Penha Ferreira Vieira2014

261 Pages·2015·1.73 MB·English

This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree
(e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following
terms and conditions of use:
• This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are
retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated.
• A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without
prior permission or charge.
• This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining
permission in writing from the author.
• The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or
medium without the formal permission of the author.
• When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title,
awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given.
On the Razor-Edge of Fate
Perceptions of destiny in Sophocles’ Theban plays
*
Mariana Penha Ferreira Vieira
PhD in Classics
The University of Edinburgh
2013
Declaration of own work
I confirm that the following thesis is my own work. None of the information has
been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. None of the
information has been submitted for publication.
Edinburgh, 30th August 2013,
Mariana Penha Ferreira Vieira
2
Financial Support
I would like to acknowledge the PhD grant (SFRH/BD/47525/2008) received
from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, co-funded by the European Social
Fund in the QREN-POPH framework, between January 2009 and December 2012.
3
Abstract
The goal of this thesis is to analyse the differences and similarities in the
perceptions of fate and aleatory events in the Antigone, the Oedipus Tyrannus, and the
Oedipus at Colonus of Sophocles.
Rather than dwelling on the anachronistic question of “determinism versus free-
will”, the focus will be on the ways in which the characters themselves interpret the
things that happen to them in their lifespan, in terms of luck, fate, or things that
could have been different had they known better at a given moment of time. The
conditions in which they perform the determining actions of their lives will be under
scrutiny. Actions that seem to arise from contingency, from the previous moves of
other actors, from accidental miscalculation, or even from voluntary offence will be
contrasted with those for which there is no visible chain of cause and effect, and that
are thus attributed to the desires of the gods or to inborn misfortune.
There is, from one play to another, a contrast between authoritative assertions of
characters with acknowledged prophetic power (Tiresias in the first two works,
Oedipus in the later play) that lead the audience to hope for different things: in the
Antigone, it shall be argued, there is more room for the possibility of a timely solution
for the conflict, than in the Oedipus Tyrannus, where everything has happened already
before the start of the play. In the Oedipus at Colonus, Oedipus’ new status means that
he has understood more about the functioning of reality and the workings of destiny.
The ways in which the plot structure itself conveys a view on the workings of fate
will also be analysed, from the series of coincidences in the Oedipus Tyrannus to the
function of the episodes in the other two plays.
Even though the Theban plays are not philosophy treatises, the echoes of
contemporary philosophical ideas are a constant in their text. Wherever relevant, a
contrast with the Presocratic corpus has been made in an attempt to identify some of
the thought patterns reused and adapted by Sophocles for his specific purposes and
portrayals of the human position in the vaster cosmos.
4
Contents
Acknowledgements
8
Introduction
9
1. Why do things happen the way they do?
9
2. Why the Theban plays?
11
3. Polar interpretations of Sophocles
12
4. Aspects of early philosophy
13
5. Why this again?
15
Antigone
17
1. Creon’s decision and the scenes of dissuasion
19
1.1. Creon versus Antigone: digging up the trenches
20
1.1.1. The first confrontation
23
1.1.2. Private minds and Creon’s prejudice
28
1.1.3. Antigone’s last appearance
31
1.1.4. The gods’ side
33
1.2. Creon versus Haemon: an appeal to learning
35
1.2.1. The possibility of change
41
1.2.2. The deaths of Eurydice and Haemon
44
1.3. Creon versus Tiresias: prophecy and the non-uniqueness of fate
52
1.3.1. Mistakes that can be fixed
55
1.3.2. Crucial timing
58
1.4. The Exodus: μηδ᾽ ὀλωλότα κέντει
60
2. External and innate causes
64
2.1. Hereditary doom
64
2.2. Character
67
2.3. Universal vulnerability to change
70
2.4. Hope
73
3. Conclusion
75
Oedipus Tyrannus
79
1. Events in and out of the play
81
1.1. Versions of the myth
82
1.2. Causal chains lost in time: the isolation of Oedipus’ fate
84
1.3. The advantage of the audience’s point of view
86
1.3.1. Tiresias’ revelation
87
5
1.4. The organisation of reality into a meaningful whole
90
2. The patterns of coincidence
94
2.1. Time and timing
95
2.2. Unexpected changes of subject
97
2.2.1. Revealing silences
98
2.2.2. Ambiguity of speech: the dramatic irony
101
2.3. Coincidence of identity: one and many
103
2.3.1. The Presocratics on understanding the phenomena
105
2.4. “The certainty of chance”
109
2.4.1. The son of Τύχη
116
3. Agents of fate
118
3.1. The moving μοῖρα
119
3.2. The leaping δαίμων
126
3.3. Apollo
129
3.4. “L’enfer, c’est les autres”
135
4. Conditioned events and personal responsibilities
138
4.1. Actions that are ἑκόντα and actions that are ἄκοντα
139
4.2. Counterfactuals
144
4.3. The unconditionality of the oracles
149
4.4. “Crimes and misdemeanours”
154
5. Conclusion
157
Oedipus at Colonus
161
1. The text: structure of the play and treatment of the myth
162
1.1. Suppliants and saviours
166
1.2. Sophocles’ choices regarding the myth
168
2. The oracles, the curses
169
2.1. Oedipus’ three defence speeches
178
2.2. Alternative possibilities and unique outcomes
185
3. First thread: the reversals of fortune and its Presocratic parallels
191
3.1.1. Seaford’s thesis on the unity of opposites in the Oresteia
193
3.1.2. Empedoclean echoes and the final destiny of Oedipus
195
3.2. The end of the OC and the end of Oedipus as paradigm
203
3.2.1. Oedipus’ own daemonic power: curses and blessings
212
4. Second thread: actions, responsibility, and character
218
4.1. Words, silence, deeds: persuasion, friendship, benefit
221
6
4.1.2. Theseus and Oedipus
223
4.1.3. Creon and Oedipus
226
4.1.4. Theseus and Creon; Athens and Thebes
229
4.1.5. Oedipus, Polynices, and Antigone
232
4.2. Justice, redemption, compensation, power: do actions change fate?
235
5. Conclusion
238
Conclusion
241
1. The razor-edge of fate: open-ended destinies and causal chains
241
2. Vain fights with necessity
242
3. Innate causes, states of mind, responsibility
243
4. External causes
244
5. Eternal alternation
245
6. Ignorance and conduct
246
7. Justice
247
Bibliography
249
7
Acknowledgements
Douglas Cairns and Christopher Strachan are the best supervisors I could have
asked for, and I will not let anyone disagree. I owe them all my thanks, plus a
thousand apologies for not having been the better student they deserved. When they
accepted to work with me, I had already spent three years in a frustrated PhD course,
and I am afraid that time left marks and vices that I could not overcome entirely.
Nonetheless, Douglas’ and Christopher’s motivation was constant, and their patience
was infinite.
I am in debt to José Pedro Serra, my mentor at the University of Lisbon (if he
does not mind the title), who has since given me the honour of becoming my friend.
His classes were the reason I did not go study Physics instead! I am also grateful to
Helder Macedo for all those lunches about Sophocles, literature, and life at the
Wallace Collection; they helped me through some of the darkest winters.
After studying plays where families take such a central stage, I want to show my
reverence to my parents, Isabel Gentil and António Vieira (who was also the most
patient reader of all my drafts). I owe them more than I can ever thank them for, and
may I never offend them, for their Erinyes would be far too cunning for any
descendant of mine to outrun. Still on the ties of kinship, forged or actual, the
memory of Jorge Vieira and Elmar Thome, polar opposites, was often the source of
inspiration and strength. This thesis is also about them.
Many friends made the last six years bearable. This is the one chance I have to tell
them of my gratitude. Six years can be a long time... I must thank Heinrich-Gregor
Zirnstein for convincing me that giving up was not an option, and Déborah
Natanson for her dry martinis and dry sarcasm. Sérgio Rafael, of course, was always
a partner in all sorts of crime, and Stephanie Winder always knew everything before
I had to tell her. Anna Frolova McAnn and the cello kept me in tune, while Eric
Edwards and Ester Bertrand kept me sane. Yvan and Louis Bertrand were at the
origin of all things, and Mia Natanson was the best company with whom to read
Aristotle. João Rangel de Almeida, Jana Schader, and Rosa Vieira de Almeida
rescued me from bibliographic trouble (amongst other sorts of trouble); Antony
Bilton got me in as much trouble as he could. Artur Silva, somehow, turned out to be
a rather supportive creature. Katherine Nicolai kept hope, Tanya Beaton and Rupert
Beale kept faith, Juan Pablo Lewis kept a bottle. Connor McGourt made sure I was
relatively strong and relatively fast. Every year, Francisco Frazão made August the
month to look forward to. Joana Louçã’s visits were the best of times, and Luís
Branco holds the record for being my most regular guest. Dídio Pestana, even from
Berlin, managed to make me feel he was always near. The crowd from Lisbon,
especially Inês Fraga (who, at the time of writing, is in need of a special hug), José
João Leiria, João Carlos Louçã, Sérgio Vitorino, Rita Gorgulho, Paulo Sousa, Sofia
Roque, and Marta Silva kept an eye on me and reminded me that there is always a
place to go back to. Hervé do Alto, on the other hand, reminded me of how
important it was to finish this thing because there is still a world to explore. For the
last sprint, I was lucky enough to have the company of Julie Larsen, Janan Dean,
Victoria Colthart, Ranajit Majumder, and Simeon Attaway — they make Edinburgh
a happy place. And then there is the Dagda...
8
Introduction
1. Why do things happen the way they do?
This work deals with fate, chance, and the different interpretations on the origin of
events told by the characters in the three Theban plays, as well as human foresight
and control over what is to come. The starting situations and the general setting of
each story are very distinct: the Oedipus Tyrannus starts with a problem of unknown
origin devastating the city, the plague, and an incitation from an oracle to expiate a
crime of blood. At the centre of the plot is the tale of self-discovery by a man that
could not step out of the single path laid down for him by Delphi. At the end, the
patterns of destiny have been revealed to such an extent that it is safe to assume that
Oedipus goes into exile, even without it being made explicit by the text: once the
oracles have been demonstrated, the words of Tiresias will be enough to deduce the
rest. The Antigone tells of ruler’s bad decisions under the pressure of the end of a civil
war. At three different moments, Creon has the chance to change his course of action
(Antigone has too, for that matter), which he will do only too late, having to suffer the
full consequences of his former actions. In the Oedipus at Colonus, we witness the
heroization of a man who endured so much, and the obstacles he has to face before
his last moments amongst the rest of the mortals. Oedipus’ type of destiny is now
separated from the rest of the mortals, he who before had been the uttermost
example of human suffering and precariousness. The destinies of the other people in
his family however, are still apparently being played out, especially that of Polynices,
who believes he still has a chance to win against his brother in Thebes.
In the three plays, the characters attribute the origin of the events in their lives to
different causes. The cause is often multiple: the wish of the gods expressed by the
oracles, character and state of mind, contingency, family lines. Some of these factors
weigh more than others, from one play to another. Sometimes the very structure of
the plot proves the opinions of the protagonists wrong, and the dramatic tension
consists exactly in the contrast between what is being said on stage and what the
audience knows or can guess.
In the OT, the questions about fate are the most prominent. Some questions will
arise from the study of this play, in the second chapter: given the ignorance
9