Oedipus

Lowell Edmunds, Alan Dundes

Published by University of Wisconsin Press

Edmunds, Lowell & Dundes, Alan.

Oedipus: A Folklore Casebook.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995.
Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.

For additional information about this book

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/8780

Access provided by The Ohio State University (16 Oct 2018 16:13 GMT)
 The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend

Lowell Edmunds
The relationship between folklore and classical literary texts is of
interest to classicists as well as folklorists. Professor Lowell Ed-
munds of the Classics Department at Johns Hopkins University
has been concerned with this problem with special reference to
Oedipus. In this essay, he re-defines tale type 931 on the basis of
an examination of more than seventy medieval and modern ver-
sions. Also from this unique vantage point, he is able to illumi-
nate the place of the riddle in the classical Oedipus story. In
addition, he shows that the curious figure of the Sphinx, which
does not occur in any oral texts, is a secondary elaboration.
For Professor Edmunds' other investigations of Oedipus, see
"Oedipus in the Middle Ages," Antike und Abendland, 25 (1976),
140-155; "The Oedipus Myth and Sacred Kingship," The Compara-
tive Civilizations Review, No.3, Issued as Vol. 8, no. 3 of the
Comparative Civilizations Bulletin (1979),1-12; "The Cults and the
Legend of Oedipus," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 85
(1981), 221-238; Oedipus: Ancient Myth; Medieval and Modern
Analogues, (in press).

Introduction
The main purpose of this essay is to show that the Sphinx is a
secondary element in the Oedipus legend, added at some point in the
Revised and reprinted from Bei/rage zur klassischen Philologie, Heft 127
(Konigsteinlfs., 1981) pp. 1-39.

147
148 Lowell Edmunds

development of the legend in order to motivate the hero's marriage

to his mother. This proposition is directly opposed to the wide-
spread view, set out in section I below, that the Oedipus legend
originated from the folktale of the hero who wins a bride by slaying
a monster. Two folktales of this sort (quoted in section 2), which
also contain riddles, illustrate not the prototype of the Oedipus
legend but only the function of riddle-solving, viz., to win the bride.
Thus these two folktales show that the riddle-solving in the ancient
legend is an over-determination of the motif of monster-slaying,
which by itself might have been, and presumably was in earlier
versions, sufficient to motivate the marriage. But neither riddle-
solving nor monster-slaying is original in the Oedipus legend: the
Sphinx can be shown to be very probably a secondary addition
(section 3). Furthermore, the reason for this addition is clear: once
the parricide was brought into close relation with Delphi, there was
nothing in the narrative that would necessarily have led the hero to
Thebes. This observation leads to speculation concerning an earlier
form of the parricide (section 4). Not only is the Sphinx secondary
in the narrative (section 3), but her riddle seems to bear no necessary
relation to any detail of the legend (section 5). It is not clear why it
must be this riddle and not some other. Although the prevailing
folkloristic position on the origin of the Oedipus legend is thus
shown to be untenable, one sort of folkloristic analysis, i.e., the
definition of the story-pattern, should not be abandoned. The
Oedipus legend does have a typical story-pattern, and it is that of
kingship myths (section 7). Those who saw a resemblance of Oedipus
to Zeus (section 6) were not mistaken. As an instantiation of this
story-pattern, the Oedipus legend adapts such motifs as mutilation
(discussed in section 7) and monster-slaying without perfectly in-
tegrating them into the narrative. In both of these cases, over-
determination is involved. Mutilation is an over-determination of
the exposure of the child, and riddle-solving is an over-determination
of monster-slaying.
For reasons that will become clearer, it has been convenient for
me to speak of three kinds of narrative as distinguishable from one
another, and these are myth, hero legend and folktale. To justify
these distinctions would, of course, require a separate discussion,
which is unnecessary here in any case, since the distinctions are
more expository than hermeneutical. Writing in English, I have
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 149

used "legend," which to German ears suggests a saint's life, and not
"saga," which Anglophones tend to apply to Icelandic and Norse
stories.

1. The Oedipus Legend and Folklore

Folklore has often been used to explain the origins of the Oedipus
legend. One can distinguish between a stricter and a looser position.
Not the first but perhaps the most dogmatic statement of the stricter
folkloristic position occurs in M.P. Nilsson's review of Carl Robert's
Oidipus (1915).1 Robert had argued that Oedipus was a hypostatized
Jahresgotl who was the object of a cult at Eteonos, a town near
Thebes. "The hero from Eteonos comes to Mount Phix [cf. Hes.
Theog. 325], kills the monster dwelling there, . . . and becomes the
savior of the land. This is the oldest form of the legend . . . . 2
Nilsson rejected the notion of Oedipus as Jahresgott and, reverting
without acknowledgement to a thesis originally propounded by
Domenico Comparetti in another form,3 argued that the Oedipus
legend is fundamentally a folktale. It is the story of the hero who
wins the princess by performing a brave deed. Nilsson did not find
any difficulty in the crimes of the hero but postulated an ethical
recasting of the folktale in response to the advent of a patriarchal
order of society. The hero of the folktale becomes the arch-criminal
who commits the crimes that strike at the heart of patriarchy. This
notion of the Oedipus legend as a folktale recast by vast historical
change, like a landscape reshaped by a glacier, was left by Nilsson as
a mere assertion. It was to be argued, however, with all the wit and
learning of Vladimir Propp. 4
The looser folkloristic position has been maintained again and
again in encyclopedias and standard works. L. W. Daly, in the article
on Oedipus in Pauly-Wissowa,5 thought it most probable that
Oedipus was originally a Miirchenheros, and Albin Lesky, in the
article on the Sphinx in the same encyclopedia, stated, with refer-
ence to Wilamowitz and Nilsson, that the Oedipus legend rested on
altes Miirchengut. 6 The inclusion of the Oedipus story in The Types
of the Folktale probably supported a general sense that the Oedipus
legend belonged originally to folklore,1 even though the Oedipus
150 Lowell Edmunds

folktale (Type 931) was clearly distinguished from the folktale of the
dragon-slayer (Type 300), and a problem was thus created for
anyone who wished to maintain the folktale origin of the Oedipus
legend. Did the legend originate from Type 931 or from Type 3OO? If
from the laUer, was the former not a folktale in antiquity but only a
later derivative from the ancient legend? The problem remains
undiscussed, and the looser folkloristic position continues to be
asserted. For example, G.S. Kirk has written in The Nature of
Greek Myths that Oedipus' exposure by his parents, his rescue by a
shepherd, and his winning the kingship of Thebes by solving the
riddle are "folktale elements" and "the most traditional elements."8
The assumption underlying both Nilsson's and Propp's and also
the looser folkloristic position was stated by Ludwig Laistner in the
second volume of Das Riitsei der Sphinx (1889): That which is
earliest in literary history may be later, in the history of myth, than
modern transcriptions of folk tradition. 9 In other words, folktales
collected in modern times may preserve variants of myths or legends
older than the oldest literary versions. Thus from our knowledge of
modern folklore we can perceive a more primitive form of the
Oedipus legend than the one known to us primarily through Attic
tragedy.
Besides Propp, the only scholar who, working on this assump-
tion, studied a collection of folktales of the specifically Oedipus-
type (Type 931) as distinguished from folktales ofthe dragon-slayer
who wins the princess, was Georgios Megas. IO Whereas Propp used
the folktales to discover something about the early history of man-
kind, Megas' interest was specifically folkloristic. He wanted to
show, first of all, contrary to A.H. Krappe, that the story of Oedipus
did exist as an authentic folktale. In this, Megas certainly succeeded.
Megas also argued that "many elements in the folktales agree ab-
solutely with elements of the ancient tradition which are not included
in the vulgate [i.e. the standard versions of the Oedipus legend,
those of Sophocles and Euripides] but which are preserved in other
sources, in scholiasts and mythographers, and clearly go back to an
older, popular form of the Oedipus myth."1 I An example of such an
element is the exposure of the child not on a mountain but in a chest
or the like set adrift on the sea. Although Megas' articles were a
valuable corrective to Krappe, his conclusions brought nothing new.
Like Nilsson and like Propp, he believed that there was an "original"
nucleus, the king's daughter and the kingdom as the hero's reward,
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 151

which was elaborated into the Oedipus folktale and the Oedipus
legend, and, like Comparetti, he believed that the narrative was
shaped by a fundamental idea, i.e., fate.
But if Megas' work had become known, it would at least have
had the desirable effect of causing scholars who posit a folktale
origin of the Oedipus legend to distinguish between a folktale of a
specifically Oedipus-type, which bears a close resemblance to the
ancient legend, and another type of folktale, which would have
required drastic alteration in order to become the Oedipus legend.
Oddly enough, the latter type, that of the dragon-slayer (Type 300),
is the one that continues to be spoken of as the nucleus of the
Oedipus legend, as by Kirk. It is worthwhile, then, to examine a pair
of modern folktales of this type, in order to see what insight into the
ancient legend they provide.

2. The Sphinx and Two Modern Folktales

The usefulness of two modern folktales for the understanding of a
fragment of Theodectes has long been recognized. 12 Each of these
two folktales contains a similar chain of three riddles. The last riddle
in the chain is the famous riddle of the Sphinx, and the penultimate
resembles a riddle, presumably the Sphinx', in a fragment of the
Oedipus of Theodectes (4N2). Because of the similarity of these tales
to the Oedipus legend, it has been concluded that, in a version of the
ancient legend now lost, the Sphinx posed not one but three riddles.
If the assumption of the folkloristic position is granted, then the
modern folktales shed light on a fragment of Greek tragedy which
would be somewhat puzzling otherwise.
But these two folktales also illustrate the story-pattern of the
young hero who wins a bride by performing a difficult task, the
story-pattern that is held to be the earliest form of the Oedipus
legend. For this reason, it is worth quoting and examining these two
folktales. One of them was collected by Bernhard Schmidt 10
Anikhova, Greece:
There was once a queen down by Thebes who sat on a cliff and
set three riddles for all who passed by. She announced that she
would let the one who could solve the riddles pass by without
holding anything against him, indeed that she was ready to
152 Lowell Edmunds

take him as her husband, but she would eat the one who could
not solve them. Many passed by, but no one could solve the
riddles. Then a young prince heard of this queen, and, since she
was said to be of great beauty, he decided to go to the cliff on
which she sat, in the hope of winning her hand. His father tried
to hold him back, but the son would not obey him and set out
in the direction of that queen. When she caught sight of the
new-comer, she said to him, "Oh, you poor fellow! You are
such a handsome young man and you want to plunge into ruin?
Go back to your father! Already so many have passed by here,
but no one has yet been able to solve the riddles. Will you be
able to?" The young man answered, "Don't worry about that! I
hope to solve them." Then she told him the first riddle. This
goes: "What is the thing that consumes whatever it begets? It
begets its children and consumes them again." Then he an-
swered: "Oh, Madame Queen, that is very easy to solve. That is
the sea. This eats its own children, since the waves originate
from the sea and fall back in the sea." Then said the queen :
"That's right. Now I shall submit to you the second riddle."
This goes: "Which is the thing that looks white and black and
never grows old?" "Oh," said the young man, ·"this one is not
difficult, either. It is time. This appears black and white, since
it is nothing other than day and night; this also never grows
Old, since it has been since the beginning of the world and will
be until the world's end." "Correct," said the queen. "But now I
shall submit to you the third riddle, which you wilI not be able
to solve." "We shall see," an'swered the prince. "Just tell it to
me." Now she told him the third riddle, which goes thus:
"What is the thing that, at the beginning, goes on four legs,
then on two and finally on three?" Then he said, "This is the
easiest one of all. That is man. When he is small and begins to
move, he crawls on all fours. When he is bigger, he goes on his
two legs, and when he reaches old-age and can no longer hold
himself upright without support, he takes a staff to help him
and thus now goes on three legs."1l
The other folktale was collected in Gascogne by lean-Francois
Blade. The following is a summary:
An orphan, handsome and extremely intelligent, lives alone in
the village of Crastes. On the side of the mountain [the
Pyrenees] lives a Great Beast with a human head, which guards
a cave full of gold. She has promised half her gold to the one
who can answer three questions. One hundred persons have
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 153

already tried and failed and have been eaten alive. The young
man falls in love with the daughter of the seigneur but cannot
marry her unless he has a fortune. He resolves to try the Great
Beast. First, he consults the Archbishop of Auch, who tells him
that he cannot fail; also that the Great Beast will also first
impose three impossible tasks, which he must disregard. Hav-
ing answered the three questions, the Archbishop says, you
must take half the gold and return immediately if you feel that
you can do no more. But, if you can, stay and pose three
questions to the Great Beast. If she cannot answer, kill her with
this gold knife.
Brushing aside the tasks, the young man answers the Great
Beast's riddles. First: "It goes faster than birds, faster than the
wind, faster than a gleam of light." Answer: the eye. Second:
"The brother is white, the sister black. Each morning, the
brother kills the sister. Each evening, the sister kills the brother.
Yet they never die." Answer: Day and night. Third: "At day-
break, he crawls like snakes and worms. At midday, he walks
on two feet, like the birds. He goes on three legs at sunset."
Answer: Man. The young man then poses three questions [not
riddles] to the Great Beast; he kills her upon her failure to
answer. As the blood is spurting out, she says, "Drink my
blood. Suck my eyes and brain. Thus you will become as brave
and strong as Samson . . . Tear out my heart. Take it to your
mistress and have her eat it raw on the night of your marriage.
In this way, she will bear seven children, three boys and four
girls. The boys will be brave and strong like you. The girls will
be as beautiful as day. They will understand what the birds
sing. When they are of age, they will marry kings." The young
man did as the Great Beast commanded, and so it turned out. 14
The relation of these two folktales to the ancient Oedipus legend can
be analyzed as follows:

Modern Greek French Oedipus legend

Hero's goal. To win the queen To get gold, as Marriage the result
condition of not the goal (Soph.
marriage OC 539-41; cf. OT
383- 4)
Riddler Queen Great Beast Sphinx (female
(female with with human head)
human head)
154 Lowell Edmunds

Modern Greek French Oedipus legend

Riddler's Cliff Mountain cave A high pJace lS
habitat
Conditions Answer or die Answer or die Answer or die
Riddles (a) What eats what (a) Fastest thing? (a) No riddle
it bears? (The sea) (The eye) attested.
(b) White and black (b) White brother (b) Siblings, of
and never ages? and black sister kill which the first
(Time, consisting each other? (Day begets the second,
of day and night) and night) and the second
begets the first?
(Night and day)
(Theodectes frag.
4N2)
(c) What goes on (c) Crawls at day- (c) Riddle of the
four legs, then two, break, walks at Sphinx. 16 (Man)
then three? (Man) midday, goes on
three legs at sun-
set? (Man)

What, then, do the modern folktales show about the ancient legend?
In particular, do they show that Oedipus' encounter with the Sphinx
is the nucleus of the legend? These folktales belong to the well-
established category of the riddle-tale (Riitselerziihlung), which
Mathilde Hain describes thus: "Die Riitselaufgabe und ihre Losung
bildet den Hohepunkt einer Handlungsreihe und bestimmt das
Schicksal des Helden."17 But in the Oedipus legend, the solving of
the riddle is not the highpoint of the action, nor does it determine
Oedipus' fate any more than does the parricide. It might still be
argued that the riddle-tale was primary and was expanded into the
legend as we know it, but it can be shown that not only the riddle of
the Sphinx but the Sphinx motif as a whole is secondary in the
legend. The two modern folktales do not represent the earliest form
of the legend and may even be a derivation from the ancient legend.
Hain, in fact, speaks of the Sphinx as the "prototype" of the riddle-
tale. 18
But the two folktales do show something about the ancient
legend. Taken with other folktales in the sub-category of the riddle-
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 155

tale to which they belong, namely, the BraUl- Werbe Riftsel, they
show that the result of the riddle-solving in the ancient Oedipus
legend is really its purpose: to win the bride. Furthermore, in the
folktales of this sub-category, the riddle is set by the queen or by her
father.19 In the ancient legend, the riddle has been transferred from
the queen to the monster, and thus represents an over-determination
of the monster-slaying motif. Either monster-slaying by itself or
riddle-solving by itself is sufficient to win the bride, but in the
Oedipus legend monster and riddler are conflated and the hero
simultaneously achieves two feats. Paradoxically, the modern French
folktale (riddling beast) is closer than the modern Greek (riddling
queen) to the ancient Greek legend.

3. The Sphinx as Secondary

in the Oedipus Legend
Although the story of the dragon-slayer is usually held to be the
nucleus of the Oedipus legend, the episode of the Sphinx may be
secondary in the development of the legend. There are two different
arguments to support this suggestion. The first concerns the awk-
wardness of the Sphinx's position in the plot of the legend. Where
did the Sphinx come from? In the notorious Peisander scholium
(FGrHI6FIO = schol. Eur. Phoen. 1760), Hera sent the Sphinx as a
punishment for Laius' rape of Chrysippus. It is uncertain whether
this account of the Sphinx goes back to epic or is based on a lost
tragedy of Euripides. 20 In any case, the mytho graphical tradition
was tortured by the question of the Sphinx's entry into the legend.
Although Apollodorus also says that Hera sent the Sphinx (3.5.8;
cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 11.8), this motivation of the monster's appear-
ance was hardly canonical. We hear that she was sent by Dionysus
(schol. Hes. Theog 326; schol. Eur. Phoen. 1031=Eur. Antig. frag.
178N2), by Hades (Eur. Phoen. 810-11), and by Ares (hypoth. Eur.
Phoen.); that she was the daughter of Laius (schol. Eur. Phoen.
26=Lysimachus FGrH 382F4; Paus. 9.26.3); that she was born out
of the blood of Laius. 21 The complexity of the tradition concerning
the Sphinx' origin reflects not only the normal and expected varia-
tion of the sources for a legend but also an uncertainty about her very
raison d'etre in the legend.
156 Lowell Edmunds

When did the Sphinx commence her predations? In Oedipus the

King, Sophocles has left the matter unclear. Kamerbeek remarks:
"The difficulty is that nowhere in the course of the play is there any
connection explicitly stated, or implied, either between the Sphinx'
appearance and Laius' deed [the rape of Chrysippus] . . . or be-
tween its appearance and Laius' journey. . . . We do not know
whether the Sphinx is supposed to have made her unwelcome
appearance before or after Laius' departure, before or after his
death; the odds are in favor of the latter. "22 In Aeschylus' lost Laius,
it is possible that the Sphinx appeared before Laius' death, as
Robert suggests. 23 In the fragments of Euripides' Oedipus which
have been discovered since the time of Robert, the Sphinx seems to
have appeared shortly before the death of Laius. 24 As Robert said,
the Sphinx was the gravest problem in the logic of the narrative, one
that the poets never solved. 2s
The second argument for regarding the Sphinx as secondary in
the Oedipus legend is based on the study of modern folktales of the
Oedipus-type. 26 My definition of the type differs considerably from
Thompson's, which, apparently based on the ancient legend, is
misleading and incomplete as a definition of the Oedipus folktale. In
the following list, Thompson's motifs are italicized to distinguish
them from my additions.
M 343 Parricide prophecy27
M 344 Mother-incest prophecy
Dream or vision concerning unborn son
Incest of parents as reason for exposure
Mutilation (cf. Thompson H 56._2, M 375.3)
M 371.2 Exposure of child to prevent fulfillment of
parricide prophecy
K 512 Compassionate executioner
Nursing by an animal (cf. Thompson S 352)
R 131 Exposed infant reared at strange king's court
(Joseph, Oedipus)
Precocity (cf. Thompson T 614, T 615.1)
Conflict with foster-brother(s) or other children
Departure from foster-home
Act of valor (cf. Thompson A 531)
N 323 Parricide prophecy unwittingly fulfilled
1412 Mother-son incest
 The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 157
Discovery of crimes
Further crimes
Conclusion:
Hero commits suicide
Mother dies or commits suicide or is killed
or
Penance of hero and of mother
Exaltation of hero
Not all of the Oedipus folktales-in fact, very few~ontain all of
these motifs. As for monster-slaying, which would come under the
heading "Act of valor," I have found in Oedipus folktales only a
single example of this motif as a qualification for marriage. It occurs
in a Turkish folktale, "The Sultan's Son," and the monster is not the
Sphinx but a savage wolf.28 This wolf may, in fact, represent a
variant of the ancient Oedipus legend, since Corinna says that
Oedipus killed the Teumesian fox (frag. 19(672), Page), but the
corpus of Oedipus-type folktales overwhelmingly supports the view
that in the basic story-pattern the Sphinx is secondary. It is not even
necessary to assume that these folktales represent an earlier form of
the legend. It is enough that they provide a rather substantial
quantity of comparative evidence that clearly shows that the Sphinx
is not integral to the plot of the Oedipus story, which easily finds
other ways to motivate the marriage of son and mother. 29

4. The Function of the Sphinx

in the Oedipus Legend
But in the Oedipus legend it was just this function of the motif,
namely, bride-winning, that caused the Sphinx to be inserted into
the narrative. In the ancient legend as we have it, the hero's killing of
his father would not necessarily have led to, his marriage with his
mother. Oedipus kills Laius at a crossroads outside of Thebes, either
on his way to Delphi (Eur. Phoen. 35-8; Diod. Sic. 4.64.2; Apollod.
3.5.4; Hyg. Fab. 67; Myth. Vat. 2.230) or on his way from Delphi
(Soph. OT 785-7; Apollod. 3.5.7; hypoth. Eur. Phoen.). (In most
of these sources, Laius is on his way to Delphi.) In the received form
158 Lowell Edmunds

of the ancient legend, it is only the killing of the Sphinx that brings
Oedipus into relation with Thebes. Parricide by itself would not
have this result. The motif of monster-slaying has thus been added
to motivate the marriage, and bride-winning is the typical function
of this motif in folklore, as in one of the tales quoted above.
Why was there no link between the parricide and the incestuous
marriage? The answer to this question lies in the close connection of
the parricide with Delphi. Both father and son are on their way to or
from Delphi; and each is consulting the oracle about the other (for
Laius' reason for consulting the oracle: Eur: Phoen. 35-8; hypoth.
Eur. Phoen.; Diod. Sic. 4.64.2; cf. Soph. OT 114). This connection
of the parricide with Delphi obviously postdates the importance of
Delphi as the oracular center of Greece; but the Oedipus legend
must predate Delphi's importance. 3o Therefore the received form of
the parricide is likely to be a modification of some earlier form.
Perhaps the original form of the parricide had more to do with the
Erinyes (cf. Pind. 0/. 2.41); Aeschylus in his Oedipus located the
parricide at Potniai (frag. 173N2) where the Erinyes were wor-
shipped. 31 The modification of the legend which brought the parri-
cide closer to Delpi also drew it too far from Thebes and thus it was
necessary to add the Sphinx in order to motivate the hero's marriage
to the widowed queen of Thebes.
If the received form of the legend represents a changed locale of
the parricide, does it also represent an altered manner? It is natural
to turn to Oedipus folktales to see if they shed any light on this
problem. Of the two main categories of folktales which may be
cognate with the ancient legend, one is completely unheroic in
characters, action and ambience.32 The hero kills his father in an
orchard or a garden. The hero may be either a trespasser in, or the
guard of, the place, depending upon the future that is in store for
him, further villainy or redemption. Of the folktales in this category,
there is only one that has a martial character, and the parricide takes
place in a battle in a chicken COOp.33 In the other main category, the
hero returns to his native land, defeats an invading army, and then
marries the widowed queen, his mother,34 His father has died or has
gone off on a journey years before. In these tales, parricide is
therefore missing. The hero, after the discovery of his crime and
after severe penance (often he is chained to a rock for years),
becomes Pope or a saint. The similarity of the denouement to that
of Sophocles' Oedipus at C%nus has not escaped notice. 35
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 159

If parricide was once a part of such tales, it would have taken

place in battle. The hero would not have defeated an invading army
but would have been its leader, and it would have been his own
father who opposed the invading army. There are a few tales, pos-
sibly related to Aarne-Thompson Type 933, which have a parricide
of this sort. One of these is the story of Nimrud in the "Romance of
'Antar."36 Nimrud is the leader of an army and kills his father
Kana'an in battle. The Zulu tale of Usikulumi provides another
example of parricide in a military engagement though the narrator
does not say in so many words that Usikulumi killed his own
father.37 Finally, there is a Russian tale in which the hero kills his
father on a crusade. 38
In the evidence for the ancient Oedipus legend there is only a
single hint of parricide committed in battle and that is the verb
tgfVCXp't(w (ad. 11.273), which occurs in a summary of Oedipus'life.
For obvious reasons, this very usually, in the Iliad, refers to the
killing of an enemy on the battlefield, but it can be used of other
killings (II. 7.146, 16.573; Hes. Theog. 289). If at ad. 11.273, it means
that Oedipus killed Laius in battle, then the Byzantine tradition
perhaps represents a preservation of this form of parricide. The
Byzantine chroniclers, cited above apropos of the rationalized
Sphinx, tell that a certain number of Thebans proclaimed Oedipus
king in gratitude for his killing the Sphinx. Laius raised an army to
oppose Oedipus and his supporters and was killed- although the
chroniclers do not say by whom- in the ensuing battle.

5. The Riddle of the Sphinx

Whatever the original form of the parricide, the received form, for
reasons already given, must be a secondary modification. This modi-
fication brought with it the introduction of the monster-slaying as a
way of motivating the marriage. As vase paintings show, Oedipus
once killed the Sphinx with a sword or a spear;39 there was no riddle
to solve; the Sphinx simply attacked her victims. The riddling of the
Sphinx is secondary to the Sphinx' forthright destruction of her
victims. Although it is relatively clear why the Sphinx herself enters
the legend, it is not clear why the motif of monster-slaying is thus
over-determined by the addition of riddle-solving. The Oedipus
160 Lowell Edmunds

legend provides another example of over-determination in the muti-

lation of the hero's feet; exposure alone ought to have been enough
to dispose of him (cf. schol. Eur. Phoen. 26). This example can be
explained if, as I have argued elsewhere, the original reason for the
name "Oedipus" was lost, so that an etiology for "Swollen Foot"
had to be supplied. 40 But what is the reason for the riddle-slaying,
which by itself was sufficient to motivate the marriage?
It is natural to look for an answer to this question in the riddle
itself. Even though this riddle is found everywhere in the world and
presumably had no original connection with the Sphinx,41 and even
though the Sphinx, in one variant of the legend, apparently posed
other riddles in addition to the single famous one, the possibility
remains that the riddle to which the answer is "man" possesses some
special significance in the Oedipus legend. The parechesis at Soph.
OT 397 even suggests that it was the deformity of Oedipus' feet that
gave him the clue to the answer; and there was a tradition that
Oedipus gave the answer by pointing to himself.42 But these are the
only indications of a connection between the riddle and particular
details of the legend. Usually, the riddle-solving is regarded as
indicative of a trait of Oedipus, his intelligence, and, in the fifth
century, as vase paintings well attest, the encounter with the riddling
Sphinx was the favorite episode in Oedipus' life. 43 In Sophocles'
Oedipus the King, Oedipus is admired by his people for his high
intelligence, shown in solving the riddle (33-6,52-3,510, 1197-1203),
though the priest believes that he had divine aid (37-9), and in the
confrontation of Oedipus and Teiresias, the former vaunts his intel-
ligence, which prevailed where Teiresias was helpless (especially
390-8). Oedipus' self-estimation has been accepted by modern in-
terpreters of the tragedy. In a well-known essay, E.R. Dodds says:
"To me personally Oedipus is a kind of symbol of human intelligence
which cannot rest until it has solved all the riddles."44
Although in Oedipus the King Oedipus is engulfed in a larger
ignorance of Apollo's plan for him, a point that Sophocles first puts
in the mouth of Teiresias (376-7), it is Oedipus' remarkable intelli-
gence that enabled him to solve the riddle. In short, in the tragedy,
he solved the riddle because he was intelligent. But it has already
been stated that the riddle is secondary in the history of the legend-
indeed, the riddle is tertiary, because the Sphinx herself is secondary;
and there is nothing else in the legend that would characterize
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 161

Oedipus as intelligent. Therefore, in the legend , as distinguished

from the tragedy based on the legend, Oedipus became intelligent
because he solved the riddle. Whatever other reasons there were for
the addition of the Sphinx' riddling to the legend, this motif served
to characterize Oedipus as a man of intelligence, and this character-
ization had special significance in the Athens of Sophocles' day.4s
If the intelligence of Oedipus is the result of the riddle-solving
and not vice versa, this intelligence can hardly explain the over-
determination of the monster-slaying motif. Furthermore, in stories
of the Brautwerbe-Ratsel there is usually a link between the content
of the riddle and the content of the story but no such link is to be
found In the Oedipus legend, unless it is the feet of Oedipus. 46 The
riddling of the Sphinx in the Oedipus legend remains a riddle, and
the discrepancy between the Sphinx as monster and the Sphinx as
riddler, already felt in antiquity (Plut. Mor. 988A), persists.
To sum up the results of the discussion to this point: the motif of
monster-slaying is secondary in the Oedipus legend and is not the
most traditional element. Furthermore, the riddling of the Sphinx is
secondary to her forthright destruction of her victims. The Oedipus
legend is not, therefore, fundamentally the story of the hero who
wins a bride by killing a monster. The folktales from Anikhova and
Gascogne illustrate not the original form of the legend but only the
original function of the riddle-solving motif, viz., to enable the hero
to win a bride. It was the definition, as it were, of this motif by such
tales that made the motif available for adaptation to the Oedipus
legend. The fundamental story-pattern of the Oedipus legend re-
mains to be specified . It can be specified, and the assumption of the
folkloristic approach, that the Oedipus legend is a traditional tale
with a definable story-pattern, will be pursued.

6. The Myth-ritual Approach

But the main alternative to the folkloristic approach can also make
a contribution. This alternative, if the solar-lunar school is disre-
garded,47 is the myth-ritual approach. The doxography of the myth-
ritual interpretation of the Oedipus legend can be briefly stated. In
1893, in the first edition of his history of Greece, Eduard Meyer
/62 Lowell Edmunds

pointed to the resemblance of Oedipus to Zeus, in particular, Zeus

the consort of earth goddesses. 48 Not many years later, Meyer's
suggestion won a sort of official acceptance when Otto Hofer, in the
article on Oedipus in the Roscher lexicon, asked: "1st Oidipus
vielleicht eine Hypostase des Zeus X80VWS?,'49 Around the same
time, Otto Gruppe suggested that Oedipus was a forgotten cult-
name of Hephaestus. 50 And then, in 1915, came the Jahresgott from
Eteonos. Although Oedipus-Zeus appeared once again in the magis-
terial Zeus of A.B. Cook (1925),51 here ended this particular identi-
fication. In the second edition of his work (1928), probably because
of Robert, Meyer abandoned his earlier view, and spoke of "echt
boeotische Kulte und My then" as the basis of the Theban cycle of
legends, including the Oedipus legend. 52
Although none of these identifications of the original Oedipus
can be accepted, the fundamental notion that there was an Oedipus
independent of the legend about Oedipus is sound. The evidence for
the cults of Oedipus, taken with certain details of the epic and tragic
tradition of Oedipus, points to important aspects of the hero of
which the legend does not really take account. The association of
Oedipus with Demeter and with the Erinyes is an example. Demeter
plays no part in the legend, and, although the Erinyes are mentioned
again and again apropos of Oedipus and his sons, they have no
proper role in the legend, either. In studying such associations and
in attempting to reconstruct the figure of the Oedipus which lies
behind the hero of epic and tragedy, it seems best to abandon the
old question of the priority of the cult or legend; but it is still possible
to see that there was an Oedipus independent of, whether or not prior
to, the legend. 53 As I have already suggested, the narrative accom-
modated him by providing an etiology for his name, and this is why
the exposure motif is over-determined by the mutilation of the feet.
It will still be necessary, however to explain why the mutilation took
this particular form and why it was attached to the motif of exposure.

7. The Story-pattern of the Oedipus Legend

Turning again to the folkloristic interpretation of the legend, one sort
of folktale, that of the hero who wins a bride by slaying a monster, has
been rejected as the nucleus of the Oedipus legend, but it is correct to
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 163

think of this legend as having a typical story-pattern. I believe that

Meyer, HOfer, and Cook saw part of the truth when they connected
Oedipus with Zeus; but the connection lies not in the nature of
Oedipus, the hero of the legend, but in the story-pattern itself. The
similarities in the story-pattern of the Oedipus legend, other Greek
hero-legends, and the myth of Zeus were clearly defined by S. Luria in
an article that was unfortunately published in an obscure Italian
Festschrift. 54 The story-pattern concerns the preparation for and
attainment of kingship. It is unnecessary to go beyond the compara-
tive evidence of Greek legend and myth to see that kingship is what
the story is about. 55 Oedipus is, after all, a king, even if his kingship is
now the most forgotten aspect of the legend. Kingship C0U11tS for
nothing in the interpretations of the Oedipus legend by Freud and
Levi-Strauss. 56
If Luria's demonstration is accepted, the kingship of Oedipus can
now be set in a larger comparative context, because of the undoubted
relation of the myth of Zeus to other, Near Eastern myths of divine
kingship. 57 Indeed, in this larger context, the Oedipus legend appears
as a cognate, and not a derivative, of the myth of Zeus. One of these
Near Eastern myths, which concerns the city of Dunnu, suggests the
sort of narrative to which the Oedipus legend may be related. 58 In the
dynastic struggles of this city, parricide and incest occur in successive
generations. (The ca usal connection of the exposure motif to incest is
found in a Hittite myth, the text of which is dated to thefifteenth or
sixteenth century B.C.)59
The relation of the Oedipus legend to the myth of divine kingship
may help to explain the mutilation of Oedipus' feet. This element in
the legend is, I have suggested, an over-determination of the exposure
motif, the reason for which was etiological, i.e., to account for the
name "Oedipus." But why was this particular motif chosen for the
etiological over-determination, and why was the injury to Oedipus'
feet the result of mutilation and not, say, an accident, as in the
case of Lycurgus (Hyg. Fab. 123; Servo Aen. 3.14)? In his com-
parative study, "The 'Kingship in Heaven' Theme," C. Scott
Littleton refers to "the inevitable act of mutilation" in myths of the
divine king.60 One well known form of mutilation is castration. Both
Kronos and the Phoenician EI castrated their fathers.61 The Hittite
Kumarbi bit off and swallowed the genitals of his brother, Anu. 62
Mutilation may also, however, affect the feet of the victim. The
monster Ullikumi, the son and champion of Kumarbi, is placed on
164 Lowell Edmunds

the shoulder of an Atlas-like giant, from whom Ea, the champion of

the Storm-god, Kumarbi's rival, prepares to remove him by cutting
or sawing under his feet. 6J Zeus also undergoes a mutilation like
Ullikumi's. Apollodorus gives the following account of Zeus' battle
with Typhon:

Zeus pelted Typhon at a distance with an adamantine sickle and

as he fled pursued him closely as far as Mount Casius, which
overhangs Syria. There, seeing the monster sore wounded, he
grappled with him. But Typhon twined about him and gripped
him in his coils, and wresting the sickle from him severed the
sinews of his hands and feet, and lifting him on his shoulders
carried him through the sea to Cilicia and deposited him on
arrival in the Corycian cave. 64

Zeus, who like Ullikumi was consigned to Earth for his upbringing
and who grew with preternatural speed, also has his feet cut from
under him, as it were. In all of these examples, the perpetrator of the
mutilation is attempting either to secure the dynastic succession for
himself or to prevent usurpation. Laius' mutilation of Oedipus' feet is
of the same sort. Mutilation is logically attached to the exposure
motif, since the intent of the exposure is to prevent the son's violent
usurpation of his father's place, and, for the same reason, the
mutilation must be deliberate, not accidental.
Laius' mutilation of Oedipus' feet can, then, be regarded as the
reflex in heroic legend of the mutilation motif that is usual in myths of
the divine king. Perhaps the Oedipus legend contains another such
reflex in the deceitful distribution of the parts of a sacrificial victim by
Oedipus' sons, which may be a recasting of the banquet at Mecone
(Thebaid frag. 3 Allen; Res. Theog. 535ff.). To return to the Sphinx,
Oedipus' slaying of this monster is perfectly consistent with the
kingship myth, in which monster-slaying is usually one of the deeds
by which the future king qualifies himselffor kingship.65 In the myth
of Zeus, the monster is, of course, Typhon. The Sphinx was readily
available to the Oedipus legend because she was a well-known local
monster (Res. Theog. 326). Oedipus' slaying of the Sphinx can, then,
be regarded as another reflex in heroic legend of a motif appropriate
to the myth ofthe divine king. It is a motif which occurs, to be sure, in
several Greek hero legends, which, Luria has shown, typically cul-
minate in kingship.66
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 165

8. Conclusion
Although the background of the kingship myth helps to explain the
motifs of mutilation and monster-slaying, it could not be argued that
the Oedipus legend is in origin a kingship myth any more than it could
be argued that the Oedipus legend is in origin a folktale. It happens
that we have good examples of a shared story-pattern in the form of
myths, an heroic legend, and folktales. The first two, the myths and
the heroic legend, are attested for antiquity. Whether or not the same
story-pattern existed in the form of a folktale in antiquity is not
certain. Such a detail in the ancient evidence as the taunting of the
hero by his age-mates provides a tantalizing suggestion that it did. In
Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus, this detail occupies only a few lines
(775ff.) and might seem incidental. In folktales, however, the hero's
conflict with his foster-brothers or age-mates is a regular motif
(cf. the list of motifs given above in section 3), which leads to the
hero's departure from his foster-home, and Propp may be right that
the lines in Sophocles are the pale reflection of a motif that was more
pronounced in ancient folktale versions of the story-pattern, as, for
example, in the story of Cyrus (Hdt. I.I14ff.), where the motifis fully
developed. 67 It is also possible, however, that this motif was devel-
oped in the Oedipodeia or in some lost Oedipus tragedy, in which
case one would conclude that the motif was already traditional in
the legend.
The taunting of the hero by his age-mates is not, however, the
only basis on which one might argue the existence of a popular, oral
Oedipus folktale in antiquity. I believe, and have elsewhereargued,68
that there did exist such a folktale, amongst the others that the
Greeks certainly told,69 and that the modern folktales of Types 931
and 933 or combinations thereof are the descendants or cognates of
this ancient folktale. The modern folktales, then, present us with
evidence for an ancient popular tradition that ran parallel, so to
speak, to the ancient literary tradition; and, if this is the case, one
must exercise caution both in applying these folktales to study of the
ancient literary embodiments of the legend and to speculation on
the origin of the legend.
In fact, one cannot really find an original form of the legend; one
can only point to its story-pattern. The Sphinx, more than any other
element in the legend, prompts dubiety concerning the possibility of
166 Lowell Edmunds

some original version from which later, different versions could

have been derived. The Sphinx, i.e., the motif of the monster-
slaying, is absent from Oedipus folktales, with a single exception,
and yet this motif is regular in the kingship myths which are based
on the very same story-pattern as the folktales. The conclusion to be
drawn from this observation concerning kingship myths and Oedipus
folktales is that the Sphinx is not integral to the story-pattern as
such but is an element, i.e., monster-slaying is an element, that
typifies one sort of instantiation of the story-pattern. In short,
monster-slaying is one of the feats of the future king. Since one sort
of instantiation of the story-pattern has thus defined the function of
the motif, another sort can take it over, and this, I believe, is the
reason for the Sphinx's presence in the Oedipus legend. That she is a
secondary addition to the legend is apparent.
The question might arise how a story-pattern which gave rise to
myths of the divine king and to the Oedipus legend and which seems
to be specifically the story-pattern of kingship could also have given
rise to a type of folktale. Surely, one might think, the concerns of
the folktale are quite different. On the contrary, the medieval and
modern folktales simply transpose kingship into papacy or saint-
hood. It is still the story of the hero destined for the greatest honor
in his society. These folktales also, however, present the negative
form of the hero. He may be the greatest criminal, Judas, the
betrayer of Christ,70 or Nimrud, the enemy of God.
What is new in each instantiation of the story-pattern is the hero
himself. As I · have suggested, the very name "Oedipus" created a
difficulty for the ancient legend and required an etiology, and there
are certain matters that seem to remain extraneous, for example,
Oedipus' association with Demeter and the Erinyes. The story-
pattern has not accommodated everything the hero brought with
him. Although the hero is the new element in each successive version
and can cause the narrative to make adjustments, ultimately the
story-pattern makes the hero and not vice versa. The solving of the
riddle created the intelligence of Oedipus at some point in the de-
velopment of the legend. Thereafter, the intelligence of the hero
was a given, and had to be provided for in the narrative. In the
Oedipus legend, it seems that the typical confrontation of king and
seer-one can compare Agamemnon and Calchas or Pentheus and
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 167

Teiresias-became a locus in which this relatively new trait of the

hero was expressed.
But in the history of the legend, the intelligence of the hero
reacted upon the motif of riddle-solving and caused this motif to
assume greater and greater importance, as the character-trait of
intelligence came to be felt as the source of Oedipus' achievement.
Already in the fifth century, as vase paintings and Sophocles'
Oedipus Tyrannus show, this episode had become the favorite. In
the twentieth century, Oedipus' encounter with the Sphinx is climac-
tic in Hofmannsthal's Oidipus und die Sphinx, the first play in an
intended trilogy. In Cocteau's La machine inferna/e, the encounter
absorbs an entire act. In Gide's Oedipe, it is not dramatized but has
hardly less importance, and likewise in Cocteau's text (in effect an
extreme condensation of the Sophoclean tragedy) for Stravinsky's
Oedipus Rex, Oedipus is the riddle-solver. The emphasis on the
Sphinx-episode was anticipated in nineteenth-century philosophy.
In Hegel's Philosophy of History, at the transition from the Egyptian
to the Greek world, Oedipus is the symbol of Greek consciousness,71
and for Nietzsche, in section 9 of The Birth of Tragedy, the solving
of the riddle, the parricide and the incestuous marriage form a
"mysterious triad of fated deeds."
The Sphinx, who was not worthy of mention in the summary of
Oedipus' life in Odyssey 11, becomes as important as anything else
in the legend. 72 But these are not the only modern versions of the
legend. In Freud, the story-pattern is treated quite differently. Parri-
cide and incest are, of course, far more important than the solving of
the riddle. For Levi-Strauss, the narrative as such is relatively
meaningless; it is only the separate elements of the narrative, sepa-
rated and then recombined into binary oppositions, which will lead
to an understanding of the legend. The overcoming of the Sphinx is
thus reduced to a denial of autochthony-autochtony is a central
concern of the legend-and the riddle-solving has practically no
significance. In other words, Freud and Levi-Strauss have given the
greatest emphasis to motifs other than the riddle-solving, and, for
them, the Sphinx is of minor importance. The history of the Sphinx
in the Oedipus legend has thus come full circle. A late-comer to the
legend, she provided what was to be for many centuries the most
illustrious episode, so that Oedipus is still known amongst both
168 Lowell Edmunds

scholars and laiety as the great riddle-solver. And yet in these later
times, with the thinkers just named, she begins to fade into the
background. Will she fade away, or is she still there near Thebes
awaiting future Oedipuses?73

NOTES
IM.P. Nilsson, "Der Oidipusmythus," GGA 184 (1922) 36-46== Opuscula
Selecta, vol. I (Lund, 1951), pp. 335-48; The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology
(Berkeley, 1932), p. 10l
2C. Robert, Oidipus: Geschichte eines poetischen Stoffs im griechischen Alter-
tum, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1915), p. 58.
3D. Comparetti, Edipo e 10 MilOlogia Comparata (Pisa, 1867), pp. 63ff. argues
that the Oedipus legend contains three basic folklore formulas: (1) exposure of child
to avoid destiny; (2) the hand of the queen is given to the one who performs a brave
deed and rids the land of a monster; (3) the riddle-contest. Comparetti believed that,
in combining these formulas to form the legend, the Greeks were guided by an idea
morale, viz., fate.
4Y. Propp, "Edipo alia Luce del Folclore," in Edipo 0110 Luce del Folclore, ed.
C.S. Janovic (Turin, 1975), pp. 85-137, a translation of "Edip v svete fol'klora,"
Ucenye zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, Serija filologi~eskich
72 (1944) fasc. 9, pp. 138-75. (A translat·ion is included in this casebook.) The
Oedipus narrative arises from the clash of two conflicting social orders, one matri-
lineal, in which succession to the throne is through the son-in-law, who kills his
father-in-law, the old king, and the other patriarchal. The narrative originally con-
cerned regicide by the son-in-law; the motif of parricide enters the narrative when, in
changed historical circumstances, the conflictual succession by the son-in-law is
ascribed to what ought to be the non-conflictual succession by the son. As the son-in-
law becomes the son and the father-in-law the father, the princess becomes the hero's
mother, though, in Propp's view, I think she should be his sister.
sL.W. Daly, "Oedipus," in RE suppl. vol. 7 (1940), cols. 769-86 at 786.
6A. Lesky, "Sphinx," in RE, 2nd series, 6th half vol. (1929), cols. 1703-1726 at
1708.
7A. Aarne and S. Thompson, The Types of the Folktale, 2nd rev. (FFC 184:
Helsinki, 1964) Type 931. In Thompson's view, however, the Oedipus legend (or
myth, in his terms) did not derive from a folktale, but vice versa: "One famous story
from Greek drama keeps being repeated as an oral tale, the myth of Oedipus," The
Folktale (New York, 1946), p. 141. He adds, however: "The fact that it is still told as a
traditional story testifies to the close affinity of this old myth with real folk tradition."
BG.S. Kirk, The Nature of Greek Myths (Penguin Books, 1974), p. 165; cf. p. 24.
9L. Laistner, Dos Riitsel der Sphinx, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1889), p. 378.
lOG. Megas, "Ho Ioudas eis tas Paradoseis tou Laou," Epeteris IOU Laographikou
Archeiou 3(1941-2) 3-32 (French summary, p. 219); "Ho peri Oidipodos Mythos" in
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 169

the same volume, pp. 196-209 (French summary, pp. 222-3). The first of these
articles was written in 1943, the second in 1950. The volume was not published until
1951. (A translation of the latter article is included in this casebook.) I am grateful to
Mrs. Margaret M. Thorne for helping me to understand these articles. The article by
Krappe which Megas challenged was: "La legende d'Oedipe est-elle un conte bleuT'
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 43 (1933) 11-29. (A translation of Krappe's article is
included in this casebook.)
liThe first of the articles just cited, pp. 19-20.
12a. Husing, Kraaspa im Schlangenleibe und andere Nachtriige zur iranische
Oberlieferung (Mythologischt.: Bibliotht.:k IV, 2: Leipzig, 1911), p. 20; W. Schultz,
Ratsel aus dem hellenischen Kulturkreise, Part 2 (Leipzig, 1912), pp. 64-9; id.,
"Rtitsel," in RE2nd series, 1st half vol. (1914) col. 92; A. Lesky, "Sphinx," in RE(n.6
above), col. 1722.
!lB. Schmidt, Griechische Miirchen, Sagen und Volkslieder (Leipzig, 1877),
pp. 143- 4.
I.J.F. Blade, COnies populaires de 10 Gascogne, vol. I (Paris, 1886), pp. 3-14.
ISEur. Phoen. 806 (a mountain); Paus. 9.26.2 (a mountain); Myth. Vat. 2.230 (a
mountain); schol. Hes. Theog. 326 (Mt. Phicium, named after her); Apollod. 3.5.8
(acropolis of Thebes); schol. Ov. lb. 378 (a steep cliff); schol. Stat. Theb . 1.66 (a steep
cliff).
16Athen. 10.456B (citing Asclepiades FGrH 12F7b); AP 14.64; Tz. Lyc. 7;
Apollod. 3.5.8; D.S. 4.64.3-4; schol. Eur. Phoen . 50; hypoth. Eur. Phoen.; schol.
Hom. Od. 11.271; hypoth. Aesch. Sept.; Myth. Vat. 2.230. The riddle seems to have
been quoted in hexameters in Eur. Oed. frag. 83.22-25 Austin.
17M. Hain, Riitsel (Sammlung Metzler 53: Stuttgart, 1966), pp. 36-42.
ISHain, op. cit., p. 37.
19See Schultz, op cit. (n. 12), cols. 69-70. Cf. in this casebook the riddle in the
story of Pauk Tyaing in the article by R. Grant Brown.
200n this problem, see E.L. de Kock, "The Peisandros Scholium-Its Sources,
Unity and Relationship to Euripides' Chrysippos," Acta Classica 3 (1960) 15-37.
21Alfred Koerte, "Literarische Texte mit Ausschluss der christlichen," Archiv fiir
Papyrosforschung und verwandte Gebiete II (1935), no. 806 (p. 259).
22J.C. Kamerbeek, The Plays of Sophocles: Part IV: The Oedipus Tyrannus
(Leiden 1967), p. 53 (on line 127).
2JRobert, Oidipus (n. 2 above), p. 281.
240n these fragments, see E.G. Turner, in The Oxyrhyncus Papyri, Part 27
(London 1962), no. 2459 (pp. 81-6); Hugh Lloyd-Jones, in Gnomon 35 (1963) 446;
J. Vaio, "The New Fragments of Euripides' Oedipus," GRBS 5 (1964) 43-55; J . Dingel,
"Der Sohn des Polybus und die Sphinx," MH 27(1970) 90-6.
2sRobert, Oidipus (n.2 above), p. 58. Palaephatus, the fourth-century rationalizer,
explained that the Sphinx was the jilted Amazon wife of Cadmus. She retired to Mt.
Phikion with many of her fellow-citizens and from there made war on Cadmus.
Ambush was her mode of warfare, and, explains Palaephatus, the Cadmeans call an
ambush an "ainigma." Cadmus promised a reward, and Oedipus, a Corinthian, came
and "discovered the ainigma" and killed the Sphinx (Palaephat. 4; cf. Phanodemus
FGrH325F5bis). Pausanias has a slightly different version: the Sphinx was a robber-
woman whom Oedipus defeated with a <;:orinthian army (Paus. 9.26.2; cf. schol. Hes.
170 Lowell Edmunds

Theog. 326). In the Byzantine tradition, Oedipus destroys her after pretending that he
and his companions want to join her band (Tz. on Lyc. 7; Joh. Antioch. FHG 4
frag.8; Malalas 2 0 61; Cedren P 25 C). From the time, then, of Palaephatus, the
Sphinx represented an inconsistency in the legend which needed to be adjusted.
J. Fontenrose, Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and Its Origins (Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 1949), p. 310 combines Palaephatus, Pausanias and hypoth. Eur. Phoen.
(Ares sent Sphinx against Thebans to get revenge for the killing of his son, the
dragon, by Cadmus), and suggests that the Sphinx is the typical female counterpart
of the dragon in the combat myth.
26Type 931 in Aarne-Thompson (n.7 above).
27M 343 etc. in the list of motifs refer to S. Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-
Literature, 2nd ed., 6 vols. (Bloomington, Ind. 1955-1958).
28TKI in Appendix I in the original publication of this article (see headnote). I
want to stress the uniqueness of this tale amongst tales of the Oedipus-type: for
example, only in this tale does a plague occur.
29There are seventy-five Oedipus folktales in my collection (forthcoming as
Oedipus: Ancient Myth; Medieval and Modern Analogues).
JOSee N. W. Parke and D.E.W. WormelI, The Delphic Orac/e2 (1956), vol. I,
p. 300: "The legend of Oedipus which originated in a folktale without much local
reference was ultimately modified, so that all the features were adjusted to the part
played by Delphi. Hence the divergent accounts which placed the scene of Laius'
murder at random were superseded by the version which made Laius perish on the
Cloven Way between Delphi and Thebes."
JIReferences for worship of Erinyes at Potniai: see E. Wiist, "Erinyes," in RE
sup pI. vol. 8, cols. 91, 130-1.
J2For a description of these two categories, see L. Edmunds, "Oedipus in the
Middle Ages," Antike und Abend/and 22 (1976) 140-\55 at 149- 154.
JJFI14 in Appendix 1 in the original publication of this article (see headnote).
J4Aarne-Thompson Type 933. See H. Oesterley, Gesta Romanorum (Berlin,
1872), cap. 81 (pp. 399-409). English translation: C. Swan, Gesta Romanorum: or,
Entertaining Moral Stories, etc., rev. and corr. W. Hooper (London, 1877) Tale
LXXXI (pp. 141-54).
JSG. Zuntz, "Odipus und Gregorius," Antike und Abendland 4 (1954) 191-203.
Repr. in Hartmann von Aue, ed. H. Kuhn and C. Chormeau (Wege der Forschung
CCCLIV: Darmstadt, 1973), pp. 87-107 and in Sophokles, ed. H. DilIer (Wege der
Forschung XCV: Darmstadt, 1967), pp. 348-69.
J6ARI in Appendix I in the original publication of this article (see headnote).
J7ZLl in Appendix I (cf. n.36).
J8RS I in Appendix I (cf. n.36).
J9Boston lecythus: Hetty Goldman, "Two Unpublished Oedipus Vases in the
Boston Museum of Fine Arts," AJA 15 (1911) 378-385; Robert, Oidipus (n.2 above),
vol. I, p. 49, Abb 14; H. Walter, "Sphingen," Antike und Abendland9 (1960) 63-72,
Taf. XI, Abb. 33; U. Hausmann, "Oidipus und die Sphinx," Jahrbuch der slaal-
lichen Kunstsammlungen in Baden- WIir"lIemberg 9 (1972) 7-36 at 9-10 and photo. I
(p. 7). Thebes cantharus: R. Lullies, "Die Lesende Sphinx," in Neue Beilriige zur
klassischen Altertumswissenschafl: Festschrift zum 60. Gebiirtstag von Bernhard
Schweitzer, ed. R. Lullies (Stuttgart, 1954), p. 144 and Taf. 29, 2. Capua amphora:
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 171

Hausmann, op. cit., pp. 10-11 (with photograph). Gems: A. Furtwangler, Die Antike
Gemmen: Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im klassischen Altertum (Berlin, 1900),
vol. I, Taf. 24, nos. 21-22. But the forthcoming study of the Sphinx in Greek art by
J .-M. Moret argues convincingly that none of the vase paintings I have cited is good
evidence: The first is a modern forgery and the others do not represent Oedipus. It
was too late, when Dr. Moret communicated his findings to me, to change the text of
my article.
40"The Cults and the Legend of Oedipus," HSCP 85 (1981) 221 - 238.
41For references, see Apollodorus, The library, trans. J.G. Frazer, vol. I (Cam-
bridge, Mass., and London, 1921), p. 347; A. Aarne, Vergleichende Riitselforschun-
gen, II (FFC 27: Helsinki, 1919), p. II. J. de Vries, Die Miirchen von klugen
Rtitsel/6sern (FFC 73: Helsinki, 1928) does not discuss the Sphinx or the riddle.
42References in Enciclopedia dell' Arte Antico, vol. 3, p. 218, e. under "E. davanti
alla Sfinge." (All of these references are to reliefs and gems.)
43See the Jist of Oedipus vase paintings in F. Brommer, Vasenlisten zur griechi-
schen Heldensage 3 (Marburg, 1973), pp. 482- 3; also ARV,2 vol. 3, p. 1729.
44E.R. Dodds, "On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex," Greece and Rome, 2nd
series, 13 (1966), 37-49 at 48.
45See B.M.W. Knox, Oedipus at Thebes (New Haven, 1957).
46Lesky, op cit. (n.6 above) col. 1717 doubts such a link.
47Main representative of solar-lunar interpretation: Michel Breal, Le my the
d'Oedipe (Paris, 1863). Breal was followed by G. W. Cox, The Mythology of the
Aryan Nations, (London, 1882), pp. 313- 17, and by M. Margani, II Mito di Edipo
(Syracusa, 1917). For a summary of the solar-lunar interpretation, see the last note in
the selection from Frazer included in this casebook.
48E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1893), pp. 101-3.
49 0 . HOfer, "Oidipus," in Aus/lihrliches Lexikon der griechischen und r6inischen
Mythologie. ed . W.H. Roscher, vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1897-1909), col. 743.
50 0. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, vol. I (Munich,
1906), pp. 503-5.
51A.B. Cook, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 2, part 2 (Cambridge,
1925), p. 1154.
52E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums,2 vol. 2 (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1928).
pp. 256-7.
53As I have argued in the article cited above (n.40).
"s. Luria, "TON I01' 1'ION 4>PIZON (Die Oidipus-sage und Verwandtes)," in
Raccolta di sCri"i in Onore di Felice Ramorino (PubJicazioni della Universita
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 4th series: Scienze Filologiche, vol. 7, 1927), pp. 289-314.
55For a statement of the case based on comparative anthropological evidence,
see L. Edmunds, "The Oedipus Myth and African Sacred Kingship," Comparative
Civilizations Review, no. 3 (1979) (issued as Comparative Civilizations Bulletin,
vol. 8, no. 3) 1- 12.
56The first interpretation of the legend, apropos of what was later called the
Oedipus complex, in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), pp. 261- 4 in The Standard
Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. J. Strachey
(London, 1966-), vol. 4. (A passage from this part of The Interpretation of Dreams is
included in this casebook.) The canonical account of the Oedipus complex, with
172 Lowell Edmunds

reference to the legend, in IntroduclOry Lectures on Psycho-Analysis (1916-17), in

The Standard Edition, vol. 16, pp. 329-338. C. Levi-Strauss, "The Structural Study
of Myth," Journal ojAmerican Folklore, 68 (1955) 428-44= Structural Anthropology
(Anchor Books, 1967), pp. 202-28 (with slight modifications).
51See Hesiod, Theogony, ed. M.L. West (Oxford, 1966), pp. 18-31.
58For the Dunnu myth, see W.F. Albright, Yaweh and the Gods oj Canaan
(London, 1968), pp. 81-2 and W.G. Lambert and Peter Walcot, "A New Babylonian
Theogony and Hesiod," Kadmos 4 (1965) 64- 72. The myth is also discussed in
Littleton (n.6O).
59H. Otten, Eine althethische Erziihlung um die Stadt Zalpha (Studien zu den
Bogazkoy-Texten 17: Wiesbaden, 1973).
6OC. Scott Littleton, "The 'Kingship in Heaven' Theme," in Myth and LAw
Among the Indo-Europeans, ed. Jaan Puhvel (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1970),
pp. 83-121.
6lKronos: Hes. Theog. 162, 175, 180. EI: Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica,
36d7ff.
62"Kingship in Heaven," trans. A. Goetz, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old testament,J ed. J.B. Pritchard (Princeton, 1969), p. 120. The progress of
comparative mythology in this area has been rapid, it seems. F. Dirlmeier, in the first
edition of his Der Mythos von Konig Oedipus (1948), could explain the similarities
between Boeotian and Near Eastern mythology only on the basis of a vague,
aboriginal, non-Indo-European, non-Semitic Mediterranean substrate population.
In the second edition (1964), he took account of the Kumarbi myth but none of the
other comparative material studied by Littleton. Walter Potscher, "Die Oidipus-
Gestalt," Eranos 71 (1973) 12-44 looked to Near Eastern mother-son myths for the
origin of the Oedipus legend.
6JH.G. Giiterbock, The Song oj Ullikummi, (New Haven, 1952), p. 47.
64Apollodorus, The library 1.6.3, Trans. by J.G. Frazer, op. cit. (n. 41 above).
On this myth in relation to the Hittite myth of IIIuyankas, see W. Burkert, Structure
and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley, 1979), pp. 7-9.
65Cf. Littleton, op. cit. (n. 60), pp. 120-121.
66Although Luria, op. cit. (n. 54), does not discuss dragonslaying as an aspect of
these legends.
61Propp, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 121 - 23.
68In the introduction to the collection of folktales mentioned above (n. 29).
69See Johannes Bolte, Zeugnisse zur Geschichte der Miirchen (Folklore Fellows
Communications 39: Helsinki 1921), p. 1-14.
1oFor discussion, see the place cited in n. 32 above.
11 Vorlesungen tiber die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte, ed. G. Lasson, vol. 2

(Leipzig, 1921), pp. 510-11.

nAnd nN only in literature and interpretation. Mario Praz, The Romantic
Agony (New York 1968), pp. 295-296 writes as follows concerning the painter
Gustave Moreau: "Moreau sought the theme of satanic beauty in primitive mythology
and treated it in his pictures of the so-called 'Sphinx' series; this began with the
painting which was the success of the 1864 Salon, in which the cruel beast with the
face of an imperious woman plants her claws on the breast of the languid youth
Oedipus, and ended with the water-colour exhibited in 1886 at the Goupil Galleries,
The Sphinx in the Oedipus Legend 173

Le Sphinx vainqueur. in which the Sphinx reigns supreme over a promontory

bristling with bleeding corpses. . .. "
7lThe revision of parts of this essay was prompted by conversations with
Professor William Hansen and by the forthcoming review of the original monograph
(see headnote) by Dr. C. Callanan for Fabula. which he kindly sent me in advance of
pUblication.