(Third episode, Phoenissae 834-1018)
The third episode develops on two narrative axes: the meeting between Creon and Tiresias, and the dialogue of Creon and Menoeceus, fol- lowed by the tragic self-sacrifice of the latter. Both dialogues fall under the narrative category of the scene, and thus follow its temporal rules, namely the coincidence between the time of the story and the time of the narrative. Complex narrative games are avoided in this episode, un- der the imposing sacrifice of Menoeceus, the prevailing event of the section.
Controlling the past, foretelling the future: Tiresias
Apart from the predominance of the present tense in the third episode, Tiresias’ first appearance alludes to the dramatic future and specifically to Oedipus’ departure from Thebes. Future implications are even created through staging, since the image of blind Tiresias being accompanied by his daughter parallels the end of the play, when Oedipus is accompanied and helped by Antigone. For the first time in the Phoenissae prolepsis is effected by stage setting and not through words.
Tiresias’ narrative starts with an analepsis that works as a dramatic al- ibi for his delayed arrival. As he explains, he could not reach Thebes earlier because he was helping the Athenians defeat Eumolpus (854- 857). The anachronistic use of the reference to Erechtheus349 is triggered
349 Euripides’ Erechtheus was probably performed in 422 or a bit later [Collard & Cropp (2008) 366-367], and although fragmentary (fr. 349-370TrGF), we are in the position of restoring its basic story. One of the play’s most important preserved parts is the monologue of Praxithea, Erechtheus’ wife, in which she explains her decision to heroically offer her daughter to be sacrificed in order
3.3. Manipulating time: Tiresias, Menoeceus 87 by the dramatic parallel between Creon, whose son is soon to be sacri- ficed, and Erechtheus, whose daughter was also sacrificed for the salva- tion of their city.350 The scene leads to a fuller characterization of Creon,
who unlike Erechtheus, tried to avoid the sacrifice of his son. Addition- ally, if one considers that a female figure, Praxithea, showed greater bravery than Creon and conceded to the sacrifice of her daughter in a speech of unprecedented heroism, Creon’s positive characterization is sabotaged, since it implicitly points to female bravery as one of the play’s underlying motifs. Finally, the hidden reference to the sacrifice of Erechtheus’ daughter, amounts to another proleptic reference to the effectiveness of Menoeceus’ sacrifice. In the former case, Athens was saved, but the family of Erechtheus vanished. Praxithea was the only survivor, a tragic figure overturning her initially glorious image. Simi- larly, in the case of Menoeceus, Thebes is saved, but in a way equally destructive for the Labdacids.351
Tiresias’ analeptic tone accords with the playwright’s insistence in tracing the first beginnings of the sufferings of the Labdacids. In lines 867-869, the seer accuses Laius, who begot Oedipus against the will of the gods, while later on the narrative lens zooms onto Eteocles and Polynices, who mistakenly marginalized Oedipus in their futile attempt to avoid divine anger (872-874). Tiresias then turns to the future, ex- plaining that Menoeceus should be sacrificed in the cave of the dragon, in order to offer libation to Ares, who is still angry with Cadmus for having killed his offspring (931-936). According to Tiresias’ explana- tions, the benefits coming from Menoeceus’ sacrifice are based on the process of exchanging equals (in this case, blood for blood). However, his insistence on equality (also praised by Jocasta in the agon) cannot be very convincing or promising, since –so far in the play- the pursuit of an equal share in Thebes and the throne has only led to destruction.352 Yet
Tiresias’ monologue does not clarify how the sacrifice of Menoeceus will guarantee the salvation of Thebes,353 since Ares was supposed to
to save Athens (fr. 360). The play ends with the salvation of Athens, but with Erechtheus, and his daughters dead.
350 O’Connor-Visser (1987) 74-75. Euripides perhaps inserted the parallel of the sacrifice of Otionia, in order to create an opposition between her traditional sacrifice and the unusual sacrifice of Menoeceus [Foley (1985) 134].
351 Thebes is frequently presented in opposition to Athens in many aspects. Cf. the presentation of Thebes as ‘anti-Athens’ by Zeitlin (1986).
352 Kosak (2004) 176. On the destructive results of the opposition of characters claiming to share familial/social characteristics in the Phoenissae, see ibid. 176- 182.
have forgiven Cadmus much earlier, when he allowed him to marry his daughter Harmonia.354
The last lines of Tiresias’ speech are in accordance to the use of his figure as the archetypical tragic sheer. Regardless of the mythical time in which a dramatic story is supposed to take place, Tiresias is the pro- phetic figure that always appears in the Theban dramas. Similarly, his last statements are of a strongly gnomic character as they underscore the achronic nature of his character. He refers to the difficulties of practic- ing the seer’s craft, making those who utter the will of the gods unpleas- ant to those who hear it.
Menoeceus and the narrative of the sacrifice
After Tiresias’ announcements Creon claims that he will not offer his son to be sacrificed for the city (963-964) and reinforces his decision by another gnomic statement (965-966, ‘All men alive love their children, and no one would give his own child to be killed’). He then points to the future, declaring that he intends to send Menoeceus away from Thebes (970-972). When Menoeceus plainly states his intention to abide by his father’s plan, the audience may hear him with suspicion, remem- bering the hardships of exile as discussed by Jocasta and Polynices in the first episode. While on stage, Creon’s narrative authority is undoubtedly dominant; after his departure, Menoeceus becomes the chief figure who will be shaping the plot for the rest of the episode.
Menoeceus’ speaking name generates irony, since it reflects someone who ‘stays’ (μένει) in the ‘house’ (οἶκος); regardless of his father’s con- stant pressure, Menoeceus does not leave the royal house, but instead stands up for his name and manages to remain in the city, and through his sacrifice, in the Theban walls in particular.355 The covert problemati-
zation with respect to his speaking name marks both a return and re- contextualization of the theme of exile. As with other themes of the
354 Cf. the relevant reference of the Chorus, Ἁρμονίας δέ ποτ’ εἰς ὑμεναίους /
ἤλυθον οὐρανίδαι (822-823).
355 Menoeceus will not be exiled, but will stay at home. At his ultimate home, the dark home of the Earth, the dragon’s cave. The cave is a kind of sacred locus, a primitive sanctuary where the self-sacrifice will take place. ‘The cave, accord- ing to a familiar evolutionary schema, was man’s earliest habitation, which was then retained as a burial place and finally conceived of as the house of the gods’ [Burkert (1985) 24]. As an allegorical space, caves can allude to life and death, as meeting points between earth and the underworld [Heyden (1995) 127].
3.3. Manipulating time: Tiresias, Menoeceus 89
Phoenissae,356 a topic used in the beginning is reiterated in reverse man-
ner towards the end.
In the first episode, Jocasta was wondering about her son’s ability to endure the ‘great calamity’ (388, κακὸν μέγα) of the exile, while in the third episode Creon tries to convince his son to flee, regardless of Menoeceus’ view, who considers exile as a cowardly betrayal of his country and family (1003-1005). Thus exile, one of the play’s basic themes,357 is treated differently, by distinct focalizers, at the beginning
and the end. In terms of personal involvement, what is a misfortune for Jocasta, Polynices and Menoeceus, is considered salvation for Creon.
Menoeceus’ episode forms part of Euripides’ technique of overturn- ing traditional narrative expectations. Menoeceus’ sacrifice marks a Eu- ripidean innovation,358 making Tiresias’ prophecy a surprise for the
Athenian audience.359 His character balances the immoral actions of the
rest of the heroes (Creon, Eteocles) and embodies the external interven- tion, the ‘way’ (890, μηχανή) and ‘life-saving remedy’ (893, φάρμακον σωτηρίας) about which Tiresias was talking and without which Thebes would have been captured. Menoeceus’ presence restores the sacrifice to its initial symbolic value, namely the sacrifice of a φαρμακός, a scape- goat,360 who heals social and mental ills.361 Besides, Menoeceus was the
only one who could fit the sacrificial pattern of the ‘young, pure and undefiled’.362 His character embodies a perfect balance between duty to
others and personal concern for one’s reputation and honor.363 Eurip-
ides’ desire for novelty is also apparent when the Phoenissae is compared to the Seven, since the introduction of Menoeceus as a new dramatic character could be seen as the poet’s attempt to differentiate from the Aeschylean parallel. As Eteocles in the Phoenissae is not a heroic figure in the manner of his predecessor in the Seven, Menoeceus personifies the Theban hero the play is lacking. Euripides seems to inaugurate a whole
356 See for example the theme of the marginalized / sheltered female figure dis- played in the appearance of Antigone in the Teichoscopia, reversed to that of the dynamic woman displayed in the exodos.
357 Cf. Rawson (1970) 109-127.
358 Foley (1985) 133 has actually maintained that Thebes in the Phoenissae is saved thanks to Euripides’ inventive virtues.
359 See Schmitt (1921) 88-93; O’Connor-Visser (1987) 82-87; Foley (1985) 107- 108; Mastronarde (1994) 28-29.
360 For the use of φαρμακός, see Burkert (1985) 82-84. 361 Nancy (1983) 20.
362 O’Connor-Visser (1987) 83.
363 Situations that are harmful to one party but beneficial to another are a Eurip- idean topos. See Cairns (1993) 266-268.
new version of the myth364 in order to include in the Phoenissae the
theme of the sacrifice.
Intertextually, Menoeceus resembles Oedipus in many aspects. Menoeceus will have to be literally or metaphorically sacrificed. Literal sacrifice involves jumping off the Theban walls, while metaphorical sac- rifice is proposed by Creon and concerns his son’s exile. From this per- spective, Oedipus too will leave the city to purify it from the pollution of the Labdacids. Both characters believe that their act of heroism is the only requirement for the salvation of the city, although in the case of Menoeceus his sacrifice was insufficient (the fratricide was still neces- sary), while in the case of Oedipus, Thebes was supposed to have been saved already.
The effectiveness of Menoeceus’ sacrifice is mythically enigmatic. While it could be considered futile, since the city remains in danger even after the sacrifice takes place,365 Thebes eventually escapes the dan-
ger of destruction. Besides, although the first battle ended in a draw, the one following the sacrifice resulted in Theban victory, with which Menoeceus should possibly be accredited. Nonetheless, the salvation of the city seems to be more connected with divine intervention, since in the first battle, the fighting is stopped because of Zeus’ thunderbolt (1180-1188), while in the second one, Theban victory derives from the Theban ‘providence’ (1466, προμηθίαι), possibly representing divine will.366
Symmetrically framed by two stasima and placed in the middle of a ring composition, the sacrifice of Menoeceus charges the play with dra- matic power. Through this mythical neoterism, Euripides organizes his narrative by means of three contrasted pairs: the verbal conflict of Eteo- cles and Polynices, Antigone’s first appearance, and the theme of male selflessness preceding the sacrifice are respectively contrasted with the actual duel367 of the two brothers, Antigone’s second appearance, and
364 See Mastronarde (1994) 28-29, with a list of features suggesting that Menoe- ceus is a Euripidean innovation.
365 The first battle of Thebans and Argives (1090-1199), the fratricide (1356- 1424), as well as the second battle caused by the fratricide’s doubtful outcome (1460-1475) follow as necessary prerequisites of salvation.
366 In the account of the Messenger who describes the battle, the origin of the forethought is unclear, allowing ‘the audience to think either of divine guid- ance lurking in the background or of the operation of inexplicable chance’ [Mastronarde (1994) 551]. Foley (1985) 109 does not consider divine guidance a possible explanation.
3.4. Deceptive appearances 91 the theme of selfishness as embodied in the figures of Creon and Eteo- cles.368
In terms of time, Menoeceus’ speech branches off into two opposing parts. In the first, he sets out a series of negative prolepses aiming at mis- directing the internal (Creon and the Chorus) and external (audience) narratees, while in the second he annuls his pseudo-promises to Creon and reveals his true intentions. Lines 985-990 consist of the fallacious reassurement regarding Menoeceus’ flight from Thebes, as well as his fake excuse of saying goodbye to Jocasta369 in order to get Creon off-
stage. It is then time for Menoeceus to reveal his real plan to both the internal (Chorus) and the external (audience) narratees. So while nega- tive analepses unfold narrative possibilities that remain endlessly sus- pended, negative prolepses create false expectations.