith in something that was fallible.

[thewanderingjew]

What place would Nostradamus have in this discussion? What about Edgar Cayce, the modern day version? Are they seers, prophets or charlatans?

[Eliza]

thewanderingjew wrote: " Are they seers, prophets or charlatans?"


According to my translation's commentary the people of Athens in Sophocles' time were beginning to ask the same questions about their seers.

[[deleted user]]

Eliza wrote: "According to my translation's commentary the people of Athens in Sophocles' time were beginning to ask the same questions about their seers."

Does that mean Oedipus Rex is fundamentalist propaganda? The oracles weren't wrong! Don't mess with the oracles!

[Eliza]

Kathy R wrote: "Does that mean Oedipus Rex is fundamenta..."

I don't know where Sophocles stood on the validity of the oracles. Their prophecies obviously come true but both Oedipus and Jocasta show quite a bit of scorn initially.

[Everyman]

Eliza wrote: "I don't know where Sophocles stood on the validity of the oracles. Their prophecies obviously come true but both Oedipus and Jocasta show quite a bit of scorn initially."

Interesting discussion, all! They were all obviously very concerned about the oracles initially. Laius was willing to expose (that was a traditional Greek way of killing children without actually killing them, but it does allow for some nifty plot twists) his first born son -- that must have been a pretty traumatic thing for a king, realizing that he was destroy his chance at a dynasty, because of course the oracle didn't say which son, so he would have had to expose any other sons that came along, also. (Jocasta apparently didn't have any more children by him, so maybe they ended their marital relations, which would be understandable if one were Jocasta -- why go through the pain and danger of childbirth if your husband has a 50% chance of killing the child who emerges?)

Anyhow -- Laius believed the oracle enough to sacrifice his son (shades of Abraham?), and Oedipus also believed the oracle enough to run full speed away from home. So clearly, at least at the beginning, they believed the oracle.

The thing was, I think, that they both believed that they had outsmarted the oracle. So they were able to believe that oracles weren't infallible after all, because they had outsmarted them. Thus, it was perhaps a double shock when they realized that their attempts to outsmart the oracle had acually helped the prophecy come true!

[Eliza]

Patrice wrote: "When reading Greek literature I have often sensed that accepting one's fate is considered a moral virtue. it's something to aspire to. Sort of the way we would admire the courage of someone who f..."


I did notice but I have to wonder why ask at all? It seems to me that they would have been a whole lot better off not knowing at all.

[Everyman]

Eliza wrote: "
I did notice but I have to wonder why ask at all? It seems to me that they would have been a whole lot better off not knowing at all."

But isn't inherent in man's nature to want to know?

Isn't that part of Sophocles's message -- that men want to know even if they are pretty sure that knowing will make them unhappier than not knowing? I mean, Tiresias and Jocasta both tell him to drop it, that he's better off not knowing. But he has to know.

It's like scratching a bug bite. We know we shouldn't do it, but we do anyhow.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "It's funny because the first time I read this play I was so interested in the psychological aspects, that's all I saw. But since then I've read the Oresteia and have been thinking about what it means to be a leader, and that's what I now see in the play. He's the pilot of the ship of state."

One of the classic questions of drama. Antigone. Lear. Richard II.

[Everyman]

The comments by Creon on not wanting leadership were particularly interesting to read with the knowledge that we see him in Antigone as king of Thebes dealing with just the question of what a leader should do.

And remember that Antigone, while thematically following on Oedipus Rex, was written and played first. And since all the citizens (or at least all the males, whether women went or not is disputed) of Athens went to see these plays, most of the audience would have seen Antigone, and would have seen Creon wrestling with the burden of leadership. So this exchange between Creon and Oedipus would have taken on a special irony.