|
A surprising number of our extant Delphic oracles address problems that have arisen due to improper or inadequate treatment of the dead (= about 11% of the corpora found in Parke/Wormell or Fontenrose, a figure quite a bit higher than that, e.g., for oracles concerning the foundation of new cities or colonies, = 7.5%). In the first part of my paper I will offer some reasons for this, contextualizing the Oracle's responsibility for communicating between the dead and the living within some other notable features of Greek religion. For example, unlike many other cultures, the Greeks never developed the idea of nekuomanteia to any significant degree; they preferred not to "talk" to the dead directly and used Delphic Apollo to help bridge this gap. I will also look at the pattern into which most of the oracles concerning the dead fall: (1) plague/famine; (2) consultation of oracle; (3) establishment of cult/honors to the dead, after which the dead often become beneficent. In the second part of my paper, I will look at a few mythic narratives concerning relationships between the living and the dead in which the Delphi Oracle appears, with particular attention to the Oresteia. I will discuss the ways in which Aeschylus adapted both the traditional narrative and the three-part pattern mentioned above, and will show how these adaptations contribute to the Oresteia's exploration of different sorts of communication: between humans, between humans and the dead, and between humans and gods.
|
