Alternative Facts from Oracles and Post-Truth Politics in Aristophanes

Oracles in Greek society were an important religious mechanism that allowed people to participate in divine knowledge, with the aim of helping them to make good choices and to be successful and prosperous in their individual lives and in their societies. Although they carried social and political meaning, oracular consultations were primarily cultic activities, and Greeks saw them as tools that enabled communication with the world of the gods. According to literary sources, during the Peloponnesian War, the use of oracles with political aims increased, which can be explained partly by heightened anxiety and partly by the increased access to oracles which circulated in book-rolls detached from particular places of oracular divination. There was no longer any need to send an embassy to Delphi or another sanctuary; it was enough to secure a text authorized by one of the well-known prophets, like Bakis or a Sibyl. ⬈#p1

There is not much evidence to reconstruct with any certainty how oracles were performed. The procedure was probably flexible depending on the circumstances. It is plausible that the reading of oracles was ritualised or marked as having a special status and, in this way, had something in common with recitation of epic poetry by rhapsodes (cf. the “singing” of oracles in Thucydides 2.8.2). Comedy provides valuable evidence on the performance of oracular texts: it represents oracles being recited and discussed in situations that were partly imagined and partly based on real-life practices. In comedy, oracles are portrayed as divine speech, which must be revered and obeyed, and so the authenticity and validity of oracles become extremely important matters. The transmission of oracular texts from one prophet to another (as well as the uncertain origins of many oracles) is problematized in fragments of lost comic plays (e.g., Aristoph. Heroes, fr. 324 and Ameipsias, Konnos, fr. 10). The most significant factors in the process of the authentication of an oracle are the soothsayer’s skill and expertise. If the outcome of an oracular divination was unsatisfying, it was often understood that the error likely crept in at the interpretation stage. In other words, neither the gods nor their words were to be blamed, but the oracle-monger, who was not sufficiently skilful in his art of divination (cf. Nicochares, Agamemnon, fr. 1). The task of the citizens was, therefore, to pick a good seer on the Greek divination “market.” This conceptualization of shopping for oracles can be seen from several comic fragments, in which soothsayers are compared to one another as being in competition for their clients’ respect and money (e.g., Eupolis, Cities, frs. 225 and 231; Archippos, Fishes, fr. 15). Correct interpretation is key determinant of the soothsayer’s skill and considered fundamental to the practice of divination in general. The divine knowledge comes in a form of a riddle which needs to be solved and remains useless for humans, unless it is explained in terms of the current situation and practical guidance how to act specifically. A soothsayer has to use his or her professional expertise to decipher an oracle so that it gives a intelligible and relevant answer to the petitioner’s question. The importance of interpretation was not, however, an aspect of oracular practice that emerged in response to the need of political manipulation (although it was used – and abused – to that end: see, e.g., the character of Setna in Edward Love’s contribution). It was, in fact, the other way round: interpretation was intrinsic to the religious mechanism of oracular divination and thus made it possible to use oracles in politics. ⬈#p2

In Aristophanic comedies, every oracle is followed by some sort of interpretation, through which its meaning is explained to the audience in relation to the current conflict of the plot. So, for example, in Lysistrata the chorus interrupts the recitation of the oracle with a question about its meaning, suggesting an interpretation in line with the sexual character of the women’s plan (Lys. 770–777). In Birds, Peisetairos interrupts the soothsayer repeatedly by asking questions about what this oracle has to do with the actual problems of the new city (Av. 967–969). A similar situation can be found in Peace, where the main reason for not accepting the oracle is its obscurity and the impossibility of unlocking its meaning with respect to the current situation, being pure nonsense (Pa. 1075–1082). In Knights, the interpretation of the oracle about the person who will overthrow the Paphlagonian is the key intrigue of the plot – this is how the Sausage-Seller is identified by the slaves in the beginning and also how he wins over the Paphlagonian at the end of the play. These examples show that a true prophet’s professional skill of interpretation must generate trust between him and his audience. An oracle-monger is like a rhetor who has to offer a persuasive and plausible interpretation, which will be approved by the audience to which it is addressed. Unless such approval is achieved and expressed, the oracle cannot be regarded as authentic nor its performance as successful. In comedies, only those oracles are accepted whose meaning is clear to the recipients of the divine message, while others are rejected as useless. The authenticity and efficacy of the divine message thus depends in no small part on the rhetorical skill of the individual interpreter.⬈#p3

In Aristophanic comedy, corrupt professional oracle-mongers insist on what are presented as “factual” proofs of authenticity and on the “factual” information contained in the written text of the oracles. They own “hard-copies” of the oracles: book-rolls to which they might appeal in the argument, making claims on the authority of well-known prophets like Bakis. Sympathetic comic leaders like Peisetairos, Trygaios, and Lysistrata, on the other hand, improvise their oracles, and do not try to link their provenance to some authoritative tradition or collection of written texts. Lysistrata, for example, takes her oracle out (presumably in a form of a book-roll) only when she feels that her fellow women are starting to loose their enthusiasm and determination (767–768). Trygaios composes his oracle impromptu, stitching together several Homeric formulae and pretending that his oracle came from Homer himself (1088–1089). Peisetairos in Birds claims that his oracle is the written version of Apollo’s own words, which is unrealistic and nonsensical: even in the case of the Delphic oracle, it would be transmitted through the Pythia and the priests. In Knights, the Sausage-Seller, when asked where his oracles come from, simply makes up the name of a prophet Glanis, who is allegedly Bakis’ brother, whereas the Paphlagonian uses texts coming from the authoritative tradition of Bakis’ prophecies. This is a specific comic representation of oracles associated with sympathetic characters. From the political point of view, the rhetorical model of relying on “facts” and “honest” reading of an oracle loses in competition with the other, populist model (which can be paralleled with the modern concept of “post-truth”), in which interpretation, clarity, and accessibility for the listeners are more important than authenticity of the divine message.⬈#p4