Krzysztof Bielawski

Jagiellonian University

MANTIC PERSPEC TIVES IN GREEK TR AGEDY.

WORDS, PERSONS AND PERFORMANCES 1

Greek tragedy is an important source for research on various rit-

uals and religious activities: sacrifices, prayers, hikesiai, lamenta-
tions, funerals, processions and – of course – divinations. Words
connected with divination are often inserted into dialogues or
songs; in addition there are dramatis personae – important and in-
fluential professionals in divination – and passages of tragic texts
focused specifically on places, techniques and what I would refer
to as the ‘theology’ of divination. The number of these ‘mantic’ al-
lusions, words, persons and performances in the corpus of Greek
tragedy is substantial; and together they create an important di-
mension – the ‘mantic perspective’ – which becomes one of keys to
the secret power of tragic poetry.2 I will return to this point in my
conclusions.

1 Detailed research on the topics analysed here and the work on the article
were possible thanks to the financial support granted by the National Centre for
Science (decision No. DEC-2013/09/B/HS6/01208). My special thanks go to Zofia
Fenrych and Aleksandra Klęczar who helped me to prepare the Polish version of
the paper, originally planned and presented in English; the aforementioned Pol-
ish version was much more than the translation.
2  It is difficult to believe but at present no single monograph of the presence of
mantic themes in Greek tragedy exists. There are only fragmentary works, discuss-
ing either a single author or general questions. These works also lack detailed anal-
yses and parallells, which would allow for synteses and for drawing conclusions
which would allow for new paths in research. Among these works are J. Jouanna,

69
 Many ancient authors – including Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon,
Artemidoros, Cicero, Varro, to name just a few3 – attempted to
understand and explain divination in different ways. Their texts
clearly demonstrate how divination was a performative and reli-
gious activity that pervaded every possible level of public and pri-
vate life – exactly as we used to say about sacrifice or, following Jan
Bremmer remarks,4 Greek religion in general.
Oracles, divinations, manteis and propheteiai are ‘omnipresent
in Greek tragedy’,5 especially the oracles at Delphi6 and Dodo-
na (Aesch. PV 658–66; 829–35; Soph. Trach. 169–72; 1164–72; Eur.
Andr. 883–90; Phoen. 979–84).7 The Delphic oracle is mentioned in
fourteen of the thirty-three surviving tragedies, which include
thirty-four consultations of the Pythia,8 who also appears as a dra-
matis persona in the Eumenides of Aeschylus and in Ion by Euripi­des.
This all-pervasive presence of the mantic in tragedy is built by

‘Oracles et devins chez Sophocle’, in J.-G. Heintz (ed.), Oracles et prophéties dans l’An-
tiquité. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 15–17 juin 1995 (Paris 1997), 283–320; J.C. Kamer-
beek, ‘Prophecy and Tragedy’ Mnemosyne 18 (1965), 29–40; R.W. Bushnell, Pro-
phesying Tragedy. Sign and Voice in Sophocles’ Theban Plays (Ithaca and London 1988);
L. Bowman, ‘Prophecy and Authority in the Trachiniae’, AJPh 120 (1999), 335–350;
Ch. Segal, ‘Time, Oracles, and Marriage in the Trachinian Women’ in Sophocles’
Tragic World. Divinity, Nature, Society (Cambridge, Mass. 1995), 69–94; L. Bowman,
Klytaimnestra’s Dream: Prophecy in Sophocles’ Elektra, Phoenix 51 (1997), 131–151;
A.E. Hinds, ‘The Prophecy of Helenus in Sophocles’ Philoctetes’, Class. Quart. 17 (1967),
169–180; R.L. Kane, Prophecy and Perception in the Oedipus Rex, TAPA  105 (1975),
189–208; S. Lattimore, ‘Oedipus and Teiresias’, CSCA 8 (1975), 105–111.
3 Cf. P. Bonehere, ‘Divination’ in D. Ogden (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion
(Oxford 2007), 145–159, esp. 146.
4  J. Bremmer, Greek Religion (Oxford 1999), 2–4.
5  L.R. Lanzillotta, Prophecy and Oracle, in Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Greek Tragedy,
online version: http://theol.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2012/ProphecyandOracle/
Prophecy_and_Oracle_versin_rep_1.pdf (accessed 22.09.2013), 4.
6  Cf. S. Vogt, ‘Delphi in der Attischen Tragödie’, Antike und Abendland 44 (1998),
30–48.
7 Cf. M. Dieterle, Dodona. Religionsgeschichtliche und historische Untersuchungen zur
Entstehung und Entwicklung des Zeus-Heiligtums (Zurich and New York 2007).
8  L.R. Lanzillotta, op. cit., 4.

70 Kr zysztof Biel awski

words and characters, by the use of terms laden with long tradi-
tion and by personages present in oldest mythical narratives.

Words

One of the difficulties in dealing with this subject is purely lin-

guistic. In English we have such words as ‘oracle’, ‘divination’,
‘prophecy’, ‘inspiration’, ‘possession’, ‘madness’ and ‘fury’. ‘Man-
tic’ appears only as an adjective, and only in technical sense. In
poetry we have also ‘vatic’, from Latin vaticinium. There are, of
course, numerous other adjectives, including ‘oracular’, ‘pro-
phetic’, ‘mad’ and ‘furious’; dictionaries also suggest ‘perceptive’,
‘prescient’, and ‘divinatory’, all of which sound strange and rather
affected. In these words we can see mostly the Latin tradition: ‘or-
acle’ and ‘oracular’ from oraculum (comes from ‘ora’ – ‘mouth’ and
‘orare’ – ‘speak’);‘divination’ from divinare (‘to make out or interpret
things hidden from the senses, practice divination’9) and divinus
(‘of or belonging to the gods’,10 from divus, that which appears in
a moment);‘inspiration’ from inspirare (‘to draw deep breaths, to
infuse’11); possession from possessio (‘occupancy’,12 in fact from the
verb possideo – ‘to have, to occupy’). Only ‘prophecy’ has Greek ori-
gins (προφήτης from πρόφημι – ‘say before’13); although ‘madness’
and ‘fury’ (also from Latin) recall Greek words and their meanings.
‘Mad’ and ‘madness’14 probably have no connection with Greek or
Latin at all.15

9  Oxford Latin Dictionary, 564.

10  Ibidem.
11  Ibidem, 928.
12  Ibidem, 1410.
13 Cf. Greek-English Lexicon, IX th edition with Supplement, red. H.G. Liddell, R. Scott,
H.S. Jones, Oxford 1996 (further as LSJ), 1539.
14  They come from Proto-Germanic ga-maid-jan, what is demonstrative form from ga-maid-
-az – ‘changed in worse, abnormal’. Cf. Online Etymological Dictionary (http://www.et-
ymonline.com/index.php?term=mad), sv.
15  Cf. W.W. Skeat, The Concise Dictionary of English Etymology (Ware 1993), 264.

Mantic Perspec tives in Greek Tr agedy. Words, Persons and Performances 71

 Cicero was the first writer who paid attention to the differences
in terminology when discussing this phainomenon in Greek and Lat-
in traditions; we will follow his distinctions in our investigation:

I 1 Vetus opinio est iam usque ab heroicis ducta temporibus, eaque

et populi Romani et omnium gentium firmata consensu, versari
quandam inter homines divinationem, quam Graeci μαντική ap-
pellant, id est praesensionem et scientiam rerum futurarum. Mag-
nifica quaedam res et salutaris, si modo est ulla, quaque proxime
ad deorum vim natura mortalis possit accedere. Itaque ut alia nos
melius multa quam Graeci, sic huic praestantissimae rei nomen
nostri a divis, Graeci, ut Plato interpretatur, a furore duxerunt.

1 1 There is an ancient belief, handed down to us even from myth-

ical times and firmly established by the general agreement of the
Roman people and of all nations, that divination of some kind ex-
ists among men; this the Greeks call μαντική – that is, the fore-
sight and knowledge of future events. A really splendid and helpful
thing it is – if only such a faculty exists – since by its means men
may approach very near to the power of gods. And, just as we Ro-
mans have done many other things better than the Greeks, so have
we excelled them in giving to this most extraordinary gift a name,
which we have derived from divi, a word meaning ‘gods,’ whereas,
according to Plato’s interpretation, they have derived it from furor,
a word meaning ‘frenzy.’ (tr. W.A. Falconer)

It is interesting to note that for Cicero the most important aim

of divination is not ‘a knowledge’ – scientia rerum futurarum – but ‘ap-
proaching very near to the power of gods’(proxime ad deorum vim na-
tura mortalis possit accedere).
The problem of applying English words to the ancient Greek
practices is a problem of translation. The case is complicated and
must always involve a compromise between the literal meaning
and the stylistics of the generic and artistic context; however, to
fully understand these terms, they should become subject to the in-
depth linguistic, historical and cultural analysis. There are many

72 Kr zysztof Biel awski

technical terms evoking ‘mantic’ subjects, which must be under-
stood in the proper way – that is with respect to their cultic and
ritual context – even when they are used metaphorically.
The English words continue at least three etymological and se-
mantic traditions:
1. connected with a divine power in general (divination).
2. connected with speaking (prophecy, oracle).
3. connected with madness (mania, manteia).
The first of these groups is typical for Latin. In the Greek lan-
guage we have only the latter two meanings; the first meaning
is found only in Latin (and is, in Cicero’s opinion, the best one).
However, the most important meaning – and one which is char-
acteristic only for the Greeks – is madness (mania – mainomai – man-
tis – manteia).
One may risk the statement that all Greek tragedy is about
madness. The madness of Heracles, of Medea, of the Furies, of
Penteus, of Agaue and her sisters, of Bakchai from Lydia, and
also of Teiresias and Cadmus, of Ajas, of Cassandra, of the terri-
fied suppliant women of Aeschylus, of Prometheus, of Teiresias
and Oedipus. All these tragic characters are intended to exist on
the border of human existence; they are people who cannot see, or
who perceive reality in a different way. By this definition, proph-
ecy is a kind of madness. But what did this mean for the ancients
Greeks, and what it can mean for modern scholars? To answer the
first question we must not ignore the famous quotation from Plato
(Phaedrus 244c and 265) – discussed by Cicero, the Church fathers,
Eric Dodds,16 Walter Burkert,17 Richard Seaford,18 Jan Bremmer,
Oliver Taplin and many others – dealing with ancient religion and
theatre:

16  E.R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (1951), 64–100.
17  W. Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, Mass. 1987), 19.
18  R. Seaford, Dionysos (London 2006), 57, 81, 106, 135.

Mantic Perspec tives in Greek Tr agedy. Words, Persons and Performances 73

 The first passage is as follows:

ἁπλοῦν τὸ μανίαν κακὸν εἶναι, καλῶς ἂνἐλέγετο· νῦν δὲ τὰ μέγιστα

τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἡμῖν γίγνεται διὰ μανίας, θείᾳ μέντοι δόσει διδομένης.
ἥτε γὰρ δὴ ἐν Δελφοῖς προφῆτις αἵτ’ ἐν Δωδώνῃ ἱέρειαι μανεῖσαιμὲν
πολλὰ δὴ καὶ καλὰ ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ δημοσίᾳ τὴν ῾Ελλάδα ἠργάσαντο,
σωφρονοῦσαι δὲ βραχέα ἢ οὐδέν· καὶ ἐὰν δὴ λέγωμεν Σίβυλλάν τε καὶ
ἄλλους, ὅσοι μαντικῇ χρώμενοι ἐν θέῳ πολλὰ δὴ πολλοῖς προλέγοντες
εἰς τὸ μέλλον ὤρθωσαν, μηκύνοιμεν ἂν δῆλ απαντὶ λέγοντες.

But there is also a madness which is a divine gift, and the source of
the chiefest blessings granted to men. For prophecy is a madness,
and the prophetess at Delphi and the priestesses at Dodona when
out of their senses have conferred great benefits on Hellas, both in
public and private life, but when in their senses few or none. And
I might also tell you how the Sibyl and other inspired persons have
given to many an one many an intimation of the future which has
saved them from falling. (tr. B. Jowett)

In next lines Plato says expressis verbis that manike derives from
mainomai and mantike from the same, with a ‘T’ inserted.
And the second passage: Phaedrus 265

ΣΩ. Μανίας δέ γε εἴδη δύο, τὴν μὲν ὑπὸ νοσημάτων ἀνθρωπίνων, τὴν
δὲ ὑπὸ θείας ἐξαλλαγῆς τῶν εἰωθότων νομίμων γιγνομένην.

ΦΑΙ. Πάνυγε.

ΣΩ. Τῆς δὲ θείας τεττάρων θεῶν τέτταρα μέρη διελόμενοι, μαντικὴν

μὲν ἐπί πνοιαν ᾿Απόλλωνος θέντες, Διονύσου δὲ τελεστικήν, Μουσῶν
δ’ αὖ ποιητικήν, τετάρτην δὲ᾿ Αφροδίτης καὶ ῎Ερωτος.

Soc. And of madness there were two kinds; one produced by hu-
man infirmity, the other was a divine release of the soul from the
yoke of custom and convention.

Phaedr. True.
Soc. The divine madness was subdivided into four kinds, prophet-
ic, initiatory, poetic, erotic, having four gods presiding over them;
the first was the inspiration of Apollo, the second that of Dionysus,
the third that of the Muses, the fourth that of Aphrodite and Eros.

74 Kr zysztof Biel awski

 In Plato’s interpretation μαντικὴ τέχνη – the art of prophesy-
ing – and all other words of this group (μάντις, μαντεία, μάντευμα,
μαντεῖονetc.) derive from the noun μάνια and the verb μαίνομαι.
This is probably true. There are, as is common among etymologists
and historians of language, vota separata19 searching for a falsifica-
tion or confirmation of this conception, but I will follow here the
ancient tradition with the blessing of the etymological dictionar-
ies of Frisk,20 Chantraine21 and most recently Robert Beekes.22
The word stem μαν- in all these words is the same in μαίνομαι
and μῆνις as well as μένος.23 The first one means ‘to be furious, to
be mad’, the second means ‘fury’, and the final one means ‘pow-
er’; all are focused on possession and strong emotion. Μαντεία in
the same way as μανία (‘frenzy’) is connected with the last word –
μένος – and both denote a kind of frenzy, ‘not as the ravings of de-
lusion, but … as an experience of intensified mental power’.24
The other group, less often used, is connected with ‘speak-
ing’ and appears as πρόφημι (or προφητεύω as in Ion 369, 413),
προφήτης (Eur., Orestes 364: Νερέως προφήτης Γλαῦκος; Eur. Bak-
chai 211: προφήτης λόγων – Teiresias about himself and 551; Aesch.,
Septem: μέγας προφήτης about Amphiaraos, one of the ‘Septem’,
Agamm. 409, 1099, Eum. 19 – Διὸς προφήτης) or προφῆτις, especial-
ly Φοίβου προφῆτις for Delphic Pythia (Ion 321, 1322). It is surpris-
ing that none of these words appear in Sophocles.
Jan Bremmer, in his article in the New Pauly points out the
difference between a ‘prophet’ (prophetes) as ‘a manager of an ora-
cle’ and a ‘normal seer’ (mantis) recalling Herodotus (8, 36; 9, 93)

19  Cf. M. Casevitz, ‘Mantis: le vrai sens’, REG 105 (1992), 1–18.
20  H. Frisk, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg 1960), sv.
21  P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris 1968), sv.
22  R. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (Leiden and Boston 2010), 892–893,
902–903, 930–931.
23  Cf. Frisk, vol. 2, 172–173 and 208.
24  W. Burkert, Greek Religion, 162.

Mantic Perspec tives in Greek Tr agedy. Words, Persons and Performances 75

and Plato25 (Chrm. 173c: τοὺς δὲ ὡς ἀληθῶς μάντεις καθιστάναι ἡμῖν
προφήτας τῶν μελλόντων). Generally speaking this interpretation
is correct, but I am not sure how well it stands up to a detailed
examination. In the Charmides passage above,prophetes is not used
in a technical sense, but is simply etymological, denoting some-
one who speaks in advance, about the future. The examples cited
above of the use of prophetes in tragedy would appear to contradict
Bremmer’s opinion: these are synonyms.
But there is also another important group of Greek words desig-
nating divination – arguably the most important group from a sta-
tistical perspective – which has no continuation in any ancient or
modern language. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that the main
words for divination are: χρηστήριον, χρησμός, χρησμῳδία. What
is divination according to the etymology of these technical terms?
We find 43 occurrences of words from this group (only χρησμός,
χρησμῳδία) in the texts of tragedians, including fragments,
which is a substantial number. In Euripides: Cycl. 696 – παλαῖος
χρησμός; Med. 676: χρησμὸν εἰδέναι θεοῦ; Heracl., 403, 473, 488,
606, 1028 (χρησμῷ παλαίῳ Λοξίου), 1038 (χρεσμὸν θεοῦ); three
times in Ion: 424, 785, 1569 (χρησμοὶ θεοῦ); twice in Electra: 400
(χρησμοὶ Λοξίου) and 1303; Iph. Taur. 105 (χρεσμὸν θεοῦ); Bacch. 1333;
Phoeniss. 409, 642, 866, 1703 (twice χρησμοὶ Λοξίου). In Sophocles –
three times in Oedipus Rex: 711 and 797 about the oracle for Laios,
1200 – (χρησμῳδόν); once in Oed. Col. (970) and once in Electra (38).
In Aeschylus 10 times (Agamm. 1178, 1252; Choeph. 270, 297; Eumen.
622, 713; Pers. 739; PV 662, 775, 873).
And there are 26 occurrences of χρηστήριον. 8 occurrences in
Euripides’ Ion: 299, 409, 419, 1320 (χρηστήριον Λοξίου – 243, 974,
or θεοῦ – 727, 1611); Med. 667 (Φοίβου χρηστήριον), Andr. 1112, Hec.
594, Electr. 1272, IT 1262, Hel. 822, Bacch. 1336, IA 750. In Sopho-

25  ‘Prophets’ in H. Cancik, H. Schneider (eds), Brill’s New Pauly. Encyclopaedia of

the Ancient World, vol. 12 (Leiden 2008), 28. H. 8, 36; 9, 93.

76 Kr zysztof Biel awski

cles – Ajax 220, Oed. Col. 604, 1331. In Aeschylus – Suppl. 450, Septem
26, 748, Agamm. 964, 1270, Eum. 194, 241.
The basic meaning of these fundamental words for Greek divi-
nation derives from χρή26 – the Indo-European ghrehi – a word which,
both as substantive and a verb, means ‘it is necessary, one must,
should’ or ‘need, necessity, duty, custom’.27 What does this say
about divination? Burkert translates χρησμός as ‘service’, or more
precisely ‘a place where god offers a service’;28 we might imagine
it as a kind of a spiritual ‘gas station’, restaurant, or information
center.
In the same morphological and semantic group we have the
verb χρῶμαι (to use, to treat, to need), and the nouns χρεία (de-
sire, wish, help, service or function), and χρῆμα (something which
one needs, object, thing, as well as goods, property and money). If
we compare these with words such as δικαστήριον (a justice court)
ἐργαστήριον (a workshop, any place in which work is done) or
ποτήριον (a drinking cup) it seems that χρηστήριον must be a place,
where people (or gods?) deal with their needs, necessities, and
duties. When we look at this basic Greek vocabulary, an oracle is
a privileged place where people face their fundamental needs and
desires and ask for their duties and necessities.

Persons and performances

There are mantic personalities, which enrich the world of tragedy

with mystery and religious authority: Teiresias, Cassandra, Cal-
chas, Helenos, Glaukos prophetes of Nereus, Dionysos and Am-
phiaraos (Aesch., Septem, 569). In Greek tragedy, we find three
categories of person who deals with oracles.

26 Beekes, op. cit., 1648–1649.

27  Ibidem.
28  Greek religion, 114.

Mantic Perspec tives in Greek Tr agedy. Words, Persons and Performances 77

1. The most important is the prophetis. In Eumenides and in Ion we
find this person in the form of Pythia.29
2. There are many professional seers:
Teiresias – a strong character in four plays: Sophocles’ Antigone
and Oedipus Rex and Euripides Bakchai and Phoenissai.
Calchas, son of Thestor, brother of prophetess Theonoe, respon-
sible for divination about the sacrifice of Iphigenia. He nev-
er appears on stage in the extant tragedies, but there is no
other character whose absence is so influential and strong.
cassandra – a character in Aeschylus Agamemnon and in Euri­
pides’ Troiades. She is a daughter of Priamus and Hecuba,
a twin of Helenos
Helenos (Soph., Piloct. 606 and 1338 – ῞Ελενος ἀριστόμαντις;
Eur. Hecuba 87, Helena 751) – son of Priam and Hecuba, twin
brother of prophetess Cassandra. He is the one who proph-
esied that Greeks would win if they stole the Trojan Pallad-
ion; he also persuaded Neoptolemus and Philoctetes to join
the Greeks in the war.
Glaukos (Eur. Orestes 364 – Νηρέως προφήτης Γλαῦκος, ἀψευδὴς
θεός; he appears before Menelaus announcing to him the
death of his brother Agamemnon by the hand of Clytaem-
nestra). Aeschylus was supposed to write a play about Glau-
kos (Γλαῦκος Πόντιος). He was a prophetic sea-god, born
mortal and turned immortal after eating a magical herb.
Amphiaraos/Amphiareos (Aesch., Septem 569, Suppl. 158; Eur.
Phoeniss. 173, 1111: ὁ μάντις ᾿Αμφιάραος; Soph. Electr. 837,
Oed. Col. 1313). Euripides wrote a tragedy about Amphiara-
os, which is lost but a substantial number of fragments sur-
vive. Amphiaraos was king of Argos, the son of Oecles and
Hypermnestra.

29  The character of Pythia is discussed in details in the present collection by

Yana Zarifi-Sistovari.

78 Kr zysztof Biel awski

 Theonoe: A character in Euripides Helen 865–1029, 1624–1657
(esp.: 13, 145, 529, 821, 859, 1648). A daughter of the proph-
et Thestor, sister to prophet Calchas.
Trophonios (Ion 300, 393, 405) – the legendary builder of the
first temple of Apollo at Delphi and later himself the posses-
sor of a celebrated oracle at Lebadeia.
3. There are also non-professional manteis who play an important
rôle in mantic techne as teachers and masters, they are a kind of
‘meta-manteis’:
Prometheus who in Prometheus Vinctus 484–499 presents him­-
self as a master of divination (μαντικῆς ἐστοίχισα), with re-
spect to various methods (technai) including: dream inter-
pretations (ἐξ ὀνειράτων ἃχρὴ / ὕπαργενέσθαι; also in Aesch.
Cho. 21–41 and Eur. IT 1252–84); cledonomancy, the interpre-
tation of casual acts, utterances, omens (κληδόνες, σύμβολα,
also in Aesch Ag. 255–257, 1247 and 1652); ornithoscopy, the
interpretation of birds flights or movements (γαμψωνύχων
τε πτῆσιν οἰωνῶν σκεθρῶς / διώρισ’, also in Aesch. Ag. 104–
159; Soph. Ant. 998–1004; Eur. Phoen. 840; Eur. Bacch. 347);
hieroscopy, the reading of entrails (σπλάγχνων τελειότητα,
also in Eur. El. 826–833); empyromancy, the reading of the
smoke and flames upon sacrificial fire (φλογωπὰ σήματα,
also in Soph. Ant. 1005–1011 and Eur. Phoen. 1255–1258):

τρόπους τε πολλοὺς μαντικῆς ἐστοίχισα,

κἄκρινα πρῶτος ἐξ ὀνειράτων ἃ χρὴ
ὕπαρ γενέσθαι, κληδόνας τε δυσκρίτους
ἐγνώρισ’ αὐτοῖς ἐνοδίους τε συμβόλους.
γαμψωνύχων τε πτῆσιν οἰωνῶν σκεθρῶς
διώρισ’, οἵτινές τε δεξιοὶ φύσιν
εὐωνύμους τε, καὶ δίαιταν ἥντινα
ἔχουσ’ ἕκαστοι, καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τίνες
ἔχθραι τε καὶ στέργηθρα καὶ συνεδρίαι·
σπλάγχνων τε λειότητα, καὶ χροιὰν τίνα
ἔχουσ’ ἂν εἴη δαίμοσιν πρὸς ἡδονὴν

Mantic Perspec tives in Greek Tr agedy. Words, Persons and Performances 79

 χολή, λοβοῦ τε ποικίλην εὐμορφίαν·
κνίσῃ τε κῶλα συγκαλυπτὰ καὶ μακρὰν
ὀσφῦν πυρώσας δυστέκμαρτον εἰς τέχνην
ὥδωσα θνητούς, καὶ φλογωπὰ σήματα
ἐξωμμάτωσα, πρόσθεν ὄντ’ ἐπάργεμα.

And I marked out many ways by which they might read the future,
and among dreams I first discerned which are destined to come
true; and voices baffling interpretation I explained to them, and
signs from chance meetings. The flight of crook-taloned birds I dis-
tinguished clearly – which by nature are auspicious, which sinis-
ter – their various modes of life, their mutual feuds and loves, and
their consortings; and the smoothness of their entrails, and what
color the gall must have to please the gods, also the speckled sym-
metry of the liver-lobe; and the thigh-bones, wrapped in fat, and
the long chine I burned and initiated mankind into an occult art.
Also I cleared their vision to discern signs from flames, which were
obscure before this. Enough about these arts. (Aesch. Prom., 484–
499, tr. H.W. Smyth)

Teiresias, in Antigone 998–1014 describes the technical details

of hieroscopy and empyromancy:

Γνώσῃ, τέχνης σημεῖα τῆς ἐμῆς κλύων.

Εἰς γὰρ παλαιὸν θᾶκον ὀρνιθοσκόπον
ἵζων, ἵν’ ἦν μοι παντὸς οἰωνοῦ λιμήν,
ἀγνῶτ’ ἀκούω φθόγγον ὀρνίθων, κακῷ
κλάζοντας οἴστρῳ καὶ βεβαρβαρωμένῳ·
καὶ σπῶντας ἐν χηλαῖσιν ἀλλήλους φοναῖς
ἔγνων· πτερῶν γὰρ ῥοῖβδος οὐκ ἄσημος ἦν.
Εὐθὺς δὲ δείσας ἐμπύρων ἐγευόμην

βωμοῖσι παμφλέκτοισιν· ἐκ δὲ θυμάτων

῞Ηφαιστος οὐκ ἔλαμπεν, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ σποδῷ
μυδῶσα κηκὶς μηρίων ἐτήκετο
κἄτυφε κἀνέπτυε, καὶ μετάρσιοι
χολαὶ διεσπείροντο, καὶ καταρρυεῖς
μηροὶ καλυπτῆς ἐξέκειντο πιμελῆς.

80 Kr zysztof Biel awski

 You’ll know – once you hear the tokens of my art.
As I was sitting in my ancient place
receiving omens from the flights of birds
who all come there where I can hear them,
I note among those birds an unknown cry–
evil, unintelligible, angry screaming.
I knew that they were tearing at each other
with murderous claws. The noisy wings
revealed that all too well. I was afraid.
So right away up on the blazing altar
I set up burnt offerings. But Hephaestus
failed to shine out from the sacrifice –
dark slime poured out onto the embers,
oozing from the thighs, which smoked and spat,
bile was sprayed high up into the air,
and the melting thighs lost all the fat
which they’d been wrapped in. The rites had failed–
there was no prophecy revealed in them.
(tr. Ian Johnston)

In addition to the three categories described above, there is

a very special character: Dionysos. In the typology of maniai in Pla-
to’s Phaedrus (above), Dionysos is responsible only for ‘telestic mad-
ness’ connected with mystical initiation. But at the same time he:
– prophesies professionally in the Bakchai;
– is a god of Delphi together with Apollo (Eum. 24: Βρόμιος δ’ ἔχει
τὸν χῶρον, οὐδ’ ἀμνημονῶ; Bromius has held the region – I do not for-
get him [tr. H.W. Smyth]);
– in the Bakchai of Euripides he is the one who offers the best ex-
planation of the essence and theology of mantic experience.
A fragment from Bakchai (298–301) by Euripides contains both
description of mantic performance and an explanation of its deep-
est meaning:

μάντις δ’ ὁ δαίμων ὅδε· τὸ γὰρ βακχεύσιμον

καὶ τὸ μανιῶδες μαντικὴν πολλὴν ἔχει·

Mantic Perspec tives in Greek Tr agedy. Words, Persons and Performances 81

 ὅταν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἐς τὸ σῶμ’ ἔλθῃ πολύς,
λέγειν τὸ μέλλον τοὺς μεμηνότας ποιεῖ.

This god’s a prophet, too, for in his rites –

the Bacchic celebrations and the madness –
a huge prophetic power is unleashed.
When the god fully enters human bodies,
he makes those possessed by frenzy prophets.
They speak of what will come in future days.
(tr. Ian Johnston)

In this fragment we find a ‘theology of divination’, as it con-

tains the best explanation of oracular activity from a theological
perspective. Dionysos appears here as a theologos manteias, a person
who knows the very essence of divination, rather than a teacher
of mantic techniques (such as, for instance, Prometheus). In the
field of manteia, he is both a master and a teacher of teachers. He
does not teach (mathein) what to do, but rather what happens and
what to feel (pathein). He is the highest authority in divination.
Prophesying is not merely an outlook onto the future, but also
a means of explaining and understanding the reality of the pres-
ent. Prophesying is a special kind of cultic performance, and trag-
edy is full of such divinations, of words, persons, and descriptions
of mantic performances.
Greek tragedy aims to be ‘prophetic’ in a general sense, what
means that it tries to explain the world, in a way that reflects the
mantic perspective: tragic poets say ‘do this!’ and ‘do not do that!’.
They also say ‘you should try to understand this or that in this
or that way’, or ‘I am going to explain you the reason for this sit-
uation and the possible result of your activity’. In the prophetic
manner one can see a gnomic aspect of tragic poetry. Poets ex-
press wisdom and mystery using the same tools as prophets, spe-
cifically double meaning and ambiguity; Pythia herself used to
speak in poetic meters. But this is a subject for another time.

82 Kr zysztof Biel awski

 Walter Burkert in his canonical paper on sacrifice and tragedy
wrote that ‘the essence of the sacrifice pervades tragedy’.30 By ex-
tension, we could also say that ‘the essence of prophecy, divina-
tion, and oracles pervades the whole of tragedy’. While it is not my
intention to construct a new theory of sacrifice in tragedy – com-
parable to that of the ‘ritualists’ in Cambridge – it is nonetheless
interesting to examine the prophetic dimension of Greek tragedy.
J.C. Kamerbeek wrote that ‘sometimes (as in the case of Oedipus)
we may ask whether the drama is interpretation of the oracle or
the inverse’.31 I think that drama, much like an oracle, attempts
to be an interpretation of life. In both cases we ask the same: why?
what for? and how?
Sometimes the boundary between oracle and tragedy seems to
be consciously blurred, as in Oedipus Rex: Pythia delivers prophe-
cies, the Delphic priests interpret her words, a messenger of Teire-
sias delivers the oracle and Oedipus tries to understand it – but
finally the audience is faced with both the question and the or-
acle. Possession, frenzy, mania, performance, ritual and strictly
religious context – all these elements can be observed both in trag-
edy and in divination. We need to realize how many figures from
tragedy perform a kind of divination, and in how many scenes can
we observe the tragedy from the perspective of divination and how
many words connected with manteia exist within the text of the
tragedies that have survived.
As yet, no one has tried to connect the possible origin of trag-
edy with divination. It would, in any event, be close to impossi-
ble. But instead of G. Murray’s Excursus on the Ritual Forms in Greek

30 W. Burkert, ‘Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual’, GRBS 7 (1966), 115; quot-
ed and discussed by H. Lloyd-Jones, ‘Ritual and Tragedy’, in Ansichten griechischen
Rituale. Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998), 272.
31  ‘Prophecy and Tragedy’, Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 8, 1 (1965), 30.

Mantic Perspec tives in Greek Tr agedy. Words, Persons and Performances 83

Tragedy,32 which started the debate on the origins of Greek tragic
poetry, we may wish to imagine an Excursus on the Prophetic Forms of
Greek Tragedy as inspiration for the new research on a ritual core of
the drama.

32  G. Murray, ‘Excursus on the Ritual Forms Preserved in Greek Tragedy’, in

J.E. Harrison, Themis. A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion (Cambridge 1912),
341–363.

84 Kr zysztof Biel awski