The Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy, First Edition. Edited by Hanna M. Roisman.© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1

Prophecy and Oracle In Greece, religion was completely embedded in life, with no clear distinction between the sacred and the profane (Bremmer 1999a: 2–4). Convinced of the fragility of human affairs and con-scious that the failure or success of human enterprises was wholly dependent on divine veto or favor, the Greeks used numerous religious practices to gain the favor of the gods. In addition, omens, oracles, and divination in its widest sense were essential to determining the right course of action and reducing failure to the minimum, since they were supposed to give direct access to the will of the gods (Jouan 1991 ). In this sense, divination helped bridge the gulf between divine omniscience and imperfect human knowledge.

Given its omnipresence in Greek life, it is not surprising that prophecy also had a prom-inent place in Greek tragedy. “A case might be made for a theory deriving the deep inter-est of tragedy in the problems of human action in relation to human fate from the same roots from which divination in all its forms originated” (Kamerbeek 1965: 30). Admittedly, prophecy, oracles, and omens in tragedy are also important means to increase dramatic tension and suspense (Bächli 1954 ; Kirkwood 1958/1994: 72–82; Jouanna 1997: 283) and attention should be paid to determining their artistic utility not only within a given play but also in a TRILOGY , for example (Staehlin 1912 ). However, a pro-per understanding of the meaning of these phenomena should take into consideration the performance as a whole, namely not only the play and the AUDIENCE but also the characters and their worldview (Kamerbeek 1965: 31–2).

As in Homer ( Il . 1.69–70), divination in Greek tragedy is also concerned with past, present, and future (Aesch. * PV 842–76; Eur. Phoen . 931–59; Soph. Phil . 191–200; Eur. Ion 5–7; IT 1259–82; Hel . 922–3). In point of fact, however, the skill of the SEER is

to understand the past in order to see in which way it acts upon the present and influ-ences the future (Aesch. * PV 842–76; Ag . 1178–97). This is especially so in the context of Greek tragedy: due to the events taking place in a MYTHICAL past, prophecy mainly appears as interpretation of past events, so much so that predictions may sometimes even appear as prophecies ex eventu .

There are two forms of divination, induc-tive and inspired (Bonnechere 2007 ), and both play a relevant role in tragedy. As to the former, it is conceived of as an art ( technē ) by both P ROMETHEUS (Aesch. * PV 506) and A NTIGONE (Soph. Ant . 998). Prometheus fur-ther describes many of its varieties (Aesch. * PV 485–99), which are also attested to in other tragedies. Oneiromancy or DREAM inter-pretation is referred to (Aesch. Cho . 21–41; Eur. IT 1252–84) as a way to determine the will of the gods; cledonomancy, with its focus on casual acts or “utterances” ( klēdones ) and their possible effect on reality, reflects the  importance of language in the world of omens (Aesch. Ag . 255–7, 1247, 1652 with Peradotto 1969a ); ornithoscopy or “bird interpretation” (Aesch. Ag . 104–59; Soph. Ant . 998–1004; Eur. Phoen . 840; Bacch . 347) was a Near Eastern method already recorded in Homer (Bremmer 2011b ); hier-oscopy or the reading of entrails (Eur. El . 826–33) was an inductive form of divination which appears in the post-Homeric period and may or may not have been regularly used by the prophētēs ; and empyromancy, or the observation of how victims are consumed on  the sacrificial fire (Soph. Ant . 1005–11; Eur. Phoen . 1255–8), certainly played an important role.

Some of these phenomena, notably bird flight or casual utterances, could be and in fact were interpreted by ordinary people. Other varieties, such as hieroscopy, empyro-mancy, or oneiromancy required skilled inter-pretation: it was the prophet who practiced

2

this, since he or she was able to discover within the microcosmos in which men acted signs of the macrocosmic structure deter-mined by the divine. To do so, he or she depended, to a certain extent, on the influ-ence of divine inspiration (already found in Heraclit. 92 D–K). Indeed, Plato ( Phdr . 244–5) even derives the term mantis “seer” from the same root as mania “madness” (Nagy 1990a : 60–4), understood, of course, as “divine madness,” although this etymology and approach to the mantis ’ knowledge has more recently been contested: the term rather derives from the root * ma “to reveal,” which means that his knowledge may be qualified as “lucid” (Casevitz 1992: 1–18).

Inspirational prophecy, the second form of divination, seems to be a product of the archaic period and its eager desire for oneness with the gods (Dietrich 1990 : 159). At an early stage, poet and prophet still belonged to  an indiscriminate category (Hes. Theog . 26–34, with Nagy 1982; contra Bremmer 1996), expressed by the term aoidos (“bard”), which would later retain its sacred allure due to its close association with the Muses (see Plato ’ s Phdr . [above] and the Ion passim). Inspired by the divinity ( entheos “inspi-red,” “full of the god,” enthousiasmenos “inspired,” “possessed by the divinity”), the mantis is an intermediary between men and the gods. Tragedy regularly uses the term mantis to refer to diviners who have become legendary, such as T EIRESIAS (Soph. Ant . 992, 1053; OT 298, 390; Eur. Phoen .), C ASSANDRA (Aesch. Ag .; Eur. Tro .), C ALCHAS (Soph. Aj . 760, 780–1), Helenus (Soph. Phil . 604, 615) or T HEONOE (Eur. Hel .), but the term may sometimes also refer to the god himself (Aesch. Cho . 559; Ag . 1202, 1275; Eum . 169, 595, 615; Soph. OT 994) and in S OPHOCLES , derivatives such as manteia “divi-nation” or mantikos “prophetic,” “oracular” may allude both to the oracle and to its prophecies ( OT 394, 723; Ant . 1055; see Jouanna 1997: 303–4).

Oracles are also omnipresent in Greek trag-edy, notably the oracle at D ELPHI (Vogt 1998 ) and D ODONA (Aesch. * PV 658–66, 829–35;

Soph. Trach . 169–72, 1164–72; Eur. Andr .  883–90; Phoen . 979–84; Dieterle 2007 ). In point of fact, the Delphic oracle is mentioned in 14 of the 33 surviving plays, which include 34 consultations of the P YTHIA , who also appears as a character in plays by A ESCHYLUS ( Eum .) and E URIPIDES ( Ion ). An analysis of these consultations may help us determine the role played by the oracle in fifth-century Athens, the influence of the Delphic shrine on Greek politics, and the place  it occupied in the public ’ s mind (Bowden 2005 : 41–55, 160–7). Oracles were pronounced by the Pythia and interpreted by the prophētēs or “declarer.” The theōros (“envoy sent to consult an oracle”) finally, was the official delegate appointed by the city to transmit the message. Oracles were in gen-eral ambiguous, as a result of which misinter-pretations were apparently frequent (Hdt. 1.71). In the context of Greek tragedy this  ambiguity generates so-called dramatic IRONY (in general, see Markantonatos 1977 ; for Sophocles, see Kirkwood 1958/1994: 247–87).

In Aeschylus’ plays, omens, prophecy, and oracles occupy an important place as a means to describe man ’ s entanglement in the con-catenation of events, which in turn explains his SUFFERING and misfortune. They obviously have an important dramatic function but the weight of their meaning transcends the mere technical goal. As to the former, premoni-tions ( Pers . 11–12, 59, 93; Ag . 14–19), DREAMS ( Pers . 176; Cho . 32–4), omens ( Ag . 911–13, 972–75), and the flight of birds ( Ag . 104–21; Pers . 205–14; Sept . 23), among others, serve to increase the dramatic tension, preparing the public for the tragic denoue-ment that will ineluctably take place when events confirm the prediction. Prophecies also occupy an important place in Aeschylus, and are sometimes pronounced by famous figures, such as D ARIUS ( Pers . 681–843) and Prometheus (* PV ), and seers such as Calchas ( Ag . 201–4) and Cassandra ( Ag . 1072–322), or at other times by the oracle ( Cho . 260–70) or the god A POLLO himself ( Eum . 19, 615, 625). At the same time, their existential

3

significance comes to the fore when Aeschylus’ characters express their premonitions, reveal-ing their personal anxieties and the power of the gods (Vicaire 1963 : 349–50). In the signs provided by these phenomena, both the char-acters and the public perceive not only the expression of the necessity that affects human lives but also the contours of the world in which they live and their dependence on supernatural powers.

As far as Sophocles is concerned, prophecy and oracle become increasingly important within the dramatic texture of his plays, nota-bly in A JAX , A NTIGONE , and O EDIPUS T YRANNUS , the latter ’ s Teiresias scene being the most conspicuous (Staehlin 1912 : 59). In four of his plays, prophecy is due to seers, who may appear directly on stage to announce their prophetic utterances, as is the case for Teiresias in Antigone (988–1090) and in Oedipus Tyrannus (297–462), or may be referred to indirectly, as is the case with Calchas ( Ajax ) and Helenus ( P HILOCTETES ). Other plays refer to different oracles, be it Dodona (Soph. Trach . 76–81, 164–8; and perhaps also the lost Ulysses Acanthoplex Radt TrGF vol. 4 F 455, 456, 460, 461), or Delphi ( El . 32, 1425; OC 87–95). In the case of Oedipus Tyrannus , we have both prophecy and oracle (Jouanna 1997).

Similarly to Aeschylus, oracles have both a dramatic and a philosophical dimension for Sophocles. On the one hand they may increase the tension or prepare the audience for the ulterior development of events. On the other, their bearing goes beyond the mere technical function (Kamerbeek 1965). Unlike Aeschylus, Sophoclean oracles do not involve fatalism and prophecy is not enough in itself to guarantee that an event will happen. Admittedly, oracles do reveal divine will, but  in order to be fulfilled they also need the  force of human character (Kirkwood 1958/1994: 72–82, see also G ODS ’ R OLE/GODS AND MORTALS ), which allows the playwright to explore human ēthos . This is the case in Ajax , which combines A THENA ’ s will and the hero ’ s own character, and of E LECTRA , in which the heroine ’ s REVENGE is based both

on the oracle and on her own determination. In addition, the prophecy of Helenus is intended more as a demonstration of P HILOC-TETES ’ stature than a prediction of what the future may bring, and the same may be said of W OMEN OF T RACHIS , in which the oracle in fact tells us more about H ERACLES ’ personality than about the future.

Turning to Euripides, the higher role of Tyche or “(Mis)Fortune” in human affairs seems to lessen the crucial importance of ora-cles and prophecies apparent in the plays of his predecessors. Nevertheless, divination still seems to have a pivotal place in his tragedies and the playwright even includes numerous oracles, prophecies, and omens which are not strictly connected with the main action of the tragedy ( Andr . 1239–68; Med . 1386–8; Heracl . 1028; Hipp . 1416; Hec . 1259–79; Supp . 1183–213; Tro . 356, 426–61; Hel . 1662; Or . 1664; Bacch . 1330). As has been pointed out, however, the depth or scope of meaning clearly decreases in favor of the psy-chological interest in and moral analysis of the  characters (Kamerbeek 1965: 38–40). This is visible both in the analysis of Cassandra in Trojan Women (309–461, with Mason 1959: 86–93) and of Theonoe ’ s purity of mind in H ELEN . The Teiresias–C REON scene in P HOENICIAN W OMEN also shows a similar intent, since we not only see the doubts and insecurity of the seer ( Phoen . 834–40, 891–5, 954–9), but also Creon ’ s psychology and his reluctance to obey the gods ( Phoen . 922). At the same time, the technical function of prophecies becomes clearer. Thus, for exam-ple, the predictions are introduced in the PRO-LOGUES : pronounced in a monologue by a godly figure, they remain unknown to the other characters and have no further influ-ence on the plot. Only the god himself and the audience hear these pronouncements, which seems to imply that the intention is to raise the dramatic tension, involving the audi-ence in the future development of the action. This is the case in six of the eight tragedies that include a prologue: H IPPOLYTUS , H ECUBA , Ion , Helen , B ACCHAE , and I PHIGENIA AMONG THE T AURIANS , even if in the latter the

4

predictions are related more to the future development of events. Moreover, Euripides may also challenge the audience ’ s expecta-tions, first raised during the prologue. This is the case in Ion , Iphigenia among the Taurians , Helen , and A LCESTIS , in which the original prophecy is modified, adapted, or questioned in the course of the play. In this way the involvement of the public is even greater (Hamilton 1978b ). This also occurs in Bacchae in which, according to some schol-ars, Euripides seems to delude the audience by means of D IONYSUS ’ equivocal prediction (Dodds 1960 : ad 52; Lesky 1972 : 486).

Thus, prophecy and oracle seem to have had a polyvalent function in tragedy. To begin with, they allowed playwrights and the public to ponder human existence, man ’ s relation-ship with and dependence on the gods, and the gulf between divine and human knowl-edge. Incidentally, the different means of accessing divine will and the confidence of success in this reveals the optimism of a worldview in which macrocosmos and micro-cosmos are intrinsically related. From a more technical perspective, they were clearly used as a dramatic tool, not only to increase the tension and prepare the audience for the  development of the plot but also to endow it with a coherence that, while absent from real life, is characteristic of such literary reenactments.

References Bächli , E. 1954 . “ Die künstlerische Funktion von

Orakelsprüchen, Weissagungen, Träumen u.s.w. in der griechischen Tragödie .” Dissertation, Zurich Winterthur.

Bonnechere , P. 2007 . “ Divination ,” in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion . Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell : 145 – 59 .

Bowden , H. 2005 . Classical Athens and the Delphic Oracle: Divination and Democracy . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Bremmer , J.N. 1996 . “ The Status and Symbolic Capital of the Seer ,” in R. Haegg (ed.), The Role of Religion in the Early Greek Polis . Stockholm : Svenska Institutet i Athen : 97 – 109 .

Bremmer , J.N. 1999a . Greek Religion , 2nd edn. Oxford : Oxford University Press ; repr. 2006.

Bremmer , J.N. 2011b . “ Divination. VI. Greek ,” in H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds.), Brill ’ s New Pauly . Antiquity volumes. Brill Online. University of Groningen , accessed September 20, 2011.

Casevitz , M. 1992 . “ Mantis : Le vrai sens .” REG 105 : 1 – 18 .

Dieterle , M. 2007 . Dodona: Religionsgeschichtliche und historische Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des Zeus-Heiligtums . Hildesheim : G. Olms .

Dietrich , B.C. 1990 . “ Oracles and Divine Inspiration .” Kernos 3 : 157 – 74 .

Dodds , E.R. 1960 . Euripides’ Bacchae , 2nd edn. Oxford : Clarendon Press .

Hamilton , R. 1978b . “ Prologue, Prophecy and Plot in Four Plays of Euripides .” AJPh 99 : 277 – 302 .

Jouan , F. 1991 . “ L’oracle, thérapeutique de l’angoisse .” Kernos 3 : 11 – 28 .

Jouanna , J. 1997 . “ Oracles et devins chez Sophocle ,” in J.G. Heintz (ed.), Oracles et prophé ties dans l’antiquité : Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 15–17 juin 1995 . Paris : De Boccard : 283 – 320 .

Kamerbeek , J.C. 1965 . “ Prophecy and Tragedy .” Mnemosyne 18 : 29 – 40 .

Kirkwood , G.M. 1958 /1994. A Study of Sophoclean Drama . Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press .

Lesky , A. 1972 . Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen , 3rd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; published in English as Greek Tragic Poetry , tr. M. Dillon. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983.

Markantonatos , G. 1977 . “ On the Main Types of Dramatic Irony as Used in Greek Tragedy .” Platon 29 : 79 – 84 .

Mason , P.G. 1959 . “ Kassandra .” JHS 79 : 80 – 93 . Nagy , G. 1982 . “ Hesiod ,” in T.L. Luce (ed.),

Ancient Writers . New York : Charles Scribner ’ s Sons : 49 – 57 .

Nagy , G. 1990a . “ Ancient Greek Poetry, Prophecy and Concepts Theory ,” in J.L. Kugel (ed.), Poetry and Prophecy . Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press : 56 – 64 .

Peradotto , J.J. 1969a . “ Cledonomancy in the ‘Oresteia’ .” AJPh 90 : 1 – 21 .

Staehlin , R. 1912 . Das Motiv der Mantik im antiken Drama . Giessen : Töpelmann .

Vicaire , P. 1963 . “ Pressentiments, présages, pro-phéties dans le théâtre d’Eschyle .” REG 76 : 337 – 57 .

5

Vogt , S. 1998 . “ Delphi in der attischen Tragödie .” A&A 44 : 30 – 48 .

Further Reading Burkert , W. 1972 . “ Seer or Healer ,” in The

Orientalizing Revolution . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press : 41 – 87 .

Dodds , E.R. 1951 . “ The Blessings of Madness ,” in The Greeks and the Irrational . Berkeley : University of California Press : 64 – 100 .

LAUTARO ROIG LANZILLOTTA