Hybris in the Second Stasimon of the Oedipus Rex
Ruth Scodel
Classical Philology, Vol. 77, No. 3. (Jul., 1982), pp. 214-223.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28198207%2977%3A3%3C214%3AHITSSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F
Classical Philology is currently published by The University of Chicago Press.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
Wed Oct 24 20:26:14 2007
HYBRIS I N T H E SECOND STASIMON O F T H E O E D I P U S R E X
RUTH SCODEL
T
Oedipus R e x (863-910) is among the
most discussed passages in Greek literature. Interpretations have
been many and divergent, and a corrupt textual tradition a t several
important points has not helped in the attainment of common judgments.
Perhaps the only point on which almost all scholars agree is that the ode
is critical to understanding the play.' I t might seem impossible to say
anything both new and persuasive. Recent interpretations have largely
agreed that the poem is ironic and that the chorus says more than it
consciously realizes. Still, what it sings must make sense in some way it
could intend, and the surface meaning cannot be replaced by secondary
meanings. While no interpretation is likely to be entirely without difficulties, some may be preferable to others.
The ode consists of two strophic pairs, and its complexity of thought
is embodied in overlapping structures. In the first strophe, the chorus
prays for hyvsia in all matters governed by the eternal, divine laws. The
antistrophe (873-82) describes how hybris creates the monarch and how
hybris, glutted with what is not good for it, falls; but the chorus prays
that the god not end that v c i h a ~ u p awhich benefits the city. The second
strophe (883-96) describes the sinner, who cares nothing for justice or the
gods, and prays for his punishment, without which the choral dance in
honor of the gods is meaningless. The second antistrophe (897-910) prays
for the manifest fulfillment of the oracles, for religion is fading as the
oracles given to Laius are "annulled." The poem falls neatly into two
halves, as the first strophic pair affirms the validity of divine law without
doubt, while the second demands that the gods confirm this faith: a t first
the laws are eternal, hybris' fall inevitable, while in the second the chorus
seems to fear that the evildoer may escape and urgently calls on Zeus to
notice the oracles, pTj AciOo~ (904). At the same time, the two central
HE second stasimon of the
1 Since the literature on this ode is so vast, only representative scholarly opinions will be cited; besides
the survey of scholarship from 1939 to 1959 by H. E'. Johansen in Llrstvlrm 7 (1962) 94-342 and the
supplemental bibliography by H. Uiller, Sophoklrs (Uarmstadt, 19671, pp 537-46, a useful guide to
opinion on the Oedipus is given by U. A. Hester. "Oedipus and Jonah." PCPS 23 (1977): 32-61 For the
text, the Teubner edition of K. U. Uawe (Leiprig. 1975) will be rollowed, except in 873, where I retain
the MS reading bppry buradac nipavvov (defended below) and 892, where Uawe obelizes the MS Oufi@.
while I would accept Hermann's HFGv.
2. Previously it was common to think that the poem was more a personal statement of the poet to his
audience than a part or the drama. Typical is M. Pohlenr, Die gvirrhische Tvagodir (Berhn, 19301, pp
225-26, when he claims that it is not the Theban elders we hear, but Sophocles; in particular. ri S E f~ia
Xopadr.ru (896) has orten been taken as referring to the tragic perrormance itself. This kind of criticism
is currently less in vogue; the present trend might be represented by (.; Zuntr. "Oedipus und Gregorius,"
A G A 4 (1954): 191-203. who a t the opening or his article (p 192) stresses that the ode cannot be
understood except within the play, while the understanding or the play must include the ode.
1
0 1982 b y T h e University of C h i c a g o . All rights reserved]
0009-837X18217703-0002$1.00
2 14
T H E SECONDSTASIMONOF THE "OEDIPUSREX"
2 15
sections are clearly closely connected, one showing hybris in the abstract,
the other a hybristic man. The first and last stanzas frame this central
theme and are linked by their concern with the chorus' own relation to
the gods and the echoed words A&ealA&eo~(87 1, 904). Yet another structure
seems to join the first and second strophes. T h e main clause of the first
sentence of each is a prayer for a type of polpa, and the doublet of "word
and deed" accompanies each (864-65 Aoywv Bpywv 7 ~883-84
,
x ~ p a i v+j
Aoyq). Evidently, these parallels are deliberate. They imply that the laws
described but not specified by the chorus in the first strophe are those
violated by the evildoer of the second strophe, whose "fate" should be
the contrary of that of the chorus. And if this sinner in some way embodies
the hybris of the first antistrophe, this hybris should be the precise opposite
of the purity for which the chorus prays.
I t is often thought that the prayer for "reverent purity" with which the
song begins is prompted by the chorus' shock a t Jocasta's rejection of
oracles and Oedipus' assent to that rejection. The depiction of hybris is
then explained as either a further reaction to this impiety or as inspired
by Oedipus' "tyrannical" behavior toward Creon in the preceding scene.3
The chorus, says this argument, is worried, despite its fundamental loyalty
to Oedipus, by the fear that royal state is corrupting him.4 However,
$ 3 ~ +~U T9E V E L ~ p a v v o v(873) does not mean "tyranny tends to create hybris" and, if the chorus is referring to the corruptions of power, it must
. ~ conhave said, as F. Blaydes conjectured, i i P p ~ v+ U T E V E L m p a v v i ~ The
jecture has obvious attractions (although it gives an unpleasant sound).
I t removes the need to take .nipavvov as "tyrant" in a negative sense, a
meaning not found elsewhere in S o p h o ~ l e sI.t~offers a conventional-looking moral genealogy: kingship, closely connected with wealth in the play
3. Among the many who regard the ode as inspired by or chiefly concerned with Jocasta's rejection
of oracles are Zuntz, "Oedipus und Gregorius." and A. Lesky, Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen3
(Gottingen. 1972). pp. 227-28. It is a regular technique for a n ode longer than one strophic pair to link
itself with the preceding scene in the final stanza: cf. W Kranz, Stasimon (Berlin, 19.33). pp. 205, 209.
However, this rormal linking need not mean (as Kranz makes it mean, p. 205) that the entire song must
be interpreted on the basis of the connection thus made. On the other hand, it is equally extreme to
decide, as does G. Kirkwood, A Study of Sophoclean Drama (Ithaca, 19524, p. 268. that whatever is not
thus "particularized" is general in reference, not connected to the stage action, and need not follow a
logical line of thought.
4. Partisans of this view, in various combinations of emphasis with that which stresses the rejection
of oracles, or with suggestions that the chorus is distressed a t the possibility of Oedipus' guilt, include
C. M. Bowra. Sophoclean Tragedy (Oxford. 1944). p. 165; R. Lattimore, The Poetry of Creek Tragedy
(Baltimore. 1958), pp. 93-97; R. P Winnington-Ingram. Sophocles: Anlnterpretation (Cambridge, 1980),
pp. 179-204 (an earlier version appeared as "The Second Stasimon or Oedipus Tyrannos." JHS 91 [1971]:
119-35); R. W. B. Burton, The Chorus in Sophocles' Tragedies (Oxford, 1980). pp. 156-57. B. Knox,
Oedipus at Thebes (New Haven. 1957). p. 57, points out that the chorus has expressed loyalty to Oedipus
since the Creon-scene (69CL91)and is thererore unlikely to be condemning him for his behavior there.
5. Blaydes printed the conjecture in his edition of Sophocles (London, 1859); most recent editors (Jebb.
Pearson. Colonna) have retained the MS reading, but 1)awe puts the conjecture in his text. WinningtonIngram. Sophocles. pp. 191-93, endorses and argues for the conjecture; Burton, Chorus, pp. 160-65,
rejects the traditional interpretation orthe MS but does not choose among alternatives: Blaydes' conjecture
and two presented in H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 197 I), p. 193, E.
Fraenkel's iipprp bvrader njpavvov Gppru. ri . . . , and Lloyd-Jones' own suggestion that rvpavvov be taken
as a kenning for an abstraction.
6. The fullest attempt to confront the difficulty for the traditional reading is probably that of Knox,
Oedipus at Thrbes, pp. 53-60. The word is simply glossed "tyrant" by both standard English commentaries, R. Jebb (Cambridge, 1914) and J . C. Kamerbeek (Leyden, 1967).
(cf. 380), leads to hybris and, when koros enters the cycle, ate is the
result.' The advantages of the reading, however, are met by losses. The
solemn anaphora of hybris is destroyed. The following stanza loses in
relevance, for the chorus can hardly imagine that Oedipus has committed
the sins it lists there. The structure which suggests that these two stanzas
are joined is thus awkward, and the chorus seems to wander away into
irrelevant g e n e r a l i z a t i ~ n Moreover,
.~
the antistrophe would have no integral link to what precedes it, for the hybris created by being a king does
not threaten the chorus' purity. But the greatest objection to the conjecture
is that the statement it makes is without truth in the play, a t any level.
Oedipus' behavior toward Creon, with its overquick suspicion, may be
characteristic of tyrant^;^ but in his case it is part of his nature, as Creon
has pointed out (674-75). Indeed, one main function of the scenes with
Tiresias and Creon is to show this aspect of Oedipus' ethos. If the chorus
meant to connect the king's hot temper with his power, they are simply
in error, for the temper was there when he killed Laius.
The rest of the stanza alludes to Oedipus ironically. H e is glutted on
what does not profit him and soon will fall; the point is stressed by the
pun on his name a t 878. T h e manuscript reading is in accordance with
this irony, for Oedipus became tyrant through violence. A secondary level
of meaning demands that the manuscript text be retained, and the problem thus becomes to find a satisfactory meaning which the chorus could
intend. I t is hard to imagine that they have Oedipus in mind in any way,
for, even if they were shocked and frightened by his actions, the members
of this loyal chorus would hardly speak of their respected king, whom
they have claimed they will never blame without proof (504-6), as the
offspring of hybris personified.
Many critics have claimed that "hybris engenders the monarch" would
be nonsense. l 1 On the contrary, within archaic and classical Greek political
theory, it is a commonplace. T h e statement fits perfectly within the frame
of reference provided by the extant descriptions of the origin of monarchy
within a city found in Theognis, Solon, Herodotus, and the Anonymus
Iamblichi. While there are differences among the authors, they show a
7. See, however, R. Doyle. "0.21IO:. hOt'O:. YHI'IZ and T H from Hesiod to Aeschylus." Tvaditio
26 (1970). 293-303, who points out that this cycle normally has only three terms and that as the middle
term Gppr~and ~ o p are
o ~ normally mutually exclusive alternatives.
8. Kirkwood, Sophoclran D ~ a m a p.
, 268, e.g.. calls the ode "general." and G. H. Gellie, "The Second
Stasimon of the Oedipus Tymnnos." AJP 85 (1964). 113-23. argues that much is mere generalization on
the surrace, although ironically it alludes to Oedipus and prepares for the catastrophe.
9. On the other hand, he is clearly very Tar from the conventional tyrant, a c Knox. Oedipus at Thebes.
pp. 59-60, shows. Hybris and koros do appear in descriptions of the tyrant (most notably Hdt. 3 . 80.
4), but his ruin, so prominent in this poem, is not part of this theme. Solon, on the other hand, has
hybris, koros, and ate in his analysis of stasis in frag. 4 West (see below).
10. Such a scene can bring issues otherwise i.$oTOG Sp&pa.rov into the play; our judgment of Oedipus
as he instantly suspects and loses his temper arrects our judgment of the Oedipus who solved the riddle
and killed Laius. The "carpet scene" orthe Agamemnonand lines 58-120 orthe Hippolytus are comparable
as scenes which serve rather to reveal a moral situation than to advance action.
11. Winnington-Ingram. Sophorlrs, p. 189, says, "'It is hubris that breeds a king' would be a ridiculously untrue generalization," and Burton. Chorus, p. 156, calls the natural sense or the MS reading
"manifest nonsense." l? Elmsley, in his 1825 edition or the play, offered two glosses which correspond
to what are here argued to be the intended and ironic meanings or the phrase: either "Propter malos
civium mores amittitur llbertas" or "Per scelera ad tyrannidem occupandam viam sibi raciunt homines."
common basis. Both poets speak explicitly about the role of hybris in
political disturbance. At 39-52 of the Theognidean corpus, the poet describes his fears for the city. I t is pregnant and may give birth to an
~ 3 O v v ~ f j p~a a ~ f iji pqp ~ 0 7$ p 8 7 6 ~ 7 ) 7(~3 9 4 0 ) . The leaders have turned to
K ~ K O (42).
T ~ ~ Good men do not destroy cities, but they are ruined ( 4 4 4 6 ) :
The final result is stasis, murder, and monarchy (5 1-52):
Herodotus' Darius, speaking in favor of monarchy (3. 82. 3 4 ) , argues
that both oligarchy and democracy ultimately become monarchy. In oligarchy, rivalries inevitably arise, and the oligarchs hate each other, until
their feuds lead to the sequence given in Theognis, stasis, murder, and
q q
and
monarchy. In democracy, on the other hand, ~ a ~ o is~ unavoidable
will lead to cabals of those involved, until ~ p o u ~ c Ti rL 706
~
87jpov stops
them. This man's popularity ultimately makes him monarch.I2 Although
the word i @ p ~ qdoes not occur in this passage, the parallels with Theognis
show that the idea is the same. The Anonymus Iamblichi (89. 7. 12-14
D-K) uses the terms &vowia and ~ A c o v ~ f and
i a s ~ e a k sof KaKiff instead
~ ~ ~his
, message is a more generally stated version of the same
of K ( Y K o but
argument: human beings cannot live without law and justice and, if these
leave the majority, a single ruler must arise to maintain them, but monarchy would never appear unless a failure of civil order made it necessary.'" For Sophocles, perhaps the most important treatment of the theme
is Solon fragment 4 West. While this poem does not mention tyranny, the
origin of tyranny appears in fragments 9 and 11, where the language is
similar to that of 4. Furthermore, the dysnomia described in the poem
is what Solon attempted to cure; it created a situation in which he could
have become tyrant, had he wished (frags. 32 and 33). I t thus depicts the
conditions which lead to tyranny, and would have done so in this case
had Solon's idea of glory not been different. T h e Athenians, he complains,
(5-6),
VOL
are willing in their folly to destroy their city, x p 7 j p a u ~T F L ~ O ~ E
and through the unjust minds of the leaders (7-8):
12. The process is illustrated in a simplified form in the story of 1)eiocles a t 1. 96-101, where the
would-be tyrant achieves his goal by providing justice in a land in which rapine and lawlessness prevailed.
13. This tract is particularly interesting here for its terminology; in 13 the author says i i r r ~ ~i ycz i r a c
p a r r h i u i j nipavvov $5 dihhov rcvric yiyvruOar i j i-( 4 v o f i i a ~ra ~ a nhr.our.(iaf.
i
fiwpdc i-mru. In 14, he sums up.
miuc y e p 6 v 4 h h o c e i Evu
~ f i o v a p ~ i aneprrrruiv. . . . T h e analysis applies to rule by one man, whether it is
called "monarchy," "tyranny," or "kingship." This confirms that the negative sense of Sophocles' line need
not depend on taking the word nipuvvoc in an unusual, negative sense.
At 12-14 these leaders (who resemble those of Theognis) are the subject:14
The result is stasis (19) and civil strife, with the potential, as fragments
9 and 11 help show, for tyranny.
The traditional reading in Sophocles' ode offers a succinct version of
this analysis: hybris leads to monarchy. This traditional belief can appear
where kingship is praised, as in Darius' speech, and where it is regarded
with horror, as in Theognis. The word r z i p a v v o ~is thus neutral, and the
statement itself a neutral statement of fact, although context and the
~~
it clear that the chorus is frightened and appalled
loaded word i ; p p make
at the prospect. The fall of hybris is not unlike the prophecy of ruin in
Solon (koros also appears there a t 9-10, as it does in the ode a t 874-75).
This political theme is appropriate to this part of the play, for political
intrigue was a prominent subject of the preceding scene, as Oedipus
accused Creon of seeking to overthrow him. All along Oedipus has believed that Laius' murder was part of a political conspiracy (124-25)
whose next target would be himself (13940). H e has imagined that Tiresias and Creon seek his expulsion (385-403) and, when he yields to his
wife and the chorus in sparing Creon, he insists that his own death or
exile will result (658-59. 669-70).
While the choius does not, of course, believe in Creon's guilt, neither
the choristers nor anyone else has challenged Oedipus' basic understanding of the situation. If the chorus does not believe that Oedipus killed
Laius, they must continue to imagine an unknown killer, who is not only
polluted and endangering the city with his pollution but is a direct threat
to the political order, a would-be tyrant whose hope would lie in the city's
being already weakened by stasis, like the Lycus of Euripides' Heracles
(31-34, 272-73, 588-92). T h e sinner of the second strophe is such a figure.
Already the slayer of Laius has been called d i p p q ~ '& p p r j 7 0 ~~ ~ A & u a u r a
~ O L U L ~ L C Tx L~ p u i v(465). H e is the play's obvious candidate for the embodiment of evildoing. At 889, the chorus speaks of this man's unjust K ~ ~ S O T :
Oedipus accused Tiresias of seeking "profit" a t 388, while Creon defended
himself as not seeking it a t 595. The same word is important in the context
of political corruption in Theognis (46, 50); and Solon, although he does
14. Despite the loss of a hexameter before I I and of one after, the sequence of thought is clear, a t 7-8
the minds of the leaders are unjust, and the hybris will lead to grief: at 9-10 they cannot restrain their
koros or enjoy present good; at I I they gain u ~ a l t hunjustly, at 12-13 the nature of their unjust profits
is specified.
15. J. C. Kamerbeek, "Comments on the Second Stasimon of the Oedipus fimnnos." WS 79 ll(166):
8&92 (also in his commentary ad loc.), identifies the sinner of the second strophe as the killer of Laius,
but believes that what the chorus fears is that Oedipus, if he is guilty and believes Jocasta's dismissal
of oracles, may ignore his own curse and the city's pollution, and, retaining his throne, become a true
tyrant. Yet his horror a t the possibility of his guilt is patent. Lloyd-Jones, Justire ofzezrs, p. I I I, seems
to deny that there is any difficulty in the chorus' ignoring Oedipus' recognition that he ma!, be the killer.
"Neither the ode nor the surrounding context contains any suggestion as to who is the criminal."
not use the word ~ ~ ~ 8stresses
0 9 , the role of unjust desire of wealth in
leading to political disturbance. Solon's "leaders" bear a strong resemblance to the sinner of Sophocles' ode, for one does not fear Justice, the
others do not watch out for her foundations; one takes hold of what he
should not and does not hold back from & ( T E ~while
T ~ . the others rob
even sacred property. I n short, the hybris of the first antistrophe is the
hybris of a city in danger of stasis and tyranny, and the figure of the
second strophe is the hybristic man, the stasiotes who can take advantage
of civic corruption, and Laius' killer.
Hence, the description of hybris emerges naturally from the chorus'
opening prayer. As the leaders of the city, it is their righteousness on
which the city depends. If hybris overtakes the city, it will be destroyed.
But the punishment which overtakes the city whose hybris has led to civil
strife is in fact the triumph of the most hybristic man. This ambiguity
is inherent in the traditional complex of beliefs. If in one version Theognis
pa
ijpp~orT j p ~ r ~ pa ~parallel
q,
version in 1082 speaks
fears an ~ 3 e v v ~ f jKaKfj~
of a IjPpiur~uxaA&.rrijq$ y ~ p o u aurdluioq. Civic hybris leads to a destruction
r 5x0~
.rroA~~
which consists in the success of the most hybristic. To ~ a A &6'
.rr&Aa~upa~ T ~ T O T EAGuai ~ E O Vai~oijpai.T his sentence makes sense and is
perfectly logical, if the chorus has been speaking of stasis, for it is natural,
when they have told of the evil results of extreme ambition and competition, to make it clear that they want competitive striving which is
beneficial to continue.I6 The interpretation of the scholia, that .rr&Aaiupa
is the search for Laius' killer, has an element of truth, for the good aspect
of the potential stasis the chorus sees in Laius' killing is Oedipus7strukgle
to end this disorder. Even the chorus' choice of the god as .rrpour&~qq
gains additional meaning in this context, since the protector thus named
is in implicit contrast to the kind of .rrpourdlq riq TOG 8Tjpov mentioned in
Darius' speech. I'
The chorus' fear seems to be double. There is danger both within, from
hybris among the citizens, and danger without, from the murderer. About
the first they are certain. If hybris comes to be dominant, the city is lost;
the murder of Laius and the quarrel of Oedipus and Creon show that
something is wrong, but it is not clear how far corruption has spread. On
the other hand, the murderer, although he is the figure who is most surely
implicated in this hybris, is a t the same time, as a potential tyrant, the
figure who will punish that hybris. T h e discovery and punishment of
Laius' killer is necessary on both counts. The killer's own designs must
be thwarted, and the pollution removed; simultaneously, his destruction
will vindicate divine care for the city and allow it to show itself as wellordered. As part of the community, the killer is behind the first antis16. A . A . Long, "Sophocles, OT 879--882,"LCM 3 (1978): 4%52, points out that, although Creon has
insisted that he does not compete with Oedipus, Oedipus believes that he does, and the word ~r&kurrrfiu
thus echoes their quarrel.
17. V. Ehrenberg, Sophoclrs and Pericles (Oxford, 1954), pp. 99-103, argues that there was no official
term I~POVT&IVP and that Sophocles does not in this passage allude to such a title. But, especially given
the association of the word with monarchy in Herodotus, it is hard to believe that it lacks a political
undertone here; cf. Knox, Oedipus at Thebes, pp. 103, 233, n. 194.
trophe, for he may represent a tendency, while his acts seem to place him
beyond the pale, where the chorus imagined him in the second stasimon.
This interpretation of the central section of the song gives it a reasonable
surface meaning, in which the chorus believes it is singing about the
murderer of Laius and the threat his existence poses, and an ironic meaning, in which it describes Oedipus. Two difficulties are evident here.
First, it is admittedly peculiar for the chorus to analyze the process by
which tyranny comes into being when their city is already a tyranny.
They are loyal to Oedipus and do not, elsewhere in the play, object to
monarchy as such. Such an irrationality, however, is not atypical of political language in Greek tragedy. The Athens of Euripides' Supplices is
a democracy during the agon, but elsewhere Theseus acts as a king; the
Creon of the Antigone is king by birthright at 174 but speaks of "whomever
the city appoints" at 666.IX The Thebes of Euripides' Heracles, before the
usurpation of Lycus, was a monarchy destroyed by the same kind of
stasis, associated with oligarchy or democracy, the chorus seems to fear
in the second stasimon. Within the Oedipus Rex,at 5 4 0 4 3 Oedipus has
addressed Creon in terms clearly appropriate to fifth-century Athenian
politics, where tyranny can be hunted TAT$FL xp7jpauiu 0'. Moreover,
there was a t this time probably no conventional language for describing
the process by which one monarch overthrows another. I vMost important,
the double meaning could not have been obtained through simpler language. The chorus expresses its political ideas by describing the hybris
which creates a king, because, as applied to Oedipus, what is said is true:
however his actions and those of Laius a t their fateful meeting are to be
judged, Oedipus became a monarch through hybris in the simple sense
of aggressive violence. There is no explicit reference to stasis in the ode,
because this would be difficult to unite with a covert allusion to Oedipus,
while the "struggle which is good for the city" can imply Oedipus' struggle
to find the enemy who will prove to be himself.
This is not the only problem. If the chorus means what has been
suggested here, the song is ignoring the possibility that Oedipus is the
murderer, although he has just spoken of it at considerable length and
although the song is closely tied to at least part of the preceding scene.
No hearer would grasp the political meaning of the ode unless he had
paid attention to the political implications of what went before. Yet the
problem of the consideration given by the chorus to the idea that Oedipus
is the killer obtains in any case. If the choristers have Oedipus in mind
18. H. Rengl. Slaatsthrovetischr Pvoblemc im Ralzmen dev nttzsrhen, vovnrhmlich cz(vipzdrischen
Tvagodie (Ph.U. diss., Munich, 1929), pp. 7 6 7 5 , shours how little specific political character is traceable
in most of the kings of tragedy; they are imagined in accordance with clear ideas about monarchy as an
institution
19. Examples of monarchs overthrown by those who succeeded them were, of course, familiar, but
parupoh+ of constitutions was the theoretical preoccupation. Still, the overthrow of Candaules by Gyges.
the original mjpavuoy, as narrated a t Hdt. 1 8-12, exemplities the idea that hybris creates the king in
the sense of Elmsley's second gloss (see n. I I). In the fourth century, Aristotle shows himself highly aware
of how tyrannies fall to other tyrannies (Pol. 1301b, 1316a).
a t all, it is hard to see how they could not be condemning him, and it is
equally hard to believe that this loyal chorus is deliberately attacking the
king. At 834-35, they have encouraged Oedipus to have hope, until he
hears from the eyewitness, and this encouragement was followed by Jocasta's reaffirmation that the report spoke of many robbers. The discrepancy offers the chorus a way not to believe.z0In the first stasimon, the
chorus ignores what the prophet has said for the first strophic pair
(463482) and sings of a killer as remote from Oedipus, on the surface,
as could be imagined. Only then do they turn to Tiresias, and in the
second pair his charges are directly confronted. The chorus can, clearly,
ignore part of the preceding scene, a t least for part of an ode, although
their song is directly relevant to other parts of the episode and indeed
depends on it for meaning. In the third stasimon, the chorus seems completely to have forgotten the issue of the murderer's identity in a joyous
song speculating on Oedipus' possible divine origin. Wishful thinking is
not foreign to the chorus, and in the confusion of mind inspired by the
difficulty of the oracles it is easiest for the choristers to assume that the
villain of the piece is what the villain should be: not the noble king, but
the godless and hybristic stasiotes.
Like the first stasimon, the poem goes from certainty to doubt. The
earlier song began by describing a slayer who wandered, an outcast, in
terror a t the oracles, but then it turned to Tiresias' words with evident
anxiety. T h e second begins by treating the political problem in general
terms. The chorus desires & y v ~ i faor itself and tells of the terrible results
of hybris. Impurity has manifested itself in Laius' murder, an act of
ambitious faction; the chorus wants no share in this greed and impiety
and knows that, if as representative of the leaders of Thebes it turns to
wickedness, the city will be ruined. Of the fate of the single evildoer the
singers are not so certain. If he falls, they are safe and can dance; and,
if the evil is confined to the murderer, divine vengeance is unambiguously
to be desired. Divine vengeance, however, seems to depend on the oracles.
Delphi has said that only finding the killer can save Thebes from the
plague. The oracle stands behind the entire search. Yet Tiresias has called
Oedipus the murderer, and long ago Delphi prophesied that Laius would
die a t the hands of his son. The issue has become complex. The help of
the gods is desperately needed but seems ambiguous. While before the
oracles were seen as actively attacking and surrounding the killer (469-70,
480-81), that harmony of the divine impulse with human effort has vanished, and the chorus can only pray for the gods' vengeance.
The final stanza of the ode is ordinarily regarded as expressing horror
at Jocasta's impiety. Yet what frightens the chorus is less Jocasta's skepticism than the apparently excellent grounds on which it is based. Their
opening words set the tone: O ~ K E T .L . . I&L. They engage in a "challenging20. On the ambiguity of the number of murderers and its function, see W. C . Green, "The Murderer5
of Laius," TAPA 60 (1929): 75-86.
nouthetetic" prayer and assert t h a t , i f the oracles are not vindicated, t h e y
will n o longer visit the oracular shrines." I n e f f e c t ,t h e y threaten t h e gods
w i t h t h e loss o f their o w n faith, and t h e f o r m o f condition t h e y use is
that associated w i t h threats and warnings. W h i l e the chorus treats belief
i n oracles as fundamental t o religion, its song is scarcely a reproof o f
doubt. O n t h e contrary, t h e tone is one o f impassioned desperation. T h e
strophe has stressed the need for divine punishment o f the o f f e n d e r ( a
) , antist h e m e natural after t h e god has been invoked as n p o c r ~ c i ~ q qthe
trophe the manifestation o f the divine i n the oracles. T h e plot m a k e s these
t w o inseparable, and t h e chorus regards both as essential i f cult is t o
continue. Naturally, the elders have n o conception w h a t t h e y are asking
i n either case. T h e oracle chiefly o n their minds is the one given long ago
t o Laius, since it is this oracle w h i c h seems t o have been proven untrue
and also this one w h i c h seems t o inject hopeless confusion into t h e search
for the killer. since Laius w a s t o have been killed bv his son. For the
chorus, which has not the remotest idea o f the truth, vindication o f Delphi
would free Oedipus o f fear.
T h e meaning o f t h e song is t h u s coherent at t w o quite distinct levels.
T h e second stasimon begins as did the first. T h e most recent events o n
the stage are ignored, and instead attention is turned t o a n earlier aspect
o f t h e preceding episode. W h e n the members o f the chorus pray for fate
t o be w i t h t h e m i n a state o f purity i n all matters governed b y the eternal
laws o f the gods, t h e y intend t o deprecate involvement i n the murder o f
Laius and the possible stasis o f w h i c h political murder is a regular m a n ifestation.>' Actually, i n this prayer t h e y disassociate themselves f r o m
Oedipus, for nothing is more i n opposition t o divine l a w t h a n parricide
and incest.>' I n t h e antistrophe, t h e y seem partly t o be explaining w h y
the prayer is needed: hybris, particularly as it appears i n political life,
has disastrous conseauences. T h i s evocation o f the civic use o f the traditional grouping o f hybris, koros, and ate resembles, and m a y well b e
dependent o n , Solon fragment 4 W. Here again, the language has been
manipulated so that it describes Oedipus. I n the second strophe, t h e
unjust m a n , w i t h his unlawful profit, is again Oedipus, w h o has touched
the untouchable, although t h e figure the chorus has i n mind is Oedipus'
e n e m y and their o w n . I n t h e final antistrophe, t h e y demand t h a t the
oracles be proven true, i n order that divine rule over the universe m a y
21 T h e term "challenging-nouthetetir" for such prayers comes from A. M Dale, "Euripides' Helena
1441-50," Maia 15 (1963): 312-13 T h a t the chorus' prayer shows more doubt than faith was pointed
out by C H Whitman, Sophorlrs: A S t u d y of Heroic lllrmanism (Cambridge, Mass., 19511, pp. 143-45.
22. The use of the word liyvdc a t 823 and 830 helps connect the ~mpurityfeared by the chorus w ~ t h
Laius' slaying.
23. This is not the place for a discussion of the relationship among Oedipus' crimes of i n c e t and
parricide, divine l a w , and "unwritten laws," but reverence for parents, most shockingly violated in
parricide, is one of the "Three Greek Commandments," violations of which are punished by the Erinyes
(Aesch. E u m 269-72, 538-491, cf. G. Thomson, The "0~r.steia"ofilrsrhylus, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 19381,
pp 269-72. Incest is a topic of the famous discussion of unwritten law a t Xen M r m . 4. 4. 19-23; on
this issue, see R. Hirzel, "'Ayprr+oe udPov,'' ASG 20 (1900)- 1; V Ehrenberg, Sophocles and Prvirlrs, pp.
22-50, 167-72; M. Ostwald. "Was There a Concept l i y p a h o c vopoc in Classical Greece?" Phronrsis,
Suppl. 1 (1973): 7(!-104: Lloyd-Jones. Justire of Zrus. pp. 109-10.
be reaffirmed, turning, finally, to the last question raised in the episode.
Yet again, their prayer insists on the ruin of Oedipus. A single irony
governs the ode, dictating its language, and it is the same irony which
governs the entire play.24Explicitly the problem faced is that of the political intrigue, a form of hybris which threatens the stable and wellregarded king, but the king's enemy is himself.
T h e construction of the poem is strained by the continual search for
double meanings, but the irony is consistently maintained even as the
intended meaning moves through a rational and orderly series of ideas.
The point of the ode doubtless lies in the tension between the two meanings. Each is complete, even though the pressure of sustaining ambiguity
has made the chorus' train of thought a kind of allusive shorthand; but
there is a n absolute gap between them. Everything the chorus says is
morally charged and, on the level of intended meaning, completely without ambiguity. T h e political process the elders describe horrifies them,
who wish to be themselves uncontaminated and who imagine the killer
as an archetypal and deliberate sinner. All their words can be applied,
however, to Oedipus, whose acts were not deliberate, who was unafraid
of Justice only because he did not realize he had reason to fear. T h e
language of the ode expresses strong moral judgments, yet it seems to
apply to Oedipus in a purely descriptive sense; his acts are described, but
he is by no means the kind of man to whom the terms would normally
apply or are meant to apply.25Yet the chorus innocently asserts repeatedly
that the moral order depends on their prayers' being answered, which
means that it depends on an event that they do not desire and cannot
expect, the fall of Oedipus. Thus the ode is indeed a t the very center of
the play. I t employs the ironies which pervade the drama in a context of
traditional but still crucial and immediate concerns, both political and
ethical. T h e song is true as a discussion of the problem of hybris in the
community and as a depiction of Oedipus and his fate, but these truths,
although entwined, have little to do with each other. T h e extreme concentration through which the same words point in two such different
directions emphasizes the absence of resolution. This very intensity of
ambiguity makes the ode almost a summary of this most intensely ambiguous of tragedies.
Harvard University
24. See J.-P Vernant, "Ambigui'ti. et renversement: Sur la structure enigmatique de I'Oedipe-Roi,"
Mythr et tragbdir en Gri.rr ancirnnr (Paris, 1972), pp. 99-132.
25. This reading is, of course, far from complete. I t could be applied to the suggestion that the ode's
ironies are deliberately misleading, pointing to an "Aeschylean" view of Oedipus' fall the poet wishes
his audience to reject, as argued by Winnington-Ingram, Sophorlrs, pp. 179-204, and (with some
perversities) by G . Miiller, " 1 ) a ~ w e i t eStasimon des Konig Oedipus," H r m r s 95 (1967): 269-91