the aeschylean concept of the supreme deity

7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-aeschylean-concept-of-the-supreme-deity 1/86

Loyola University Chicago

Loyola eCommons

Master's Teses Teses and Dissertations

1943

Te Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity Joseph Joel Devault Loyola University Chicago

Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Teses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in

Master's Teses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please [email protected].

Tis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Aribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Copyright © 1943 Joseph Joel Devault

Recommended CitationDevault, Joseph Joel, "Te Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity" (1943). Master's Teses. Paper 614.hp://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/614

http://ecommons.luc.edu/

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/





mailto:[email protected]

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/



THE AESCHl'LEAH CONCEPT

OF THE

SUPHElvIE DEITY..,

By

Joseph J"oel DeVault, S.J .

A thesis submitted in par t i a l fulf i lDuent ofthe requirements for the degree of Master

of Arts in Loyola universi ty .

March

1943

.'



VITA

Joseph Joel DeVault, S.J . , was born in

East St. Luuis, I l l i no i s , December 22, 1918.

After his elementary edu&ation a t s t .

J & ~ e s ' s Parochial School, Toleno, Ohio, heattended s t . Jo1'..n I s Hie;h School, Toledo, grad-uated. therefrom in June,1935, and af te r oneyear a t s t . John I s College entered. tbe Mil-ford Novitiate of the Society ~ f Jesus, a t

Milford Ohio, in September, 1936. For thefour years he spent there he was academicallyconnected with Xavier University, Ci!lcinnati ,Ohio, from which ins t i tut ion b,e was graduatedwi th the degree of Bachelor of Literature in

June, 1940.

In August, 1940, he t ransferred to WestBaden College of Loyola University and, exceptfor attendance a t the Summer Session of theGraduate School of, s t . Louis University, s t .Louis, I'clisso1.l.ri, 1942, was enrolled in theGraduate School of Loyola University from

September, 1940, to June, 1943.

i



i i

.'

'rABLE OF CON'I'EN1D

CiiAPTER PAGE

I . TllE P B O B L F ~ L ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ·..... . • 1

II.

T T T~ . . L . . l . . .

IV .

rV •

OF T ~ I b CONCEPT OF Z ; ~ U S .TilE ORTHODOX Z'S'JS OF THE PLAYS • • • . . . .. . .. .. ..TIlE ZEUS OF C ' T ~ Kl H ~ . 1 PH ~ : L E TlTBJ S nOFND. .. . . .. . . .. .·.. ·.SOLTj"TIOlT T } j ~ PROBLELi.: I. TEE COlb:EHTATORS. .·.. ·SO::J3TION OF TH2 PROBLEU: II. ~ : ' " F i E PROGRESSIVE ZEUS. ·

" 7 ' : ' ~ . (iTJIBUS D I C ~ I I S - - - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

· .14

. . 23

· 41

.52

· 66

.7rf'"DI ELI OGRAPHY•••••••••••••••••••••••••• o ••••••••••••••••••• • 80



CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

This tomb the dust o ~ A ~ s c h y l u s dothhide,

Euphorion's son, and f ru i t fu l Gela'sPride,

How t r ied his valour Marathon may t e l lAnd long-haired Medes wlio know i t a l l

too well . l

.'

Whatever MarathonIs grove or the long-haired

Medemay

~ a v e been able to t e l l of the heroic batt le-deeds of Aeschylus

the Athenian, son of Euphorion,2 those sources are u n i ~ o r m l ys i len t as to another phase of tha t Athenian's act iv i ty . For in -

Wormation on the drams of Aeschylus, whether it be taken as a

~ h o l e or in some one of i t s specif ic aspects , we must, and do,

~ o o k elsewhere. The present ef for t i s jus t sucL a ' looking else,...

~ h e r e ' for information on one facet of Aeschylean drama--the Zeu

~ o r t r a y e d in the seven extant t ragedies and fragments.

The most obvious source for the Aeschylean concept of

~ e u s i s in the writ ings of tha t Athenian dramatist of the f i f th

pentury before Chris t . 3 I t is there primarily that the present

ppusculum intends to look. To other authors, however qual i f ied

pr quantified in th is subject , recourse sha l l be had only secon-

~ P i t a P h of Aeschylus, Medicean Life , 11. Trans. Plumptre.~ L i f e 1.

3rarran llflarble Ep. 48,59.

1



2

ar i ly and by way of evaluation in l igh t of t ex ts c i ted- - th is no.'esire to rule out categorical ly any theory (indeed, th

herein arrived a t wil l be in most, i f not i ~ l l , points

On agreement with a preexist ing school of thought) but from the

and single desire to get out of the t ex t and for ourselve,,'7

personal , but not personalized, invest igat ion f inds in it

tex t thus threatened with belaboring i s tha t of the sc r ip to

Classicorum Bibliotheca O x o n i e n s i s ~ 4The subject of the invest igat ion i s to be Zeus as por-

rayed in the drama of Aeschylus. There i s here, therefore , no

of the theatre of Aeschylus as a whole, nor of such as-

of tha t theatre as the structure of his drama, the general

the select ion and t reatment of plots , the characters--ex-

insofar as these enter into the problem to be considered. '

fur ther , i s there question of Greek theology in general or

of the f i f th century in par t icu lar . Any at tent ion given ~he other gods by Aeschylus shal l find place here only insofar a

uch dei t ies bear upon his Zeus. So too must we exclude a l l

oral questions ra i sed by our author unless the i r connection wi t

eus serves to fur ther the purpose of our invest igat ion. A ll

hese points , in teres t ing and profi table as they may be in them-

must f ind place elsewhere; they are not ad rem here.

Just what i s to be made of the Zeus of Aeschylus i s a

tha t has long vexed class ica l scholars. Opinion i s d i-

Aeschyli Septem Quae Supersunt Tragoediae. Recensuit GilbertusMurray. Oxonii, E Typographeo Clarendoniano, MDCCCCXXXVII.



3

vided even more on th i s ~ e s t i o n than on the more or less s imil

·'uestion of the re l igion of Euripides, although the l a t t e r has

been and i s the subject of more l ively debate. Schools have bee

formed much along the same l ines as in the Euripidean quest ion,

5with the prophets of the new e n l i g ~ t e ~ e n t , Drs. Verral l and Mur"7

ray, taking the i r character is t ical ly ra t iona l i s t ic view. pro-

fessor Murray enlightens us:

• • • Aeschylus i s in j e l ig lous thoughtgenerally the precursor of Euripides. He

stands indeed a t a stage where it s t i l lseems

possible to reconcile themain

scheme of t rad i t ional theology with morali ty and reason. Euripides has reached afur ther point • • • Not to speak of thePrometheus, which i s cer ta inly subversive,though in deta i l hard to in terpre t , theman who speaks of the cry of the robbedbirds being heard by "some Apollo, somePan or Zeus" ••• t r i es more def ini te lyto grope h is way to Zeus as a Spi r i t ofReason • • .6

nd so on. As something of an ant i thesis we f ind Maurice Croise

r i t ing :

Les vie i l les croyances sont tel lementass ises dans son Lnagination qU'aucuneinfluence du dehors n 'e s t capable dele s y ebranler . Les philosophes quenous venons de nommer ont e te en Grece

le s in i t i a teurs d'un temps nouveau;Eschyle, par ses doctrines fondamentales,est plut8 t Ie dernier representant delrage mythologique. 7

A.W. Verral l . The 'Agamemnon' of Aeschylus. London, Macmillan &Co., 1889, x i x - y ~ i v .Gilbert Murray. A H i s t o r ~ of Ancient Greek Literature . London,William Heinemann; 1897, 247

Alfred e t Maurice Croiset. Histoire de la Lit tera ture Grecque.

3

I I I par Maurice Croiset . Par is , Anciennes Libraires Thorin e tFontemoing, 1935, 193.



4

ThuS Croiset f inds in Aeschylus the l as t staunch defender of the

old re l igion. That his was a posi t ive and not a negative defens

tha t i s to say, tha t he defended his Zeus and the r es t or the

pantheon by purifying and but t ressing them a t every turn instead

of merely denying the asser t ions of t h ~ scept ics , i s a point tha..,

wil l become clearer in la te r pages. Right now an adumbration of

the problem or, rea l ly , problems, of Zeus in Aeschylus i s in

place.

Fi rs t of a l l , what i s the place of Zeus in the Aeschy

lean pantheon? Are the other de i t i e s , old and new, completely

subject to Zeus? Are they real ly dei t ies? Is Aeschylus a mono

the i s t , a henotheist , or a polytheist? Or again, what are the

at t r ibutes of Zeus? Is he jus t , noble, benevolent, or ra ther i s

e unjust , small, harsh? Texts can be found to "prove" e i ther

contention. What is the t ru th of the matter? What--and here i s

indeed an in t r ica te quest ion, one with which we shal l not be a ~to deal adequately--what i s the re la t ion of the Zeus of Aeschylu

to such forces--or are they divini t ies?--as Fate, Jus t ice , Neces

si ty? In one place we find Just ice to be the daughter of Zeus,

onanother the force before which he must

bow down.In

onepas

sage Zeus i s bOlmd to observe the decrees of Fate , in another he

s Fate. And what of the re la t ion of Zeus to man?,

Is he a

r iendly dei ty or i s he, as in the Prometheus Bound, bent on the

estruct lon of mankind.

I t is jus t th is play, the Prometheus Bound, which i s th

ocal point of nearly a l l the dispute over the Zeus of Aeschylus



5

id we not have the Prometheus Bound there would b,e l i t t l e matte

Or again, did we have the other two plays of the

it is very probable tha t much which i s dubi-

made more cer ta in . But we do not hav.e the Prometheu

save only for a few fragments, nor the Prometheus the Fire

for one fragment, and we do have the Prometheus

The problem, therefore, obtrudes i t s e l f . What i s to be

of the Zeus in the Prometheus Bourlti who so f la.t ly, to a l l

s, contradi c ts the Zeus of the other s i x extant plays?

e Zeus, for example, of the Suppliants and of the Agamemnon i s

sublime conceptlon. 8 The Zeus of the Prometheus B01U1d i s a

ty ran t . 9 The supreme dei ty which in hi s other plays Aes

has bui l t up so careful ly he here tears dowm with savage

Why? The contradictory Zeus presents a ea l problem.

So rea l in fact i s the problem tha t some scholars , and

t must be saia , of very high general authori ty, h ~ ve f l a t ly .

that the Prometheus Bound i s the work of A e ~ c h y l u s . 1 0 Th

to adopt the a t t i tude of H.J. Rose toward th is opinion

.strong. Mr. Rose footnotes h is discussion of t re Prometheus

"I do not waste paper in di scussing a fantast. ic theory tha

Suppliants 524-526, 595-599, 822-824; Agamenlnon 369-373,

Prometheus Bound 4-6, 10-11, 40-41, 53, 67-68, and sothe entire play.Schmid und otto Stanl in. Geschichte dar Griechischen

Literatur . Erster Teil von W. Schmid. C.H. Beck1scfie Vcrlags

buchhandlung, 1934, Zwei te r Band, 261. This exhausti ve w O l ~ k ,the successor to the old Christ-Schmid, i s a monument to thescholarship of i t s authors. What we consider to be Schmid'smistake detractx l i t t l e from the value of the whcle work.



6

the play i s spurious. t t l l However strong, though, the temptation.'to t r ea t the opinion thus may be, it must be res is ted. The

theory of the Herren W e s t p ~ a l , Bethe, and Schmid i s , as fa r as

can be derived from available sources, based ent i re ly on interna

evidence. 12 The prologue, i t seems, is. unnecessary to the plot ;..,

the Oceanus scene is weak and in part i r re levan t ; the style i s

over-subl1e,weak in metaphor. The sp i r i t of the play, too, i s

not that of Aeschylus. I t i s the sp i r t t of rebel l ion and of

human pride in progress achieved in spi te of heaven.

The refuta t ion of the par t icular points ci ted by schmi

has been adequately handled by Thomson in his Introduction to an

C o ~ n e n t a r y on the Prometheus Bound,13 and tha t almost ent i re ly o

the German c r i t i c ' s own grounds, internal evidence. B\lt there i

also external evidence for the authentiCity of the play, evidenc

so strong, indeed, tha t i t was not called in question for some-

thing over 2200 years . Aris to t le , for example, was of the ,..

opinion that the Prometheus was rea l ly the work of Aeschylus. 14

I lH.J . Rose. Handbook of Greek Literature. New York, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1934, 152 ,no te 72. This at t i tude i s ra ther re -markable, for the work of Mr. Rose i s based largely on the ex

t e n s i ~ e Geschichte of Schmid-Stahlin.12George Thomson. Aeschylus The Prometheus Bound. Cambridge, At

the University Press, 1 9 3 2 . ~ h l s author cI tes (40-41) R. Wesphal, Prolegomena zu Aeschylus Tragodian (1869); E. Eethe, Prolegomena zur GeschI'Chte des Theaters 1m Alterthum (1896) 15g.:-183; W. SCEiiiid, untersuchungen ~ gefessel ten Prometheus,s tu t tgar t , 1929. In his Introduction Thomson handles a t somelength the views of Herr Schmid, whom he terms (40) t t the la tesand most inf luent ia l l ' of those who deny the authentici ty of thP r o ~ e t h e u s Bound.

13Thomson Introduction and Commentary, Eassim.14Aris tot le . Poetics 1456 a 2. So well nown was the play that hreferred to it merely as the ttprometheus."



TO which Herr Schmid has a ready response: Aris tot le i s not to b.'rusted because elsewhere he at t r ibutes to Sophocles two verses

which have been rejected as spurious by modern scholars. 15

hether or not the re jec t ion by modern scholarship i s correct ,

schmid's reason for re ject ing the auth.ority of Arts tot le seems..,

inadequate. There is Kome difference in scale between mis-a t t r i

buting two l ines to an author and erroneously assigning to him a

hole play, especial ly so renowned a play to so renowned a play-

r ight . Thus we do not say that herr Schmid's whole work i s not

to be t rusted because he errs in one part icular ; we merely say

that he has made a mistake. So With Aris tot le ; even supposing

the l ines are not Sophoclean, i t i s a hardly logical i l l a t ion to

say that therefore we cannot t rus t Aris to t le on so large an issu

s the authentici ty of the whole Prometheus Bound.

We have, fur ther , the Argument of the Prometheus Bound

composed by the Alexandrians and found in the best manuscript ,.a

eschylus, the Medicean. I t is t rue tha t the Alexandrians

lourished a fu l l two centuries af te r the death of Aeschylus, a

s i tua t ion which, but for one fac t , might possibly have permitted

he inser t ion of a spurious Prometheus Bound among the plays of

eschylus. The fact tha t eliminates th is possibi l i ty i s culled,

rom Plutarch.16 Toward the end of the fourth century B.C., the

thenian people determined to put an end to the "improvements"

ntroduced into the plays of the three great tragedians by actor

Sophocles Antigone 910-911. Thomson, 41,prove that the l ines are genuine.



8

stage managers, and the l ike . They therefore decreed tha t of-.'id . a l copies of the works of the three dramatists be made and

placed in the archives and that , on presentat ion of a play of on

of the masters, the p u b l ~ _ c secretary should at tend in person wi t

the authorized text in his hands so as. to be able to prevent eve"7

the s l ightes t deviation from t ~ e or ig inal . Note, f i r s t of a l l ,

that not only did the audience lrnow whose play was being presen

ed, but they knevv the play i t s e l f so w ~ l l that they could detec

and resent any in terpola t ion. They had received these plays fro

the ir inunediate forebears and they were determined to have them

s th.ey were wrlt ten. Surely the fa ther ing of a whole play such

the Prometheus Bound upon Aeschyl'.ls and in a State where the

" r e ~ t Dionysia was an af fa i r of universal in te res t and concern

ould be a piece of leGerdemain marvellous beyond compare. In

act , under such conditions such a fathering would be impossible

s has been remarked in another connection, no amount of in teraa

vidence can possibly outweigh sol id external evidence. 17 Sure l

uch i s the case of the Prometheus Bound, a case in which the in

ernal evidence is a t leas t questionable and the external evi-

ence morally cer ta in . Thomson remarks:

Verral l used to lure us with suchsk i l l and plaus ib i l i ty to his fant a s t i c conclusions that i t was onlyaf te r rubbing our eyes and retracinghis argument that we were able toelude the spe l l , and we l e f t him

7Ronald McKerrow. Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare. OxfoAt the Clarendon Press, 1939, 5 :- -



wondering whether he had not beenlaughing a t us. But Schmid I s argu- . 'ment is so c l Q ~ s i l y presented tha ti t gives the reader no pleasure ,and i t leaves him with a sense ofshame because it i s based on afundamental misunderstanding of the

poetry of Aeschylus. 18"'<7

The Prometheus Bound, then, may safely be taken as the work of

Aeschylus.

That door of escape from our problem of the contra•dictory Zeus having been closed to us, the door, that i s , tha t

9

would have some' ~ O / " ' K 0 5

from Ionia"19 wri te the Prometheus, th€Ii s nothing fo r i t but to face the dif f icu l ty . Texts of the Pro-

metheus cer ta inly seem in contradict ion to the Zeus Aeschylus so

laboriously builds up elsewhere. Says Prometheus to 10 and the

Oceanids: "Does it not seem to you that the tyrant of the gods i

violent in everything alike?"20 With which compare: "May Zeus,

Guardian of suppliants , look r ight 'k indly on this our band from....

the ship,u21 or , "In very t ruth does Zeus reverence th is honored

r ight of outcasts . tt22 Or consid3r the l a s t l ines of the passage

in which Prometheus has been foretel l ing the f a l l of Zeus: "Then

when he Zeus stumbles against th i s ill, then sha l l he learn

~ o w great a gulf l i es between sovereignty and slavery.n23 Such a

~ e u s can hardly be he of whom i t i s saili: "King of Kings" most

~ 8 T h o m s o n , 42.~ 9 S C h m i d , Untersuchungen, 109.FOpr. B. 735-737. Translation

WIse-indicated, my own.

ISupp. 1-2.~ ~ E u m e n i d e s 92.

Pr.B. 926-927.

QuoteQ in Thomson, 41.here, as throughout unless other-



10

blessed of the Blessed, power most absolute among the absolute,.'appy Zeus ztt24 Or again: "For the hear t of Zeus i s inexorable;

harsh indeed are a l l who wield new power. tt25 ttChorus: For harsh

are the ways and hardenec. the hear t of the son of Cronus. Pro

metheus: Aye, I know tha t Zeus i s harsp.."26 "For Zeus, ruling"7

thus heavily by arbi t rary laws, shows to the olden gods an over

bearing spi r i t . "27 Note tha t these l a t t e r adverse sentiments are

not those of the outraged Titan but o f ~ h e Chorus of Oceanids,

the vehicle of Aeschylean thought. 28 Hear Prometheus's defiance:

"Have I not seen two masters hurt led down froIl! these heights?

Aye, and yet a th i rd , even the present lord, sha l l I see f a l l

most shamefully and most swift.,,29 Such speeches ill accord with

Eaigh's portrayal of the Zeus of Aeschylus:

The f i r s t point to be noticed, inregard to his rel igious v i e w ~ , is thesublime conception of Zeus as thesupreme ruler of the universe •••Zeus, then, in the conception ofAeschylus, is the ru ler of a l l createdth ings. But he is not a caprici ousmonarch . swayed by casual passion •••To act with in jus t ice i s impossiblefo r him.30

2425SuPP. 524-526.

Pr. B. 34-35.226Ibid7 184-187.7I'5Id. 402-405.

28NO attempt can be made here to prove th is statement; such anundertaking might well const i tute another Thesis. The fac tthat so many of the standard commentators on Aeschylus holdth is view must here stand, then, as the jus t i f ica t ion for the

o statement. .~ 9 P r . B . 956-957.

30A.E7 Haigh. The Tragic Drama of the Greeks. Clarendon Press ,Oxford, 1896;-57-88, 90. This-Work is one of the most valuableof the t rea t i ses we have in English on the Greek t ragic drama.



11

SO i l l , in fac t , do those speeches ci ted above accord with th i s.'ortrayal tha t the same author i s constrained to add on a l a t e r

page:

The great dif f icu l ty in the Prometheus

Bound is to find any jus t i f ica t ion forthe odious conduct of Zeus, and for theseveri ty with wbich he ~ u n i s h e s Prometheus on accou..nt of his servicestowards mankind • • • The picture ofZeus as a powerful despot, crushing a l lopposit ion to his wil l in spi te of thenobi l i ty of hls v i c t i m ; •• The di f -f icu l ty i s to reconcile th is conceptionof Zeus with the conception which pre

vai ls in the other plays of Aeschylus,where he i s depicted as the personif ication of perfect jus t ice . 3l

..

The contradict ion, then, i f indeed i t be such, i s , a t

leas t in broad out l ine , clear . What i s fa r from clear is the

solution of the dif f icu l ty . There i s general agreement tha t our

possession of the texts of the other two plays of the t r i l ogy32

~ o u l d resolve most of our doubts. And jus t there general agree,..

ment ceases. There i s , for example, debate as to the very order

of the plays w:tthinthe t r i log ic form. Earl ier scholars were

accustomed to place the Prometheus the F ire-Bearer f i r s t , as por

p1Hai gh, I l l .~ 2 I t i s impossible here to go into the whole quest ion, now indeelargely agreed upon, of whether the Prometheus const i tuted parof a t r i logy or not. For fu l l cUscussion of th i s point conferThomson, Introduction, passim; Croiset , 187-188; M. Patin.Etudes sur les Tragiques Grecs. 7 Par is , Libraire Hachette &Compagnie; rsgo. I, 286, note 2, 288, note 1; Paul Mazon. Eschyle. 2 (Eude) Par is , S o c i ~ t e D'Edit ion !fLes Belles Lettres;"1931. I , 151 f f . ; Werner Jaeger. Paideia: the Ideals of GreekCulture. 2 Trans. Gilbert Highet. Oxford, Basi l hlackWeIl, 1939260

f r . ; Haigh, 109 f f . ; the t r i logy theory i s attacked vigorously, i f not ef fect ively , by E.G. Harman. The Prometheus Bounof Aeschylus. London, Edward Arnold, 1920, ~ 3 0 .



12

traying the actual the f t of the f i re by the Titan, followed, of.'ourse, by the Prometheus Bound and the Prometheus Freed.

33A

more recent theory finds that the Prometheus Bound would be in -

tolerably repet i t ious of the Prometheus the ~ - B e a r e r , i f the

la t ter came f i r s t . A scholion on verse 511 of the Prometheus."

':) " c ""', / c;;. I " : ) . f l J ./vBound .£.£:rnrnents : ~ v ycya 7.:& E - ~ " ' S ~ . . ) A - c l 7 t . . . }. uc& 1".Lt, OTTCYO E./-< rt.. G<.

I " ~ 'A t Q X u ~ o S ; and on ver se 522 :T'; ' !-1JS d j 4 ~ d ~ ( ' 4> u).. > - . I l I ~ ( . T o , , ~ o y O ( ) . sThese statements confirm the natural i ~ r e s s i o n tha t the Pro-

metheus Freed followed the Prnmetheus Bound. The Prometheus the

Fire-Bearer i s , then, of necessity the f ina l play of the t r i logy

But besides the exigencies of number to establish the posi t ion o

the Prometheus the Fire-Bearer we have a most admirable scholion

~ h i c h states:Jv) 'd)o T ~ n \ J f ' ~ ~ ' ( ) C i Y y ; . , c . . . . . V j J , d d ~ J <f>11°-'t... £ G . f 6 G ' 6 Y , c J v 7 b t ~I t but remains to explain the meaning of the t i t l e "Fire-Bearer .

Briefly, Prometheus was worshipped a t Athens under the very t i t l

o f l t ~ ~ o f o S .36 This th i rd play of the t r i logy explained the o ~~ i n of tha t t i t l e and cul t much in the same way as the f ina l pla

of the Oresteia explained the t i t l e and cul t of the Eumenides a t

~ t h e n s . 3 7Many attempts have been made to solve the r iddle of th

~ e u s of the Prometheus Bound, attempts ranging from the f l a t de-

~ 3 E . ~ . , Welcker, as ci ted by Wecklein. The Prometheus Bound ofR. Aeschylus. Trans. F.D. Allen. Boston,-afnn & Co., 1897,21,note

~ 4 Q u o t e d , among other places, in Wecklein, 20.~ 5 Q u o t e d in Thomson, 33, note 1.~ 6 S o P h o c l e s . Oedipus Coloneus 54-56, and scholion ad loc .~ 7 F o rfu l le r discussion consult references given

i n - n o ~ 3 2supralso, Joseph Harry. Aeschylus Prometheus. New York, American

Book Co., 1905, 93-94; Wecklein, 20-22.



13

nia1 of any contradic t ion, i f the whole t r i logy be considered,38.'hrough the "double Zeus" of mythology and the poet 's own i d e a l ~

through the myriad paths of the al legor is ts" po l i t i ca l and

wise,,40 to" f inal ly" the asser t ion of the probabi l i ty tha t no

solution was then arrived a t nor can b ~ now. 4l There are" as sh..,

appear in a l a te r chapter" many in terpretat ions; to attempt to

enumerate or eValuate them a l l would be in i t se l f no small task.

rie shal l l imit ourselves to the four cltLef ones. The l i t e ra ture

on the subject is" one might safely say, voluminous. "Certainly"

in the words of Harry, "no drama has been wri t ten about so much

(more than three thousand t ex t s , annotated edi t ions , t ranslat ion

t rea t i ses , and a r t i c l e s ~ . " 4 2 From such a welter of thought"

opinion" fancy there stands out th is one main problem of the

ontradictory Zeus. Other issues are raised only to be subordin

ted to th is main i ssue--posi t ion of Zeus in the pantheon; Aes

hy1ean concept polytheis t ic , henotheistic" monotheist ic; relat io

f Zeus to Necessity" Fate" Just ice ; at t i tude toward mankind--a

ntriguing" but a l l subordinated to the contradictory Zeus. Suc

h ~ l l be the method of the present ef for t . Other problems about

he Aeschylean Zeus shal l come under conSideration" but s e c o ~ lnd subordinately. The main ef fo r t shal l be in the direct ion of

,

he main problem, not an al together unreasonable procedure.

, ~ { e c k l e i n " 14.'6Gottfried Hermann" ci ted in Wecklein, 14, Haigh, 88-89.

E •.s.., Louise Matthaei. Studies in Greek Tragedy. cambridge" At

lThe Universi ty Press, 1918, Ch. I ; Harman" Ch. I I .2Haigh, 112.Joseph Harry. Greek Tragedy. New York, Columbia UniversityPress



·'CHAPTER II

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMEN'r OF THE CONCEPT OF ZEUS

Any attempt to invest igate ~ 7 r e l i g i o u s phaenomenon or

ancient Greek l i re which does not , in some degree at l eas t , take

into consideration the re l ig ious background against which tha t

•phaenomenon appears is foredoomed to , a t l eas t , inadequacy. Gree

re l igious concepts, whether those of one man or those of the

people general ly, simply do no exis t in vacuo. They are the re-

sult of a long and sometimes hidden process of evolution, cul-

°nating now in th is manifestat ion, now in tha t , of re l ig ious

conviction or r i tua l . Attempts, lengthy and learned, have been

ade to f ix upon tha t evolution as accurately and as exhaustivel

as poss ib le , l with what degree of success we may leave to the

special is t to determine.

The ~ e s e n t course l i es clear . I f we are to do jus t ic

o our treatment of the Zeus of Aeschylus, we must, in however

summary a fashion, see something of the concept of Zeus tha t pre

eded and was contemporary with the Aeschylean concept. The

e t t e r to c lar i fy our consideration we may focus i t on t h r ~ e men

vhose writ ings, two as predecessors, one as a contemporary of

Se e, fo r example, Martin nilsson. A Hi story of Greek Religi on.Trans. F. Fielden. Oxford, At the Clarendon Fress, 1925; JaneHarrison. Prolego!llen8 to the ,3tudy of Greek Religion. cambridge

At the universi ty Press , I903.14



15

'eschylus, we shal l ut i l i ze in f i l l ing in the background of our.'subject . Woo t Zeus was to lIo::ner, to Hesi od, and to Pindar i s , o

..

course, a question which taken as a whole or in each of i t s s e v ea1 par ts , presents opportunity fo r no end of amplif ication. Ob-

viously, tha t question cannot be enter,ed into here."7

Zeus, l ike a l l the other gods in Homer, i s largely

anthropomorphic. He is said to be the "father of gods and men."

r ~ i t h such a fa ther i t is l i t t l e w o n d e r ~ h a t the Homeric gods are

they are , "not superior beings who reward vir tue in others

or pract ice it themselves. They are only occasionally sublime

and rare ly deserve reverence or af fect ion . 1f2 Zeus i s the supreme

lord of Olympus. He takes counsel with his peers , but i s not

ound to follow the i r adviCej3 the f inal decision i s ent i re ly hi

own, and the other gods, whether they l ike i t or not--and frequen

1y they do not--must acquiesce. "For surely," avers Hermes, t l i t

i s by no means possible for another god to transgress or make ~ain the purpose of Zeus, lord of the aegis. tl4 Or again, when

eus had become weary of Poseidon's interference in the s t r i f e o

chaeans and Trojans, he com:nanded him "to leave off f ight ing an

ar, and b e t a l ~ e himself to the race of the gods, or into the

shining sea,tt 5 and Poseidon, for a l l his claims of equali ty in

onor with Zeus, "departed from the host of the Achaeans and

John Scott . The u n i t ~ offornia Press,-r921, 1 7:-Cf. I l iad i .Odyssey v, 103 f f .

I i . xv, 160 f f .

Homer. Berkeley, Universi ty of Cal i -



16

passed to the sea and sank. it 6

That the sway of Zeus in Homer was tha t of might rathe

than of r igh t is abundantly clear to the reader of the poems. Hi

dwelling on Olympus amounts pract ica l ly to a royal court, with

the other gods coming to ask a favor or complain of a wrong. Thu'07

at a banquet of the gods Athena obtained permission for Odysseus

to return home,7 and Hera vainly taunted Zeus for planning re -

verses for the Greeks. 8 So long as the .other gods did not anger. .him, Zeus was content to allow them pret ty much to work the i r

wi l l . Once roused, though, as , for example, a t the nagging of

lIera,9 he could and did become terr ib le in his wrath. Gods and

non alike stood in dread of the thunderbolt . They might disagre

with him, dispute with him, deceive him, but there was a time to

stop, and he who did not do so learned to his sorrow tha t he had

gone too far .

Zeus had a.ll the foibles of mankind, of which inconsis....

tency i s not the l eas t . Early ln the fourth book of the I l iad lO

he seemed eager to bring the war to an immediate conclusion, so

that Troy might remain standing, Helen re turn home, and a genera

econci l ia t ion fo l low--al l th is a f te r we are given the motive of

the ent i re action in the opening l ines of the p o e m : A ~ o ~ d ~ r 6 ~ 6 : ~ T~ 0 0 .11 In the f i r s t book of the I l iad Zeus i s pictured as

the bully in his own home in the account of his hurling

xv, 218 f.v, 1-42.

559.545 f f .

iv 14 ff l l I b id . i , 5.



17

hiS son Hephaestus from the threshold of Olympus because he had

t r ied to shield his mother from one of his fa ther ' s savage a t-

tacks. 12 yet Zeus joins in the i r repress ible laughter to see tha

son hobbling about the court , ass is t ing a t the feas t of the g o d

In Book I I of the I l i ad he deceives Agamemnon with a lying dream"<7

In the fourteenth book of the same poem his carnal desires turn

him from the accomplishment of his purpose.15 Zeus was hardly a

deity on whom men might model the i r comduct, nor wgs he one who

might demand r ec t i tude of others. In the words of Scot t :

The ha l l s of Olympus would have re -sounded with pe alB of "Homeric laughter" l1ad Zeus la id down a code oflaws Which contained such a sentenceas: "Monor thy fa ther and tEll.¥ mother,"for a l l . knew too well what he haddone to his own fa ther Cronos; orsuch a sentence as "Thou shal t notcommit adultery," when they a l l knewthe scandals of his many amours.

Most of the div in i t ies would beenconscientious nu l l i f i ca t ion i s t s i fthere had been any in te rd ic t only ing, covetousness, and s tea l ing. 16

The re la t ion of Zeus to :b'ate or Destiny i s a matter

hat i s not clear in Homer. At t imes the lord of Olympus seems

o yield to the inexorable decrees of Fate, as when in the s ix-

eenth book of the I l iad he says, tlAlack, that it i s fated tha t

arpedon, deares t of mortals to me, should f a l l before P a t ~ o c l u son of Menoetius. tt Indeed, he i s of two minds, whether to snatch

2I l . i , 590 f f .3IOid. i , 599-600.4TI5I"Q. i i , 5-6.

5IDIU. xiv, 346 f f .6S cot t , 177-178.



18

his son away to his home in Lycia or to l e t · him die" till Hera.'eminds him that it i s Sar'pedon's lo t to die a t this time. 17

t'Nei ther men nor gods can ward i t off" when the baneful lo t of

death overtakes a man." 18 Zeus bows therefore to inevi table Fate

but "he shed bloody raindrops on the earth in honor of his son"

whom P_troclus was about to slay in deep-soiled Troy" fa r from

his native land."19 But the conception of Pate is so fa r from

clear in Homer that in other places he .;does not separate i t from

the dispensation of Zeus himself . I f we ask whether Fate i s or

is not higher than Zeus, we are met with the answer:

That ' is a questi on which the Homeric bardcould never have answered--but neitherwould he have asked i t , for he had notyet been troubled with modern controversies about Free Will and Determinism.The Homeric poets hardly consideredFate as rea l ly d is t inc t from the wil l ofZeus--neither did they consider them

expl ic i t ly ident ical ••• Homeric re -l igion i s based not so much on logicas upon imagination, a fac t which it

i s easy for l i te rary cr i t ic ism to over-100k. 2 0

Such, brief ly , i s the Zeus of Homer--a supreme deity, now subjec

to , again ident i f ied with Fate, m o reigns by force on Olympus;

as a rule capricious, now benign and pat ient , now harsh and wrath

fu l , he i s , except in broad outl ine, unpredictable. In the

~ o r d s Lucian puts into the mouth of Heracl i tus: "What are men?

~ 7 I l . xvi , 431 f f .8oa. iii, 236.

~ 9 I I . xvi , 459 f f .20Henry Browne, S.J . Handbook of Homeric Study. London, Long

mans, Green, & Co., 1905" 1997



-

Mortal gods.

19

What are gods? Immortal men. n21 That i s jus t what.'he Homeri c Zeus i s , an ir:ID1ortal man with much of rugged human

grandeur mixed in with a l ibera l scat ter ing of human foibles .

In Hesiod we notean advance in the concept of Zeus. In

the Works and Days Zeus, the king of t .re i:r.:morte1 s , i s also the

supreme governor of men. His eye is al l -seeing, his mind a l l -

/ ~ " , , ~ , , , , , S 22!mowing--1T..ilflol "i.JtAJ" A LOS o ~ a t A / < - O s K.J.l.. TrelvT.:/.. Vo'J1<:N, but "there

is no prophet among men upon the earth'who shal l know the mind

of aegis-bearing Zeus. 1f23 The poet ins i s t s , and here i s a very

considerable advance over Homer, tha t the ch:tef a t t r ibute of Zeu

is Jus t ice . From Zeus s t ra ight judgments proceed,24 part icular l

in the punishment of insolence or s in ; indeed it i s on th is as

pect of jus t ice that Hesiod lays the greates t s t ress . 25 The

maiden Just ice i s :

• • • daughter of Zeus, glor i f ied andenthroned by the gods who dwell inOlympus. And whensoever one doeth heran injury wi th wrongful chiding,straightway she takes her seat by theside of fa ther Zeus, the son of Cronus,and t e l l s him the thoughts of unjustmen, that the people may pay for theinfatuat ion of princes, who with banefu l thoughts turn aside from thes t ra ight path through wrongful judgments. 26

Zeus himself and a l l the gods in general seem to be more remote

~ l L u c i a n . Vitarum Auctio, 14. ~ u o t e d in James Adam. The Religib, ous Teachers of Greece. Edinburgh, T.& T. Clark, 1 9 ~ 27.f'2Hesiod. WorkS-and Days, 267.~ 3 H e s i o d . Frag. l77. Trans. Goettl ing.p4Works and DrIs, 36.

~ 5 I b i d . , ~ 8 . , 242 f f . , 284 f f . , 320 f f . , 327 f f .",6Ibid., 256 f f . Trans. Adam.



2:0

tban in Homer, with daemons acting as in termediar ies between them.'nd mankind.

In the other major poem of Hesiod, the Theogony, we

have, as the name indicates , an account of the success1ve gener-

ations of the gods. There were three dynasties of supreme ruler..." .

of the gods, succeeding one another in order of t ime--the dynas

t ies of Uranus, Cronus, and Zeus. 27 This work, obviously of an

ear l ier stage of re l ig ious thought, i s . ru l l of those grossly

natural is t ic legends to which Greek philosophy took jus t excep

t ion. "Throughout the whole poem," wri tes Adam, "the conception

of the gods as moral beings scarcely appears a t Bll ; the a s s e s s o r2

even of Zeus hi:'1self are Violence and ForCe ra ther than Justice."

Thus the Theogony, representing a Zeus newly in power,

gives a picture of a harsh and a r b ~ t r a r y tyrant , in fer ior on a l l

counts to the Homeric Zeus. But the Zeus of the Works and Days

i s a dis t inc t advance in the direct ion of a more jus t and d i v i ~ epersonality, 9.S opposed. to a capriciclUs and anthropomorphic one,

than can be found in ei ther the I l i ad or the Odyssey.

There remains but a br ief consideration of the Zeus of

a great contemporary of Aeschylus, the poet Pindar. In the main

he adheres to the anthropomorphic conception of the gods, which

.s everywhere character is t ic of the national Greek re l ig ion . Pin

~ a r , although, of course, much more the poet of Apollo than he i

bf Zeus, sees in the la t t e r the supreme dei ty of the panthe'on.

; ~ H e s i o d . Theogony, 154 f f . , 459 f f . , 617 f f •.::.8Adam, 70.



.. he refuses

that offends his

21

to see in him or in any other Olympian anything.'oral sens ibi l i t i es . 29 That there are many gods

we gather L:iJlilediately from his f i r s t Olympian Ode. That Zeus, a

has been said , dominates off ic ia l ly the world of the gods 30 i s

the resul t of a well-organized s ta te , won by his victory over th,07

Titan brood. "In the f i r s t Olympian, as in a l l the Olympians,"

writes Gildersleeve, "Zeus rules serenely. I t i s t rue tha t his

throne, Aitna, res t s on the violent h u ~ r e d - h e a d e d Typhorus, but

we do not fee l the s t i r r ings of the revolted sp i r i t as in the

pytbians. tl31 Zeus, together wi th the other 60ds his subord:Jn.ates

"knOViTS nei ther sickness nor age nor labor: he has escaped the

loud-roaring gulf of Acheron."32 The second Pythisn presents ,

perhaps, the most f a ~ o u s of the poet ' s sentiments in regard -to

the godhead:

God accomplishes every end accordingto h is expectation; God who overtakeseven the winged eagle and. outstr ippeththe ·dolphin of the sea, and bringethmany a proud man low, vouchsafing toothers the renown tha t grows n<;>t 01d. 33

....

Pindar often ins i s t s on the inev i tab i l i ty of Fate, so

far as human creatures are concerned,34 but seldom, according to

dam,35 does he imply that Fate can override the wil l of Zeus. I

fact we find passages in which the wil l of Zeus is i t s e l f con-

29Ibid • 116-117.0Pinoar. OlftPian Odes, i , 10.IBasi l L. G dersleeve. Pindar, the Olympian and Pythian Odes.2New York, Harper & Brothers Pubrr-shers, 1899:-XXix.Pindar. Frag. 143.

3Pindar. Pythian Odes, i i , 49 f f . Trans. A d a ~ .4Ibid. x i i , 30; Nemean Odes, x i , 42; iv , 41 f f .5-Adam, 119.



- 22

celved as Fate; thus, tithe fated decree of Zeus,tl36 and the "fat.'rdained of God, ,,37 may serve as example s .

Zeus i s omniscient: tlif a man thinks he can escape the

eye of God when he does a thing, he is in er ror . u38 Zeus i s jus t

and the jus t are the objects of his care: tlfor of a cer tainty th'07

great mind of Zeus steers the destiny of those whom he loves. u40

ZeuS i s t rue, for "Truth i s the daughter of Zeus. ,,41 Pindar de

f in i te ly re jec t s theomachies as below ~ e digni ty of the gods.

There i s , he holds, one divine purpose shaping the course of

events, the purpose of Zeus: tlWith thee , 0 Father Zeus, i s the

accomplishment of a l l deeds. u42

Clearly, then, the Zeus of th is great contemporary of

AeSC:lylus i s a most decided advance over tha t of the men who pre

ceded him. His Zeus seems reasonable to us, a thing which could

;not be said of that dei ty in ei ther Homer or Hesiod. Eis ZCu.s

seems to have passed from the stage of story and poem to that o.J

~ e l i g i o n , to a posi t ion where the reverence and esteem of good

men i s not a forced thing but the spontaneous effusion of a com-

rnandsd respect . What Zeus was to Aeschylus, called the theologia

pf Greece, remains to be seen in succeeding pages.

~ ~ f e m e a n , iv , 61.~ b C I J ~ p i a n , i i , 21.Ibid. , i , 64.

9Nemean, x, 54.~ O p y t h 1 a n , v, 122 f .

~ ~ o l y m p i a n , x, 3 f .~ 2 M e m e a n , x, 29 f .



·'CHAPTER I I I

TliE ORTHODOX ZEUS OF THE PLAYS

One who would arrive a t anything resembling a c o n c l ~ c nin th is problem of the Zeus of Aeschylus must, i f he would rule ,

divide. That, then, is the course we adopt. We divide tbe work

•of our author in to two par ts , quant i t ively, it i s t rue , unequal,

but suff ic ient ly opposed effectively to counterbalance each othe

The present chapter concerns i t se l f wi th the Aeschylean ~ e u s as

found in six of the seven extant plays, in , tha t i s , the Suppli

ants, the Persians, the Seven Against Thebes, the Agamemnon, the

ibat ion*Bearers , and the Eumenides. Our next chapter wil l deal

i th the remaining extant play, the Prometheus Bound, which, as

have said, i s the source of our dif f icu l ty .,.....

What then i s to be said of the 'orthodox' Zeus in the

six enumerated plays? Just what sor t of a god i s he? Is he

supreme--absolute lord and master, and i f he i s , i s he the only

od, or i s Aeschylus a henotheist or a polytheist? And what of

he "double Zeus," one of mythology and one of the "reformed Aes

hylean theology," which some authors hold? Again, i s Zeus jus t

d i f so, what is h is re la t ion to Jus t ice , to Right , to Fate?

s he benevolent and noble wn his re la t ions with mankind? Each

these questions we sha l l consider in order and answer each, a

possible, in the words of Aeschylus himself .



~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ 2 - 4 -

Suppliants, the maidens who are the subject of tha t play are l e f- .'lone while the i r fa ther goes for aid, sing an ode of fear of th

pursuing sons of Aegyptus, i t i s to Zeus as omnipotent that they

address thei r pleas: "nave regard of thy suppliants , 0 Zeus, a l l

powerful upholder of the 1and."1 Vfuen, somewhat ear l ier in the....,

play, they are re la t ing in an ode the i r origin and how they are

descendants of Zeus and Argive Io , they sing: "Zeus {jt waS]

through unending time the lord • • • ,,2 .. Later in th is same odt:--

indeed i f , as is t rue, the Suppliants presents the most exalted

picture of Zeus, this ode (524-599) i s the creme de la creme-

~ e f ind:

• • • he wise of eld, he who devisesa l l things, who prospers a l l th ings,yea, Zeus. He is not seated on histhrone by hest of another, nor holdshis sway subject to a stronger . Nordoes he in low s ta t ion stand in awe

before another seated above him. Ashe ut te rs the word, so he accomplishesthe work, and whatsoever his mind ini t s wisdom conceives, tha t he doesr igh t speedily.3

Such a picture of Zeus should convince the reader of

vIle Suppliants that tha t dei ty i s , indeed, supreme in the mind o

~ € s c h y l u s . But as i f tha t were not enough, the poet presents us

Nith two more passages whicn confirm us in our convict ion. When,

vhe herald of the sons of Aegyptus had been worsted and tL.e Dana

ids are about to be escorted into the ci ty by a chorus of r;;.aiden

Supp. 815-816.~ I ~ b i d . 574-575.

~ I " 6 I d . 592-599.



25

body s ings : liThe mighty" untrammeled wi 11 of Zeus i s not to

crossed." 4 Hor has it been" nor wi l l it be" as in the sequel

e daughters of Danaus l ea rn to t he i r sorrow. The f i n a l passage

theS u p p l i a n t ~

on the supr'emacy of Zeus i s , perh.aps" the

subl1rne invocat ion of a god t ha t we f ind in the whole of

poet ry . Aeschylus holds up in pla in view h is exal ted es

te of hi.m whom Homer had ca l l lithe fa ther of Gods and men."

Chorus of IJanaids, l e f t alone by t h ~ i r f a the r IS depa.rture

Pelasgus to the Argive assembly" begin t he i r ode of pe t i t i on

of Ki.ngs, most blessed of the Llessed, power most sure of

sl'l'nent aYllong the sure , ):a!!py Zeus, hear . tt 5 Surely such a

Vlere there a . ~ e u s , could not remain unanswered, fo r if

mean a.nything, those which Aeschylus here puts in to the

of h is Chorus--remember t h a t the Aeschylean chorus i s sup-

to speak the mind of the poe t - -a re the highes t and most

t ha t could be of fe red by anyone profess ing a merely

r e1 ig i on, so high and su bl1:ne t ha t were they inse r ted

some books of the Old Testament , the Psalms, say , or the

of Job, they wonld be so much of a pie ce wi th them as not to

dis t inguishable from the otb.er l o f ty sent iments there expressed

Of a l l th e plays of Aeschylus the Pers ians presen ts us

the fewest references to Zeus, whether desc r ip t i ve invoca-

or simple vocat ives . The reason i s c lea r enough-- the en

scene i s l a id in a f a r land peopled by barbar ians , folk who

1048-1049.524-527.



26

could not be expected to be as keenly aware of the preeminence.'f Zeus as the Greeks were. I t i s s ignif icant tha t the sole

instance we have to ci te from the Persians indicat ive of Aeschy

lus 'S convict ion of the sovereignty of Zeus are l ines spoken by

the Chorus of Persian Elders .I

The poet , by tha t same naivete",-,

with which he has the Persians consistent ly refer to themselves

as "the barbarians," has his Chorus address the supreme dei ty to

this ef fec t : "0 Zeus, King, now that y ~ have destroyed the hosts

of the boastful and countless Persians ••• 6 The epi thet 'King

used by P e r s ~ _ a n s has, of course, the special significance of

-c:.niqueness. Darius had been King of men. Zeus is King of a l l ,

gods and men. Their recognit ion of the supremacy of Zeus, them,

though not re i terated l ike that of the daughters of Danaus, i s

none the l ess real and ef fect ive .

The Seven Against Thebes furnishes us with a 'pair of

ci ta t ions which indicate the sovereignty of Zeus. The Chorus qt

Theban l.1aidens, t e r r i f ied a t the advance of the foe and the s t i r

and tumult of impending bat t le , in near-hyter ia are taking the

heart out of the soldiery. Eteocles seeks to quiet them, but

they, not to be silenced, invoke the gods, and in a most s igni -

f icant manner. Three times they ca l l upon heaven, each time upon

p.eities they fee l more powerful to help thei r cause. Fi rs t , "0

guardian company of the gods,,,7 note, therefore , jus t the gods in

general . Then, fear ing tha t the previous invocation had not been

6persians 532-534."Seven Against Thebes 251.



Ienough or addressed to

of our cityJ"8 And f ina l ly , a.s

27

the most in teres ted gods: "Gods.'he climax of pet i t ion , the ad-

dress to him whom above a l l the gods they knew to be supreme: "0

s.ll-powerful Zeus, f lash thy bolt agains t the foe."9 Such an

obviously climactic order speaks for i ~ s e l f . Nor is it only the.. y

terr i f ied piety of females tha t believes Zeus sovereign. The

hero of the play, Eteocles, in appointing the fourth champion to

do bat t le with the Argive assa i lan t f i n ~ s tha t Hyperbius, his

man, shal l conquer, for he has as blazon on his shield "Father

Zeus, with a f ie ry bol t in his grasp; and never yet , I ween, has

any man seen Zeus worsted.tllO His argument i s valueless , of

course, to prove the invincibi l i ty of his champion; it i s far fro

valueless to prove the esti:'18.te he and, behind him, Aeschylus ha

of the power of Zeus.

The Oresteiant r i logy

furnishesus with

agood

numberof l ines indi cat i ve of the poet IS estimate of the Olympi'an. In

the parados of the Agamemnon the Chorus of Argive Elders sings:

"Thus Zeus, lord of the s t ranger , mightier far than the sons of

s • • • ,,11 Or again, "Hail sovereign Zeus • • • the Iblowpf

they name i t • • • as he decrees, so does he act., ,12 In

the closing scene of the play, when the murder of Agamemnon and

passandra has been disclosed, Clytemnestra stands quarrel ing with

Chorus; they break for th : "Alack, alas , by the wi l l of Zeus,

:1$bid. 255.

512-514.60-62.

355, 367, 369.



28

cause of a l l , worker of a l l l For what i s accomplished for mortaJJ.'ithout the wil l of Zeus?,,13 In the opening l ines of the Eumen-

ides we f ind another s ignif icant juxtaposi t ion of dei t ies . The

prophetess who speaks the p r o l o ~ ~ e i s invoking the gods; she

speaks f i r s t of the ancient dynasty, Earth, Themis, then coming",'7

to the reigning gods she l i s t s in order Phoebus Apollo, Pal las ,

~ i o n y s u s , Poseidon, and f ina l ly , as a climax, "and Zeus the Ful-

~ i l l e r , Most High."14

As i f in his l as t work, the Eumenides, he desired to

dispel any l ingering doubt as to the supremacy of his Zeus, Aes

chylus in a ser ies of speeches has the other gods themselves

place the Thunderer a t the i r head. Apollo, pleading the cause o

prestes before the court of the Areopagus, says: "Not ever on my

pseer's throne h a v ~ I spoken--no nei ther of man, nor of woman, no

pf s ta te - - tha t which was not commanded me by Zeus, fa ther of the

plympians. Learn how strong i s th is jus t plea, and I bid you,..

yield consent to the fa ther ' s design. For an oath i s in no wiso

stronger than Zeus. 1t15 He plainly admits his dependence on Zeus

n tha t declaration as well as in the one which follows immediat&

..y:

Fet ters Zeus might loose, of them thereis a cure, and a great many ways ofloosing them. But when the dust hathdrawn off the blood of a man, once dead,there i s no resurrect ion. For th is myfather has devised no charms, but a l l

3!!.8.. 1485-1488 •

...4Eumenides 28.

5Ibid • 616-621.



other things he disposes thus and so,nor does it so much as disturb hisbreath.16 .'

29

Athena, too, acknowledges her dependence. In persuading the

Furies to become good spi r i t s she has to overcome their reluctanc

to submit to a superior power. In the. course of her argument sh"' 7

says: " I , too, re ly on Zeus."17 In the same connection she re -

marks: "But to me, too, Zeus has given no mean in te l l igence . u1BAn

f ina l ly , in accepting the cul t a t A t h e ~ , the Furies-become-Eume

nidos profess themselves grat i f ied to be connected wi th Athena

and. Athens, "which she, with Zeus the omnipotent, and Ares, hold

a ci tadel of the gods.,,19

But is Zeus the only deity? Is Aeschylus a monotheist

I f not such, he i s e i ther a henotheist20 or a polytheist . Which

Although i t i s t rue that much of what Aeschylus wrote of Zeus wa

monotheistic in tone, i t can hardly be maintained tha t his con

ception of the divini ty was real ly such. The plays are too f u ~of references to the other gods, references obviously portraying

an evident bel ief , to allow us seriously to enter tain the notion

that the poet was a believer in one god. Adam remarks in th is

connection:

16a.7El l .m• 645-651.

••• the p o ~ t clear ly assumes theessent ia l unity of the divine purpose as manifest in the world. I t

D.8

I'ETd. 826.1"6IQ. 850.

19I'6Id'. 918-919.20Henotheism may be defined as tha t aystem of re l igion which,

while admitting the existence of more than one god, gives worshin to only one.



would nevertheless be an error tosuppose tha t Aeschylus i s in anyproper sense of the term a mono-the i s t . He constantly recognizes aplura l i ty of Gods; and nowhere doeshe contend against the prevai l ingpolytheism • • • The most we can

fa i r ly say on the subject of Aeschylean monotheism is tha t . in Aeschylusthe personali ty of Z e u s ~ b v e r s h a d o w strJ.8.t of a l l the in fer ior Gods to amuch greater extent than formerly;and tha t in the dynasty of Gods towhich Zeus belongs, there i s but asingle purpose, but a siAgle rul ingwi 11, the wi 11 of Zeus hirns e l f . 21

.'30

ehave gods appearing as characters in two of our extant dramas

--Apollo, Athena, and the Eumenides in t he play of tha t name,

Violence, IIephaestus, Prometheus, Oceanus, and liermes in

the Prometheus bound. Besides these personal appearances, hardly

o be expected in the pla-y" of a 11'J.8J') who was a monotheist , we have

references to other gods. Earth, Heaven, Themis, Cronus

he Titans, hades, Poseidon, Ares, Aphrodite, Eera-- these and a

,...other gods, great and small, const i tute the Aeschylean

There i s one text , and tha t a fraement, which would

Aeschylus, of a l l things, a pantheis t : "Zeus is a i r , Zeus i s

Zeus i s heaven, Zeus i s , in t ru th , m l things apd what

is beY0nd them.,,22 This passage i s unparal le led in a l l tha t

nave of our author and cannot be taken as embodying his f ixed

in the face of a l l the evidence we have to the contrary.

143-144.2

i"ragment 70. Nauck.2

Quoted in Aeschylus. 2 vols . (Loeb) Ed.Eerbert w. Smyth. London, 'Hilliam Heinemann, London, 1922.I I , 403.



31

-rt i s probably ascr ibable to the influence of Heraclitus, which.J- .'as being fe l t in Aeschylus 's time, or to some pantheist ic doc-

t r ine of the Orphic type.

Another in teres t ing, because perplexing, se t of l ines

occurs in the Agamemnon: "Zeus, w h o s o l ~ ; he be-- i f by th is name

he loves to be invoked, bll th is name then shal l I ca l l him.

neighing a l l , no power I know save only 'Zeus. 11I23 On th is pas-

sage Haigh remarks:

Even the name of Zeus was to him amere convention. Like Pindar, he fe l thimself a t l iber ty to re jec t 1.7hat washateful and improbable. But the ancient mythical gods were more to himthan mere types and abstract ions; andthough the i r names might be uncertain,and the i r deeds dis tor ted by t radi t ion,he seems to have fe l t no doubt in hishear t tha t they were rea l and potentdiv in i t ies . 24

t wil l have been observed that even in th is somewhat s ta r t l ing

confession of his doubt as to jus t who Zeus is Aeschylus s t i l l ....

to the idea tha t , whoever he i s , he i s the all-powerful

I t seems clear , then, tha t the Zeus of Aeschylus was

ot a monotheistic conception. Nor can i t honestly be said to be

for although, as has been said again and again,

i s the supreme dei ty , he is not , even pro tempore or t 'err i

the sole deity worshipped. The conclusion tha t Aeschy-

159-165. I have not seen Gil bert I':Turray' s comment on th ispassage. He surely must have one someWhere, one, I doubt not ,highly in te res t ing .

89.



33

gorists of the Prometheus Bound, is not altogether devoid of a.'ertain plausibi l i ty . ~ J n l i k e thos e other theor ie s i t i s possess

eu of a cer ta in a ir of learned discernment which would invi te the

di le t tante to accept and propagate i t . Lut, for a l l tha t , tbe

theory has against i t serious object ions which, remaining sub-"·7

stant ial ly unanswered, have brought it in to something akin to

disrepute. Fi r s t of a l l , the probabi l i ty of any such clear dis -

t inction in the mind of Aeschylus betwe.n popular myth and a

[higher Zeus is rather low. He i s too careless in mingling the

two concepts, i f he rea l ly holds them as d is t inc t . Thus immedi

ately following the passage already ci ted as the most sublime in

Iv'ocation of a god in the whole of Greek poetry, "King of Kings,"

~ . , the Danaids bid Zeus reca l l the gladsome ta le of the i r an

pestress Io , the woman of his love. 26 Or again, when in the Aga

~ e m n o nhe i s addressed as the master of the universe,

iti s only

to have recalled in the ensuing l ines tha t he had gained the

~ a s t e r y by wiles in the overthrow of his own fa ther . 27 Such in -

~ o n s i s t e n c i e s , inevi table in the writ ing of a man t ry ing to pwcir

tnyth without substantial ly al ter ing t t , would never be found so

plosely joined i f the author were trying to change radical ly the

rel igion of the Greeks.

A fur ther consideration combines wi th the precedi'ng to

rule out ef fect ively the double Zeus theory. Aeschylus is par

L.icularly careful whenever the original myth has his gods engage

~ ~ s u P p . 531-533.p 7 ~ . 171-175.



~ _------------------------------------------------------34

in ac t iv i t ies of which he cannot ent i re ly approve to gloss over.'heir shortcomings and explain them away as much as possible .

ThUS the whole Io incident , both in the Suppliants and in the

prometheus Bound, i s put upon as high a plane as possible by

the s tress ing of the fac t tha t as a resu l t of tha t forced union"<7

Heracles wi 11, in the c ours e of t ims, be born. Or again, Zeus IS

treatment of his fa ther Cronus i s placed, as far as possible ,

~ p o n grounds of jus t ice and progress in . tead of the bald t r ickery

and usurpation tha t i s to be found in Hesiod. Other instances

~ i g h t be c i ted ; these must suff ice . The point i s , tha t such

anxiety to smooth over the seams in the patchwork of the nationa

rel igion would hardly be proper to one bent on ousting tha t re -

l igion for abe t t e r , becaus e more philosophical, one of his own

~ e s c h y l u s was a deeply re l igious man, but he was not a philo

sopher. Any theory tha t would make him out such can hardly stand

the t e s t of a searching impart ia l cr i t ic ism.

An at t r ibu te of the Aeschylean Zeus which comes in for

some considerat ion here i s that of his jus t ice . Is Zeus jus t ,

~ d i f , and when, we can show tha t Aeschylus conceived of him as

~ r 8 e m i n e n t l y jus t , what i s his re la t ion to Just ice and Fate? Tha

~ e u s i s jus t we can asse r t from a l l tha t we have seen of him so

"'ar. Further, we have considerable offerings on the point ,by

~ e s c h Y l u s hi:":self. And f i r s t of a l l , in the f i r s t stasimon of

~ h e Suppliants the Chorus of.' 1Jr..nHi ds says tha.t i f he does not

protect them from the pursuing sons of Aegyptus, "Zeus sha.ll lay

~ i m s e l f open to the charge of in jus t ice ••• 2 8 a contingency,

Gts Runn 1 RR-l_69



35

clearly, to be placed on the extreme verge of possibi l i ty . Later.'n the same play the maidens, in conversing with Pelasgus, king

of Argos, show s t i l l fur ther confidence in the Just ice of Zeus:

"Both par t ies does Zeus, kjn to bothtin blood, look down upon

with impart ial measure, dealing, as i s n:.eet, ill to the evi l ,

goon to the r ighteous . 1f29 Surely there can me no question but

that the O l y m p i a n ~ s jus t , yet the daccghters of Danaus must once

more ca l l our at tent ion to the fac t . Alter presenting the i r cas

to Pelasgus and urging him to do a l l in his power to protect t h e

suppliants in his land, they sum up the i r whole argument in asingle pregnant sentence: "Take thought on these. They are jus t

ordinances from Zeus ."30

Once more we have from the Persians but a single text

to quote, for , as was explained above,31 the references in tha t

play are very few. In the present case Darius, summoned from the

tomb by the wails of Atossa and the Chorus of Persian Elders , ha

learned of the fearful loss of Persian arms and, in turn, pre-

~ i c t s fur ther disas te r•. Then he assigns a cause for the Persian

~ o w n f a l l - - o v e r w e e n i n g pride: ftZeus ," he says, "in very t ru th i s

~ h e punisher of arrogance and heavy i s his chastening hano. u32 A

~ i n g l e i n s t a n c ~ , too, from the Seven Against Thebes must suf f ice

flhe Chorus of Theban Maidens, somewhat quj.eted a t length by; Eteo

~ l e s from the i r former te r ror , ut ters a prayer as one of the



----------------------------------------------------- - -

champions named to oppose the Argive warriors goes for th: "As.'ith raving mind they ~ h e Argive e n e m ~ proudly boast against

the ci ty , so may Zeus, the Awarder, look down on them with

wrath."33 That they look to "Zeus, the Awarder" to deal jus t

judgment to the arrogance of the vauntlng foe, goes without say-

ing.

The Oresteia again presents us with several instances

i l lus t rq t ing our point . The Argive E I ~ r s give utterance to a

typical ly Aeschylean sentiment: "Someone has said tha t the gods

think it beneath them to look to mortals who 8p'J.rn the grace of

sacred th ings . That man was impious." 34 Another text t e l l s us

that so long us Zeus abides on h1.s throne, so long shal l i t abid

that to the doer i t shal l be done 35_-another instance of the

even-handed jus t ic e of the Tht.:nderer. Thovgh jus t i ce may be slow

in coming from the lland o f Zeus,it

i s a l l the more sure. lied ~

not f a i l : "Zeus, Zeus, who sendest up from below upon the d a r i r ~and evi l deeds of !!len thei r re t r ibut ion long-deferred • • • ft 36

invokes Zeus, requiring jus t ice agains t tile murderers of

f a t : r ~ e r : "And when wil l f lourishing Zeus lay his hand upon

a....1-), me I • • • Let the land recei ve pledges of i t . I demand

pustice af te r a l l th is injustj .ce. u37 And such jus t ice i s she to

lave, jus t ice by the grace of Zeus, the jus t one.

What is to be said of the re la t ion between the just Zaw

~ 3 S e v e n 483-485.4 ! g : 1563-1564.

5ro id . 369-372.6 L i b a t i o n - B e a r e r s 382-385.

7 L i b . - B . 394-398.



37

and Dike, Justice? Is Just ice superior to him? Is he Justice?.'r i s it in fe r ior to him? We may ci te a few passages from the

orthodox plays. In the Suppliants we read: "Yea veri ly , may Jus

t i ce , daughter of Zeus the apport ioner, Just ice , protectress of

the suppliant ••• ,38 Just ice , then, here at leas t , fa r from,;,

being superior to Zeus, is called his daughter. We have exactly

the same predication in a couplet of the Seven Against Tllebes.

~ t e o c l e s , learning tha t Polyneices h i ~ s e l f has chosen to assa i l..the seventh gate and determining to go in person to engage his

ibrother, laments the fact of the l a t t e r ' s waywardness: "But i f

Just ice , the vlrgin daughter of Zeus, were the companion of his

thoughts and. deeds • • ."39 Pas sing over three other references

to Just ice in which her connection with Zeus i s not too c l e ~ r , 4 0~ e come to a passage in the Libation-Bearers in which Just ice and

!zeus, together with Might, are conceived as working together to

~ e n d to the children of Agamemnon the i r aid in avenging his mur

ider: "May Might, and Just ice, and Zeus the th i rd , greates t of d ~pome to our aid . 1f4l Another passage from the same play brings

IlJogether the Fates , Zeus, and Just ice in the accomplishment of a

~ G s i r e d end: "But, 0 ye great Elates, thus grant fulf i l lment

~ h r o u g h the power of Zeus even as Just ice now turneth.,,42 Some-

What l a t e r we find the Chorus singing:

But the bi t te r ly sharp blade is near

~ 8 ~ . 359-360. I have here and in one or two other places39ta en Themis, Right, as pract ica l ly synonomous with Justi.ce.OSeven 662-663.t ' ~ .

250-251, 381-384, 773-775.~ ~ ~ b . B . 244-245.I id:- 306-308.



39

a perfect harmony" whether of ident i ty or congruity is a

beyond the scope of the present inquiry" between Zeus and

and Pate . The three present a.n ao_mirable exa'"1ple of wha

when the eye is s ingle- - the whole body i s l ightsome.

A f inal" and very i..irief" considerat ion wil l be that of

e a t t i tude of the orthodox Zeu.s of Aeschylus toward l'r.ankind.

attempt to se t down and c O " l l i ~ e n t upon a l l the passaGes that

been gathereu. under the heacUngs 0t "Zeus benevolent f l and

guardi.anl l in the careful perusal of the extant plays which

the task of writing" would be to s t re tch out th i s chap-

r to an in tolerable length. We shal l content ~ l u : " s e l v e s with a

few ci ta t ions . The reader may t 'Jrn up the other passages

l."lim.s e l f . 49

'l'be Danaids beseech: "0 Zeus, have pi ty on our woes,

s t we perish utter1y."50 'rhe sir:lp1e fa i th of these young maide

a Zeu.s concerned wi th the fate of his creatures , a benig;<

King Pe1asgus" brooding over his entry in to the Danaus

quarrel" muses: rrAnd when Goods have been plundered from

home, yet others may come" thanks to Zeus, r;uardian of house

wea1th.,,51 Seated, then, as he i s on Olympus's heights"

i s in teres ted in the af fa i r s of men. Later in the play the

ca l l down blessing on the i r benefactors: "Thus may t he i r

0UPP • 1-2, 26-27" 190-193, 206, 347, 473-479, 627" 641; Seven89, 116-117, 1080-1081; ~ . 43-44" 677-678, 748, 1036-1037;Lib.-B. 13-19; 775; Eum. 92" 213-214, 365, 973, 1045-1046;

OFragments 55, 86, 1 6 ~Supp. 210.

lI bid. 445.



l t y be governed wel l , if only they have regard fo r grea t z e ~ ~zeus,above a l l , Lord of Strangers, who, by his sage direct ion ,

guides destiny arlght, t t52 and, "May Zeus bring the land to bear

i t s dest ined f r u i t by seasonable growth. fl53 In the Seven Agains

Tnebes Bteocles heartens his warr iors : "Zeus wil l prove a S a v i o r .~ ~He cares , then, for the folk of Thebe-town individually; also

c01lectively, for : "0 mighty Zeus ••• who in very t ruth defend

these walls of CadmusJ"55 Men, too, ap!*,eciate the care Zeus ex-

ercises over them, for the herald in the Agamemnon, having re -

lated the successful sseige of Troy, concludes: "And the grace o

Zeus shal l have fu l l course of honor fo r tha t i t brought us to

our accomplisheG end. u56 The Chorus, too, recognizes the muni

ficence of Zeus: "Indeed a great and plenteous gi f t from Zeus,

aye, from the furrows that every year produce, destroys the bligh

of famine."57 Such ci ta t ions must suff ice to ind ica te in broad

outline the at t i tude of the orthodox Zeus towards mankind, an

at t i tude a t once benign and powerful, helpful and considerate.

Our l i tanit , then, is complete. Zeus i s the supreme

dei ty of a polytheist ic re l igion, purged in the mind of Aeschy

l'O.s, jus t , benevolent, noble. And then comes the Prometheus

~ o u n d .

~ ~ s u P p . 670-678.I"5'IU. 688-690.

)4'S'e"Ven 520.)5S even e22-824.

) ~ A & . 581-582.) Ibid. 1014-1016.-



·'CHAPTER IV

THE ZEUS OF THE PROl,'lErrBEUS BOUND

The person who, reading the ~ l a y s of Aeschylus for the

f i r s t time" saves the Prometheus bound till l as t of a l l as being

the supreme example of what Aris tot le cal led "simple t ragedy,"

•xperiences, when he f ina l ly does come to tha t play, no l i t t l e

surprise and, i f he has given himself to the Aeschylean Weltan-

schauung, something of a shock. For the poet seems to reverse

himself, seems, in a single short play, to seek to deny, or a t

leas t in effect does deny, the concept of Zeus which he had

through almost half a century of writ ing for the Athenian stage

so laboriously bui l t up. Zeus is so obviously" throughout a l l

the other plays, the idealized favori te of Aeschylus tha t the

spectacle in the Prometheus ?ound of tha t same Zeus presented rhsomething remarkably akin to an unfavorable l ight is" a t best ,

~ i s c o n c e r t i n g . Zeus in the other six plays i s unquextionably th

supreme deity , unchallenged and unchallengeable on his throne.

~ h e whole dramatic conf l ic t of the Prometheus Bound i s based on

just the opposite assumption, tha t i s , tha t there is question

~ n d very r ea l qu.estion as to the supremacy of Zeus, so tha t in

~ h i s play he is not only challengeable but challenged. The Zeus

pf the other extant plays is" clear ly , a jus t deity, .one whose

~ e r ydaughter is Just ice hersel f , one whose wil l , i f not identfua

41



42

Fate, i s a t ~ aat in perrect harmony with i t . The Pro-.'e t h e u s p.Pesents a somewhat different picture . I t i s a t l eas t

most cr i t i cs would describe th is statement as

caut ious-- that the Zeus or the Prometheus is jus t .

the noble, benevolent Zeus or a l l the re s t or Aeschylus's....

to be metamorphosed into a misanthrope, harsh and un

in the short compass of the thousand-odd l ines or a

play. Such would be the general ..,tmpres sion gained by a

not too careful perusal or the play. I t is the business

f the present chapter to examine into some, a t l eas t , or the

upon which that impression i s based.

FiBst or a l l , then, the Zeus or the Prometheus Bound,

to tha t god in the other plays, i s not a supreme deity

upon his throne but one engaged in a l i fe and death s t r ~o maintain his precarious posit ion at the head of the universe.

sounds early th i s note or the insecuri ty or Zeus when

n speaking to the Chorus or Oceanids he says:

Yea, ver i ly , the day shal l yet comewhen the lord or the BlEssed shal lhave need or me, fo r a l l tha t I am

tortured by these harsh fe t t e r s , tolay bare to him the new device where

by he shal l be despoiled of his sceptreand h is honors. Nor shal l he softenme with the honey-tongued blandishments or persuasion, and never shal lI , trembling before his threats , re -veal th i s secret , before he shal l loeseme rrom these cruel bonds and wish tomake amends for th is shameful t r ea t -ment. l

I pr •B• 168-179. Every ci ta t ion given in th is chapter i s fromth i s play; thererore the l ine n Q ~ b e r s only wil l be given.



43

The reader cannot but be struck by the complete re -.'ersal in tone between this defiance of an insecure Zeus and the

orthodox submission to his supreme wil l . A few l ines l a t e r we

~ i n d Prometheus making another veiled al lusion to the secret

a t in the preceding passage: "But none the less a day wil"'<7

he sha l l be softened of mood, when in such wise he haa

een broken. Then abating his stubborn wrath he sha l l a t length

ome into league and f r iendship with me.,,2

•We next find the Chorus, instrument of Aeschylean

h o u g h t ,seeking to encourage Prometheus to bear up under his alf

I I ••• for as much as I am of good hope tha t you sha l l

be loosed from these fe t te rs and be in strength no way in

"'erior to Zeus. u3 Such a senti'Clent in any of the other plays

701)10. be so completely out of place as to give r i se to conj ecture

f spuriousness, but by th i s stage of the Prometheus Bount). it i s

o much of a piece with the general tone that we notice i t only

o pass on. A conversation between 10, another sufferer a t t h e ~of Zeus, and Prometheus points s t i l l more the lesson of

insecur i ty :

.

z190 ..195.

Prometheus: ••• but now there i s noend of my pangs appointed

unt i l Zeus be cast down fromh i s har sh sway.

10: Whatl Is it possible tha tsome day Zeus shal l be C ~ ~ ~out of his tyranny?

Prometheus: You would re joice , methinks,to see such a f a l l .

10: And why not, since it i s from



Prome theu s :

Io :

Prometheus:

Zeus tha t I suffer i l l ?Know, then, tha t a l l thesethings are t rue .At whose hand sha l l he suf-fer the spol ia t ion of histyrannous sceptre?At h is own hand, and by his

empty-headed schemings. 4

44

.'

As the play draws to a c los e "):>rometheus become s more

bi t t e r against the god who caused him to be chained thus to the

pi t i l ess crag in so forsaken a wilderness. On the frenzied de

•parture of Io he breaks for th with:

Yea, ver i ly , yet shal l Zeus, for a l lIUS stubborn sp i r i t , be humcled in asmuch as he proposes to make for himselfa marriage which shal l hurl him fromhis tyrannous throne in to forgetfulness• . • le t him not t rus t to his thunderand l ightning for these shal l not awhit avai 1 him against di shonorable andunbearable disgrace. Such a wrest ler ishe now preparing against himself, a portent most p o w e r ~ l in ba t t l e , one, I say,

who shal l h it upon f i re more powerfulthan the bolt and a crash more loud thanthe thunder. , • Then, blasted by hisevi l , shal l he learn what a gulf therei s tha t l i es between sovereign andslave. 5

Chorus, disturbed by the violent wrath of the chained Titan,

Chorus: And must we look for someone to become the master ofZeus?

Prometheus: Yes, and he shal l bear uponhis neck miseries more painfu l than these I bear. 6

e carr ies on in that s t ra in , the Chorus a l l the while seeking to

918-923, 926-927.



45

him, un t i l he works h:1mself up into a veri table passion •.

in the play he was in p ~ n , somewhat dismayed, frightened

the strange noise which turned out to be the arr iving car of

e Chorus of Oceanids. Now, in his righteous indignation, his

is forgotten, his dismay and fear changed into blazing ange..,

d unqualified defiance . so that when the ChoruB advise him to

to Necessity, his f iery response i s : "Reverence, adore,

up to whoever holds the power. As for me, I care for Zeus..

than naught. Let hL:! work his wi 11, le t hi'll rule what short

he may--since not for long shal l he lord it over the gods ."7

Hardly has he concluded th is speech when Hermes, bear

the demand of Zeus for the revelat ion of the vaunted secre t ,

upon the scene. The "1ackey tf 8 delivers the message of

e Father only to be met by:

Have I not seen two sovereigns hurt l ing

from these heights? And of a th i rd.

the pr esent master, sha l l I behold thef a l l most shameful and most swift .Surely you do not th ink I bow and scrapebefore these new-made gods. 9

Clearly, no acute powers of discernment are required to

a marked dIfference between the "King of Kings, most

of the Blessed" Zeus whom we studied in the ear l ie r pages

the preceding chapter and the Zeus we f ind portrayed in the

ci ted from the Prometheus Bound. Other ci ta t ions ,

less te l l ing , might have been made; the ones actual ly

though few, are vivid and thus calculated to make as stro



46

n impression as possible . And" indeed" it would seem tha t the.'mpression is inescapable. Whatever else may be said for or

the Zeus of the Prometheus Bound--that he i s unjust ,

impious, ungratefu l - - th is much is cer ta in beyond a l l p o s ~of reasonable dispute: Zeus is a new god, uncertain of h i ~

"7uncertain of his very se l f , faced by many sworn and pOV'.eI'-

u l enemies" who are conquere'i" it i s t rue, for the nonce, but

ho are always strongly threatening successful insurrect ion•

the i r conqueror. That such a concept of Zeus is the a n t ~

of the careful ly elaborated concept of the other plays is

';ihether Aeschylus intended i t to be such or jus t what

did intend is a question we have yet to face .

I f Zeus i s not in the Prometheus Bound the supreme d e i ~he is elsewhere" it is also t rue tha t other a t t r i butes whicb

n a former chapter we assigned to him are ei ther lacking or in

in th is par t icular dramatic ef for t . Thus the much-

....

just ice of Zeus i s ra ther conspicuously missing in the

piece. The Chorus of the Daughters of Ocean, imr1edJ_ately

they have allayed the fears of Prometheus, take occaslon to

judgment upon the jus t and reasoned method of rule adopted

y the new dynasty:I!For there are new helmsmen of the 01ympian

and with newly-devised law.;; Zeus governs arbi t ra r i ly ; and

things were powerful in olden time he now renders vain. tllO

by the Oceanids to reveal why he was beine; exposed to

cruel to r ture , Prometheus re l a t es his many benefits to man-

benef i ts which brought the human race from the darkness of

lOI48-151.



47

subterranean caves into the white l igh t of day, benefi ts which.'ound l i t t l e favor in the eyes of Zeus, determined to make away

with the race of men. Vlhen they have heard of Prometheus's bene

fact ions to mankind, the Oceanids exclaim:

Chorus:

Prometheus:

10:

Prometheus:

Was it on such a chargeas th i s t h a ~ Zeus • • •Tortures me and in no wise

g r a ~ t s re lease from pain.Is there not some foreordained term of your misery?None a t a l l , . save when it

seems good to Zeus. ll

Somewhat l a t e r in the play, af t e r the departure of t he i r fa ther

Oceanus, the maidens of the Chorus sing an ode of conuuiseration

with Prometheus, t e l l ing how they mourn by reason of his hapless

18t : ttFor Zeus, rul ing thus harshly by laws of r-Lis own construc

t ion, displays to the ancient gods an arrogant spir i t . , ,12

To the charge of t lunjust U level led agains t Zeus may be

added tha t of "ingrate ." Prometheus, in accounti!13 to the Chorus

or his outrageous t reatment substant ia tes tha t charge:

••• joining my mother w i t ~ e tookmy stand wil l ingly beside a r igh twill ing Zeus; and by reason of mycounsel the black depths of Tartarushide the ancient race of Cronus anda l l hi s a l I i es. 'rhus did the tyrant

of the gods prof i t a t my hands and wi ththese cruel pangs he has requi ted me.For there i s somehow th is disease intyranny, tha t it does not t rus t i t sf r iends . 13

conduct ill accords with the not ion of an al l - jus t and grate

'ul Zeus garnered from previ ous plays. Hor doe s Prometheus forge



48

~ h a t his to r ture is the r e su l t of more than in jus t ice ; the in -.'rati tude rankles, as i s evidenced by his re turn to tha t theme

flgsin and again in the course of the play. "Eehold a sight--me

~ h e fr iend of Zeus, who gave him a l l aid in set t ing up his tyran

p-y, wi th what tor tures I am bent even hini. tt14 "In a word I"<7

~ e t e s t a l l the gods who, receiving good a t ~ y hands, now return

tne evi l ." 15 "Yea, ver i ly , I am Zeus's d6otor that I should renie

a favor unto hi 1." 16 Final ly the O c e ~ d s themselves take up th

s t ra in and cas t it in the teeth of Hermes; they are the l as t

words the maidens ut t e r before they are hurled into the depths

by the Zeus-sent earthquake. 'I'hey account wholly jus t i f ied the

anger of Prometheus and, although they c a ~ n o t ent i re ly approve

of his proud speech, they must remain loyal whatever the cos t :

"With him I wish to suffer whatever needs must be; for I have

learned to hate t r a i to r s , nor is there plague I spurn more than

th is . u17

In sharp contrast to the benevolent Zeus on whom we

touched br ief ly a t the conclusion of our' preceding chapter we

have in the Prometheus Bound a Zeus harsh and cruel . The very

ministers he chooses to execute rus commands in the opening

l ines of the play give away something of his changed character .

Power and Force are sixply unthinkable as agents of Zeus in the

Suppliants, yet both, one by his ominous si lence, the other by

his harsh words and brutal at t i tude" re f lec t perfect ly the tempe

14306-308.

15975-977.16985.171067-1070.



.'CHAPTER V

SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM: I . THE COMMENTATORS

The temptation to make the opening ~ e n t e n c e of a chap

te r purporting to present the views of the commentators on a

COr!troverted subject read tlquot capi ta , to t sententiae" i s one

•.'Vhich in the present instance ~ u . s t be res is ted. While i t i s tru

that pract ica l ly every cr i t ic of Aeschy1e8.n drama has his or her

variat ion on one of the four main l ines of attacking the problem

of the contradictory of Aeschylus as found in the Prometheus

Bound and in the other remaining plays, these are merely variatic:n

on so many themes. No matter how much writers may di f fer on th i

or that deta i l of in terpre ta t ion, i t seems fa i r ly clear that

opinion generally has crystal ized into four molds or s lots , into

one of which we may, without too much stretching or lopping, d r ~ pBiven theory. I ] ~ h r e e of these types it i s the business of the

chapter to consider and, with what degree of success re-

to be seen, re jec t . The four th , with which, as a matter o

the f i r s t can be connected, and insofar as i t can be, tha t

~ i r s t then becomes acceptable--we sha l l consider and approve in

~ h e next chapter.

The f i r s t type of solution of the contradictory Zeus

i s one which despairs of a solut ion, the eas ies t and,

af te r a l l , the wisest way out. We may take Haigh's Tragi

rama of the Greeks as a sample of th is t ~ r p e :5?



The cr i t i cs generally agree in supposing that the mystery was solved in the . 'l a t e r plays of the t r i logy . But theydiffer in the ir views as to the natureof the solut ion • • • Perhaps the t ruthmay be tha t even in the concluding playst.llcre was nOtsat isfactorv solut ion of~ n e a i ! · 1 " ~ C U i y. AescuYiuS may have

fa l len into one of those inconsis tenciesto which he was often exposed ir.#lisattempt to ennoble the ~ cienf mythology.'Ehe story of Pro!l1ethens." resolute inself-devotion and unshaKen by threatsof vengeance, affordec a splendid subjectfor tragedy. I t is possible , therefore ,tha t Aeschylus, a t t r ac t e i by this idea,threw his w h o l ~ soul into the delineat ionof the heroic Titan, and, for the purposeof effect ive contrast , l e f t Zeus as hefound him in the legend" regardless of

the inconSistency wlth nis usual u t t e r -ance about the supreme bcing. l

53

The author thereupon ci tes other wri ters , Virgi l , specif ica l ly ,

and I v ~ i l ton, who, swept away by the i r genius, departed somewhat

from the i r normal a t t i tude ; thus Aeneas is made to look ra ther

despicable in the course of his re la t ions with Dido, and Satan

I-'-s drawn with so much force and enthusiasm as to d:isttlrb the

lethi ca l balance of Paradi se Lost.

Such a solution of the dif f icu l ty , then, comes down to

!this: Aeschylus, in writing the play, did not intend to give any

~ p e ~ i a l significance to Zeus; he had a conf l ic t , a good one, to

~ r a m a t i z e , and dramatize it he did, regardless of the consequence

~ H e w to the l ine , l e t the chips f a l l where they may," might well

l.ave been h i ~ o t t o in this par t icular case. Since he disregarded

~ c c o r d i n g to this opinion, so completely and effect ively the

~ h e r e a b o u t s of the chips resul tant fror.1 his ~ e w i n g , we can hardly

pe expected to be able to gather them together again into the

lUaigh, 111-112.



54

systematic and sustained whole which would const i tute the much-.'esired solut ion.

Such a resolut ion of the di f f icu l ty i s very plausible

and" i t i s hardly necessary to :::.c.d" for various reasons quite

a t t rac t i ve. That '1 t is the mos t si}(lple and most obvious way of

in terpre t ing the play taken by i t s e l f is not a reason" in spi te

of a l l tha t Dfl. Verral l might have to say on the subject , for

reject inG i t out of hand. Rather i t i s . a reason for accepting

j_t" a reason tha t would, no doubt, preval l , were we, as was said

to consider the :play by i t s e l f , i r respec t i ve of a l l the otherAeschylean work. But unfortunately we are unable to consider th

work by i t s e l f , for we have six other plays in which Zeus appear

and appears in direc t contradict ion, as we have seen, to the

Zeus of the Prometheus Eound. Either Aeschylus intended to

present a Zeus consis tent in the main or he did not. I f he did

not intend to present a consis tent Zeus" then our problem dis -

appears and we may acquiesce not only w h o l e - ~ e a r t e d l y but a l s o ~vith no small degree of relieved sat is fact ion in the solution

ow under consideration" tha t i s , tha t he was portraying the

eus that was required by mythology for his story. I f , on the

ther hand, Aeschylus did intend to present a consis tent Zeus,

hen such a solution i s unacceptable and another, i f possible ,

,us t be found. That consis tency was his intent ion i s the presen

ontention.

Aeschylus, we say, intended to portray a consis tent

eus. Any interpretat: ton of :-lis plays, therefore, based on the

pposi te assumption must be incorrect . 'l'he point , of course, toe proved is tha t the poet did intend a consis ten t Zeus. Such an



55

intent ion embodied in bis plays can have but one purpose--to.'each the people, as far as possible , the idea of a supreme Zeus

above the ordinary mythological conception. The idea of a con-

s i s ten t Zeus, then, i s based logical ly on the idea of Aeschylus

as a teacher, for one who would ~ l n c e r . e l y desire to teach some,O?

thing successful ly , must, as an a b,301utely fundamental stl3P, kee

his teaching conslstent . 2 And Aesch;;lus as a t ragedian was a

teacher, a fac t tha t the whole of G r e e ~ recognized:

pr again:

,On ne saurai t doutc1' que la t ragedlen ' a i t ete en ce temps pour Ie zpecta

teur grec une admirable ecole •••De memet1' a1l1eurs que la frequ:entat10nd'une bonne socie te aff ine l ' e sp r i t ,donne aux sentLlents plus de dtflicatesse e t au jugement plus d 'acui td ,f ~ n i l i a r i s a i t Ie public athenien avectout un ord1'e de, p e n s ~ e s elevees, dedisposi t ion ganereus8 1 d'emotionsnobles e t rares

Jque la vie de tous

les jJurs ne l u ~ rulrait pas f a i t connai t re . Par la , e l le rendait a la

culture in te l lec tue l le et ::11orale unservice dont la valeur ne peut ~ t r eexaggeree. Les grands espr i t s euxm ~ e s ~ t a i e n t frappes de cet te sagessede la tr>agedie, qui produisa1t de s ii ' . b ·· i ' I . tgenl.euses com ~ n a ~ s o n s , qu reve a ~s1 bien la nature huma1ne, qui exprimaiten 8i bel les sentences tant de penseesut i le c t ins t ruc t ives .3

Through tha t destiny a. great poet arose,deeply conscious tha t he was par t of theAthenian nat ion, to implant in his fellowci t izens the eager and devout sense ofvictory, and to unite classes ••• in acommon gra t i tude and aspirat ion • • •The men of tha t age never f e l t tha t the

art might be objected here tha tA e s c h ~ l u s

is merely adhering tothe data given him. by his fontes . The tragedians are not famoushfor adheriI!:,g s t r i ct.lY to thei r mythological fontes . E contra.

I ' Croiset ILL 169-17u



56

nature and influence of tragedy werepurely and simply aesthet ic . I t s 4 '

power over them was so vast tha t theyheld it responsible for the sp i r i t 01'

the whole s ta te • • • Our bel ief can-not a l te r the fac t tha t the Atheniansheld them the t ragedians to ce the i r

sp i r i tua l 1readers, with a responsibi l -i ty far ~ r e a t e r and graver than thec o n s t i t u ~ i o n a l a u t h o r i t ~ of successivepol i t i ca l leaders • • • Yet the ideatha t the t rag ic poet was ~ e s p o n s i b l efor the sp i r i t of the s ta te cannothave been the orig inal conception ofhis function: for the agf of Pis i s t r a tus thought of poetry pUTely as a thingto be enjoyed. I t was created by thet ragedies of Aeschylus: it was Aeschylus

whom Aristophanes conjured up from thelower world as the only man who couldreca l l poetry to i t s t rue function.4

Let us for a moment consider a passage from A r i s t o p h ~the opinion of a man who, whatever else may be said fo r or agains

him, was fa r from a foo l and who xnew the Athenian people to per

fect ion. In :bis .J:I'rogs the comedian is regaling us with a debate

Aesch:;lus and Euripides, in the course of which the for-

'ner, in chiding his r iva l for present:tns s in on the stage, s a y ~I t was t rue , r igh t enough; but the poet

should hold such a t ru th enveloped inmystery,

And not present it or make it a play.I t ' s his duty to teach, and you know i t .

As a child learns from a l l who may come

in his way, so the grown world learnsfrom the poet .

Oh, wor ds of good counsel s:10uld flow frmahis voice. 5

lere we have an expl ic i t expression of the purpose and even the

~ u t y of the t rag ic poet and tha t put in to the mouth of Aeschylus

i m s e l f . I t is Signif icant tha t for a l l his ra i l ing a t Aeschylus

45Jaeger, 238, 245.

Aristopr..t?nes. Frop:s l O f ) ~ ~ l D f i R T r a n s T , ~ U T ' T ' O V



57

does not so much as attempt to deny the t ru th of the4 '

statement, a thing ~ 1 . e surely would have done, did not

statement represent the t rue opinion of the Athenian people.

At th is point it might be objected that although the

nind of Aristophanes seems clear e n o u & ~ as to the fac t tha t Aes

was a rel igious teacher, that op'lnion Is not of excessive

V'eight. The fac t is that the opinion of Aristophanes is of con-

iderable weight. The Progs gained the f i r s t prize" an outcome

•b.ardly conceivable i f the author had misrepresented so gigantic

~ f igure in Greek culture as Aeschylus to tha t drr'<.!i1atist's own

3.udience. Aristophanes was not so short-sighted as to r i sk his

~ h a n c e s of Victory by a misrepresentation of the Father of Trag-

3dy, nor were the Athenian people so obtuse as to f a i l to notice

rnd resent sucL a misrepresentation.

We can scarcely deny" then, that Aeschylus was a teach

~ r of Greece. Indeed, Haigh himself , by a f ine i l l og ica l i ty , pr'0

~ l a ims tha t function of Aeschylus:

The work which Aeschylus se t himselfto perform, as a moral teacher, wasto re00ncile the popular re l igion wi ththe more advanced conceptions of hist ime, by purifying i t s grossness andharmonising i t s various inconsis tencies

• • • Few 'fiil1 deny tha t in hi shandsthe re l igion of the Greeks ~ a s beenra ised to a higher level Gf moral digni t ; l than i t ever at ta ined before ofsince.

The f i rx t point to be noticed inregard to his re l igious views i s thesublime conception of Zeus as thesupreme ru ler of the universe. 6 .

he proponent, of the solut ionwe

are opposing himself proclaims

bHaigh, 87.

,...



58

tha t the outstanding point to be noted in the moral and re l igiou.'eaching of Aeschylus is his sublime conception of Zeus. As a

teacher the poet would cer ta in ly want to inculcate above a l l his

prime doctr ine-- the sublimity of Zeus. To portray a Zeus, harsh

and unjust , and allow the matter to hang thus in the a ir because

"'?swept off his fee t by a story would be an act of u t te r se l f -

contradiction by Aeschylus, a contradict ion, note, not in mere

fac t , in which any man may s l ip , but in principle , in fundanenta

and most important principle. Such w O ~ ~ d be the ac t of a fool.

Aesch,;lus was not a fool . The very laws of reason demand a fur

ther solution which wil l reconcile his cer ta in function as a

consis tent teacher with the apparent contradict ion in a double

presentation of his most important tenet .

Again, i t might be argued against the "good story"

solut ion tha t in another play Aeschylus is most careful to gloss

over the undesirable picture of Zeus handed down by mythology an

~ o paint instead the glowing picture of a savior . The 10 of the

~ u p p l i a n t s is the Sar:1e 10 as in the Prometheus l3ound" but what·1\

kiif ference in the presentation of her case. In the former she is

~ h e thr ice-blessed mate of Zeus, in the l a t t e r , the houhded heifer

tnaid, victim of the godls passion. Aescrjll1S in the Suppliants

~ b o v e a l l presents his noble conception of Zeus. There he i s

peeking to purify the ancient myth in accordance with his teach-

ng profession. 7 In the Prometheus Bound the myth has a n o t ~ A rfunction, one opposed to that in the Suppliants but equally in

accord with the same teaching profession.

We are told tha t i t is a mistake to look for any solu-

7purify: tha t i s , bring closer to the common concept of morali tyt ~ ~ ~ o n c e p t of Zeus.



60

not at t r ibu te to the rea l Zeus what was intended merely as a.'epresentat ion of some other person or thing. Ei ther the a l l e

gory had to be evident or i t fa i led , tha t much i s clear from the

very nature of the case. The audience in the theatre was, af ter

a l l , a very heterogeneous group; r ich and poor were there, br i l -..,l i an t and dul l , farmer and ar t isan. I f the purpose of the play

wright was not to be f rustra ted, morally a l l of those people

would have to perceive the al legory, fOl i f they did not perceiv

i t , they would in te rpre t Zeus as joust exactly what the poet did

Inot wantthem

to interp:eet hj.m as, inconsistent with theZeus

they knew from the other Aeschyle an dra'nas. j:l'urther, the audi-

ence had not only to perceive the aJ.legory, but i t had to perceiv

it immediately as the play prosressed, making s t i l l fur ther de

mands on i t s being evident . 'rhat any allegory of the Prometheus

!Bonnd, beyond certain basic natural Similar i t ies , i s as evident

as is called fo r by the exigencies of the tj_mes Rnd persons in -

iTolved i s open to very serious question, i f nQt to categorical ' "

denial .

The cr i t i c of aYl al legor ica l in t erpreta t i on of 3...."ly

piece of l i te ra ture f inds hLns e lf in a di f f i cu l t posi t iona In

~ h e absence of any worth-while evidence in our spectf ic case-

ndeed, i f there were any evidence, the matter would hardly be

i sputed-- the play, al legor ica l ly , i s an open question. Neither

I-he cr i t i c nor anyone else in a time as remote as ou.rs from the

ate of composition of the play can def in i te ly say tha t the poet

id or did not have an aJ.lcgory in mind, or tha t , i f he did, it

as th is one ra ther than that one. I t i s th i s circumstance, th is

ut t e r freedom of enterj)riseJ

tha t makes the fie1d nf a l l e ~



61

such a Garden of Eden to the hard-pressed commentator, for i f.'nly he make some ef for t to keep his imagination within the

bounds of probabi l i ty , there is no one who can categorical ly rul

out any theory, pet or otherwise, he may see f i t to present .

' J r i t ics may frown, shake the i r heads, write a r t i c l e s , but a l l

tha t they can say or do comes down ul t lmatay, in , as has been

sa id , the absence of evidence, simply to t h i s : opinion, conjec-

tu re , persuasion. I t seems fa i r ly c o r f u ~ o n for the greater l ights

•of c lass ica l scholarship to re j ec t an al legor ica l in terpre ta t ion

that i s not propped and buttressed b j the l!lOst weighty argurnents

Such a constancy, in the face of the cont inual l..1!'gings of the

al legor i s t s , i s not only laudable, i t i s reasonable. The basis

of such persevering re jec t ion seems to be the principle tha t he

mho : f i r s t asser ts a propos:ttion to be true must, if he would

have : t t accepted, prove i t . And jus t there , in the proof, i s

Iwhere so many a l legor ies , and, spec i f ica l ly , those based on the

Prometheus :Cound, break down, for no matter how well the i r a u t l : : » r

Ihave f i t ted and dove-ta i led a l l the loose ends so tha t the net

tresult i s , subject ively , a joy to behold, t ~ , e y cannot f i t or

p.ove-tai 1 the one thing es s enU aI, the proof. Vhereupon the

~ r e l ' 1 t p!'cponderance of scholars sinply rei 'use to accept the f ru i

of the alle2:;ori s t I s l a bors . A ll of whic;'-l is neatly sU1!Ll1ed up in

",he time-honored Scholast ic aure1Lm dictum: quod gra t i s asser i tur ,

brat is negatur.

By way of i l l us t ra t ion we may br ie f ly c i te two of the

Iil legorie8 applied to the Prometheus bound by well meanine

~ r i t ers . E.G. B.arman in hi s The Prometheus bound of Aeschylus8

f:3Uarman. v-15. passim.



62

informs us f i r s t of a l l t ha t the play i s not par t of a t r i l ogy ;

then, tha t poin t se t t l ed to h is s a t i s J a c t i o n , he proceeds to th

unvei l ing of the masterpiece . Zeus, it seems, i s the Athenian

; ~ ' e m o s , foo l i sh , capr ic ious , pass iona te , and i r r e s i s t i b l e . Pro-

fletheuR--and here i s a master-s t roke of sympathet ic in te rp re ta t i c

- - i s AeschJlus himse l f , wi ttL some r e f e ) ~ e n c e to Aris t ides . .ine

Ifoolish marriage w h i c ~ l i s to br ing about the ru ina t ion of Zeus i s

Iof course , the "marriage" of Athens w i t ~ the sea , her abandoning

!vhe land, t ha t i s , fo r a nav9.1 empire. The gods of the play are

vhe Athenians ind iv idua l ly , while the Ti tans can be nothing else

Ivhan the old Eupatr ' id par ty , might i ly f a l l en from the good o ld

flays. Nee'.lles s to say, the elaborat j on of th i s a l legory was a

I'-abor moderately f u t l l e , fo r , cont rary to th e genera l pra.c t ice o

~ l l good a l legor ie s , it i s defec t ive in the very poin t on which

~ h e whole conf l i c t of the drama tu rns . In t ~ l e play Prometheus

s adamant even to tbe poin t of near-Ciestruct ion in h is r e f usa l

IVO r evaa l t ha t it i s ~ r h e t i s who i s to brinG fo r th a son m i g h t i ~h hi i 'llh e 11 h f i f th.- an . s s re . a egory, l y a ne sense 0 e congruous,

raakes Aeschylus not only will inG but eager , eager to the extan t

pf writ5.ng a p l a ~ T and present ing it a t the Great Dionysia , to re

e a l to the Demos the "secre t " of the marriage with the sea . Thu

~ h e s i tua t ion i s exact ly reversed as between Zeus and Prometheus

n the ~ r 1 a y and in the a l l ego ry : in th e one Zeus i s s t r iv ing

s.main to ex to r t the sec re t from Prometheus, in the)other Prometheu

s s t r iv ing equal ly amain to force t h a t sec re t on Zeus. Bad a l-

~ e g o r i c a l pra c t i c e - - tha t much may be sa id in genera l .

Louise A. Matthaei furn i shes us with another example o



63

the a l legor ica l a r t . rlloY's" she also furnishes us with a cr i t ica.'st imate of her effort" and thus be a happy economy we may pre-

sent and re jec t in the words of the wri ter herse l f her theory:

Prometheus and 10 are the Activ i t iesand the Endurance of Man" and theconf l ic t between them and Zeus i s ,broadly speaking" the c ~ n f l i c t ar is ingwhen the mind of a man contemplatesthe order he sees around h i ~ - - P r e s e n t

oCircumstance. ;;;;

And in her Introduction: "Indeed" in t l ~ essay on the Prometheus•

of Aeschylus, I have possibly gone to 0 far in d cscr i bing the

issue as almost abstract ."IO I t was no doubt with jus t such

effor ts in nind tha t the celebrated ?rench scholar Iii. Patin wrot

Nous n'en chercherons pas, nous l lavonsdeja dj. t" 1 l i n t € f r ~ t , la beautJ" dans lesin terpre ta t ions ou historique ou allEf-goriques qulon en a donnees en s i grandnombre. }!Ol:S b l ~ e r o n s r.Ie'me Andrieux • •• d 'avoi r appeJe' alle 'gorie ce qul i l e1lt

mieux nomme la morali te de l ' ouvrage . l l

A th i rd and f ina l solut ion of the problem of the con-,..

t radictory Zeus of Aeschylus which we sha l l consider in t h i s

phapter i s tha t which would have us believe tha t , af te r a l l ,

Ithere :t s no contrad ic t i on, because the Zeus of the Prometheus

~ o u n d " although, it must be. confessed, somewhat severe, is the

same jus t and sub11;',e monarch as we have in the other plays of

Jur dramatis t . A ser ies of excerpts from Wecklein wil l serve,

petter than any other device, to bring out the sa l ient points of

",his solut ion:

~ ~ a t thae i , 22.

f- Ib id . v i.Ipat in , I , 285.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-aeschylean-concept-of-the-supreme-deity 68/86..

But the day of l icense, of independentact ion, i s past ; e'lery ·one has now his . 'al lot ted and his prescribed function• •• So Prometheus's wil fu l infr ingement of the new system, must needs beseverely punished ••• l t h o u g h Prometheus knowa of the benef i t tha t wil l

accrue to him from Zeus's pursui t of10, i . e . , his own d e l i v ~ r a n c e ) nevert h ~ e s s passion s t i f l e ~ in him a l lsober thought; he sees in the act ofZeus nought but a wanton outrage, andhis indlgnation and th i r s t fo r vengeancepas s a l l bounds. r:J.1he neasure of hi sgui l t is fu l l ; he u t t e r ~ a speech ofdefiance and abuse which Zeus can nolonger overlook. lliermes, sent to de

mand revela t ion of the vauntedsecre t]

is dj.smissed with insu l t and mockery,8 . J . l c . ~ his threats are now fu l f i l le ' i .• •

Pro:w;;theus is hurled into the abyssesof the earth and h is insolent speechi s s t i f led ••• So long as the Prometheus bound was considered by i t s e l f ,as a single play, and i t s inner connect ion wi til the Prometheus Unbound wasdisregarded, it was gravely misunderstood. Tte fac t of Zeus's jus t ice and

rec t i tude , placed by the poet in thebackground, was easi ly overlooked;

64

Prometheus's specious pleas , readi ly ~awakening our sympathy and our in te res t ,obscured the rea l and fundamental idea.I t was meant tha t Aeschylus intended todepict in Zeus the cruel , passionate,arb i t rary tyrant ; in Prometheus, thepat tern of a t rue fr iend of hu.'11anity••• The poet has depicteu Prometheus's

revol t with admirable sk i l l . Hls spec-ta tors believed as f irmly as himself inthe wisdom and jus t ice of Zeus; henei ther could no:n would decej.ve themby le t t ing these-qual i t ies be f o r t hemoment obscured • • • The seeming gui l tof Zeus i s only a cevice of the poet ,and serves in the end to convince Pro-metheus and the re s t of the world tha tZeus from the outset has been wise and

jQst, though a severe and high-handedru ler . 12

, () , 'z. . , /I 1 C 1 n T +. Q 1 ,.. ~ m i Yl . ... ..



65

Such i s the i n t e rp re t a t i on , l a rge ly forced and a t.'imes , as has been i t a l i c i z ed , cont rad ic to ry . t ha t those who hol

one lo rd . one Zeus in Aeschylus must needs f a l l back upon. I t i

no t necessary here to repea t the numerous t ex t s c i t ed in the

cha.pter preceding th i s which, eve ryone , contradi c t the t ~ e ( ' I 1 " ; -

rropos ed by. ieckle in and others .13 While it i s per fec t ly t rue .

and in th i s we cannot log ica l ly di ssen t from the pos i t ion of

those authors , tha t "Aeschyl 'Js was a d ~ p l y r e l ig ious man, and

the bel ief ,which pervades a l l h is poetry . t ha t Zeus i s an eterna

r igh teous , al l -powerful ru l e r of th e universe . must sure ly have

been dominant in t h i s t r i logy as else','!here,tt1 4 none the l e s s we

f ind it necessary to search out another explanat ion, one which,

wr.ile not dis to r t ing the evident i n t en t ion of the Prometheus

Bound . wi 11 a t the same t i u l t imate ly preserve tl:le author IS

idea of a snpreme . subli '1e Zeus. \Vhat th:::.t i:;heory l s it sha l l b

the work of the next chapter to expose.

!l-<:lE.,8, ... F. Plais towe &, ']'1. 11il ls . Aeschylus Prometheus lTinctus.London . UniverSity Tuto r ia l Press . Ld ... 1911 .. 14.

~ 4 w e c k l e i n , 14.



·'CHAPTER VI

SOLUTION OF 'l'HE PROBLEM: II. THE PROGRESSIVE ZEUS

We have seen in the p r e c e d i n ~ chapter three of the fou

common solut ions of the problem of the contradictory Zeus of Aes

chylus. We have seen, fur ther , tha t these solutions are unac-•eptable. 'l'here remains, then, fo r our considerat ion another

solut ion, a fourth and f ina l one, tha t which ca l l s fo r a progres

sive Zeus. I f we accept tha t solution--and we do- - i t i s for us

to jclstify Ol'r stand in the following pages, to j , is t ify i t , in

the absence of other evidence, by what we can gather from the

Prometheus bOillld i t s e l f and from such fragments of the Prometheu

Jnbo',lnd as remaln to us. I f we cannot succeeu In jus t i fy ing our

pOSition, then our work, whatever else may be saiO fo r or agains

i t , L1as been negative, that i s to say, it has advanced us toward

the true solut i on by the ind i r ect method of showing tDC inept iMe

pf other solut lons, not by the posit ive method of building up a

~ u c c e s s f u l exposit ion of our own views.

One of the f i r s t wri te rs in English to present the idea

)f a progres8ive Zeus was J .T. Sheppard. de says in his Greek

Praeedy:

• • • he [ A e s c h ~ l u : i J concei ved, wi thnoble audaCity, of a progressive Uod.Zeus h i ~ s e l f i l l ~ s t r a t e s the law " tha tthe path of learnlng is throliE:h suffering." i[e was once a t war with r igh t ,a t war with f a te ; he i s now ident i f ied

with riGhteousness, subject no doubtto fa te , yet ident i f ied with fa te ,

66



s ince what he '!:Tills is now the e f f o r t -l e s s harmony. The h i ~ t o r y of re l ig ionseems to show t h a t Aeschylus has l iGhtedupon a profound poe t ica l t r u th . 'rhet ru th i s indeed poe t i ca l , and it i s id leto atteY'lpt to square the Aeschylean Zeuswith l og ic ; as in the case of 10, sohere , the j u s t i f i ca t i on of Zeus i s inpoetry and emot:ton, not to be expressedin sy l log i s t i c argument ",,').

.'

I

';lore recen t ly Paul Mazon, the tmde e'::litor of Aeschylus , has

~ r i t t en :

•a lexon morale qui s len degageai t l eu rappara i s sa i t plus t $ t e t plus net tement .

, I

La t r i l o g i e des Promethees ense igna i t

aux hommes que Ie dieu de jus t i0e n l e t a i tdevenu j11ste qulau bout de long s i J c l e s ;ses p r e m l ~ e s violence avaient , en provoquant d1autres vio lence , r e t a r d ilongtemps la r ~ g n e de Ie ~ a i x ; par l acle'mence seule il avai t 1() btenu l a 80U -

miss ion du dern ie r revc"':"''c,{. C ~ t a i td i r e : l a j t i . s t ice, a. l aquel le asp i ren tle s hommes, n Ie s t pas une puj. ssanee /qui ex i s t e en dehors dleux, pre' te a r e -

pondre a l eu r premier appel ; c l e s t ae u x - m ~ e s q u ' i l appar t i en t de l a f a i r ematt re e t c;rD.P.dir, en elL"{ 00:c'lme autourdleux, par un pa t i en t apDrentissafre de

6 k / 0

l a ver tu s u ~ r e m e , l a sage moderatj .on, l aG ' U I ~ P O ( j \ J V 1 ) , a qui Zeus 1ui : : " { l ~ m e doi t avoi renf in e t a b l i l a paix dan l ' 0 lympe e td o n n ~ aux hommes l ' e s p o i r dlun r ~ b n e d ' d t -e rne l l e e'qui tee 2

Such, then , in broad out l ine , i s the theory of the

67

progress ive Zeus, a de i ty harsh a t f i r s t in harsh t imes and whil

insecure upon h_is throne , but one who, with the passage of_ t ime

and the gair:-ing of exper jence , sees the e r ro r of h is former ways

and emerges the su::!reme being with whom we beco:ne acquainted in

I J . T. Sheppard. Greek ' l 'ragedy. Cam br idge , li. t the Univers i tyPress , 1911, 62.

2Mazon, I , 158-159.



68

IL-he Suppl i an t s •

That the Zeus of the Prometheus Bound i s a ty ran t the r

ban be no doubt . "V'le l ea rn t h i s , " says Thomson, "froB h is own

tn in ls ters , who are proud of it, from Prometheus, who denounces i

If'rom the Oceanids, 'who deplore i t , and from Oceanus, who i s r e -

signed to it. "3 In the very opening l ines of the play Power bid

16p]":,aestus clamp Pro::nethe'.ls to the h ieh-beet l img crags " tha t so

~ e r.'lay be taught to suf fe r the tyranny of Zeus. "4 Again somewha

•a t e r we f ind the t y r an t idea r ecur r ing : I I Such was the pro f i t

~ h a t the t y ran t of the bods rece ived a t my hands and wi th these

e v i l pangs does he r equ i t e me. rr5 Oceanus counsels adap t ab i l i t y :

"Iillow yourse l f and adapt yoursel f to new ways; fo r new, too , i s

the t y r an t of the gods. u6 Or aga tn : "Taking me, then , as your

teacher , do not k ick aga ins t ' the goad, s e e ~ n g t ha t a harsh mon

arch now holds sway, responsib le to none."7 In h i s rep ly to the

~ r g i n g s of Oceanus Prometheus r e fe r s to the a s s a ~ l t of Typho on

the tyranny of Z O U 8 : ttAnd from h is eyes there shone fo r th a tett-

r i b l e gla re , as thol1gh to a s s a i l by force the tyranny of Zeus."S

In descr ibing h is t o r tu res to 10 Prometheus dec la res :

'But now no term of mT'J woes i s s e t , till Zeus be cas t out from

J.is tyranny.u9 And 10 i nqu i res : "At whose hand s h a l l he be de

pri ved of the scep t re of tyra..YJ.ny?ltlO Later Prometheus announces

~ T h o m s o n , 6.

Pr .B. 10. Unless otherwise indicated references are to t h i s playm!3-225.~ 3 1 1 - 3 1 2 .32,"1-326.

358-359.

355-756.761



69

the en t ry of her.nes wi th "But I see the messenger of Zeus, the

.,'servant of our new tyr£t I l t ." l l It w i l l haixe been observed t h a t

in a l l but one of the e igh t passages j u s t c i t ed the Greek word

i S 7 ~ f c : 4 V V ' o s or some cognate of i t . Even authors who do not agree

wi th the pr'esent sb lu t ion are forced to admi t , whatever t he i r..

theor ies" t h a t it looks , a t l e a s t , as thovgh Aeschylus wanted to

por t ray Zeus as a ty ran t in the Prometheus Bound.

In view of the somewhat e x t e ~ d e d t r ea tment accorded th

Zeus of t h i s play irl ictn e a r l i e r chapter we I1ay conten t ourse lves

with j u s t a few c1 t a t ions from the pl&i to r e c a l l the pr inc ipa l

ideas there presented. Zeus i s harsh : "UevcQl to us on what

score Zeus Las taken Y0l.:.. and out rages you so shamef'ully and bi t -

t e r ly . "12 Or in tile passaGe quoted above in regard to the ty ran

Illy of Zeus: "Takin s me, then , as your t eacher , do not k i ck agains

the goad, seeing t h a t R harsh monarch now holds sway, respons ib l

to none."13 Zeus i s a law unto himse l f : "For the re are new

"'lelmsmen of the 01yn1pian sh ip , and wi th newly-devi sed laws ZeuS-

~ o v e r n s a r b i t r a r i l y ; a n ~ . l what t h i l 1 [ ~ s were powerful in olden t ime

1e nov' renders va in . "14 Or: " I know t h a t Zeus i s harsh and keep

~ u s t i c e in h is own : 'lands. tt 15 Again: IIFor Zeus, ru l ine thus

rarsh ly by laws of h i sow n d c:vi s j n 8 , at splays to the anci en t. , "~ o d s an ar rogant s p i r i t . " ... o Zeus i s susp ic ious of h is f r i ends :

Thus did the t y ran t of the gods prof:!. t a t my bands and wi th thes

~ 9 4 1 - 9 4 2 .196-198.

3324-326.4148-151.

5189-190.6403-406.



70

c ruo l p:<,ngs he has reqil i ted me. For t he re i s somehow t h i s d i s -

ease in tyranny, t ha t it does no t t r u s t i t s f r i ends . " 17 Zeus i s

implacab le : tflvlany a groan and f r u i t l e s s wai l sh a l l you gi iTe i 'orth

fo r the hear t of Zeus i s hard. n18 "For unyie ld ing i s tbe chs.r

ac te r of Cronus ' s son and h is b.eart i s hardened aga ins t every...

plea ."19 Or in t h i s l i t o t e s : lIyou w i l l not persuade Zeus; fo r h

i s not easy to persuade . n20

The p i c t u r e , then , of Zeus in the Prometheus Bound i s

•not prec ise ly f l a t t e r i n g . fu t ne i the r does Aeschylus presen t

u.s wi t}\ an impeccable Prometheus. The Chorus of t:he Daughters

of Oceanus, fo r a l l t he i r f r l end l iness towards the ' l ' i tan, f ee l

pons t ra ined to t e l l hLn thee and aGain t ha t he ~ l a s gone too f a r

lin contravening th e wi l l of Zeus, t ha t h is vaunt ing speech i s

much too t rucu len t , tha t they CEnnot approve of h is a t t i t ude , i n

~ p i t e of t h e i r f I ' i e n d ~ : - ~ i p towards him. Oceanus, whom Prometheus

sees f i t to t r e a t with po l i te di sdain , a l so advises him to 8.batehis fu ry and of fe r s to take the p a r t of a peace commission from

....

uhe Ti tan to Zeus. Eermes, whorl Prometrleus gree t s with " lackey

~ f thE: gods ," i s a t f i r s t very f u l l of counse l of reasoned sub-

~ i s s i o n , which i s , of course , most scornfu l ly re jec ted . ' pro-

metheus himself i s cons t ra ined to admi t , a t l e a s t on one occasic

t ha t he i s not wholly without f a u l t ; the Oceanids, in seeking to

persuade him to abate h is wrath , ask : "Do you not see that ,You

have s inned 1" To which the rri t an ' s rep ly i s : "I understood wel l

17223-227.1833-34.19137-188.

2°335.



71

a l l Thhe cons q u e n c e ~ . J:t'reel:y, aye , f ree ly , did I s in , there.'s no denying i t . u21 And in th is s in , in his stubborn pride,

Prometheus is hurled into the depths of the earth.

'I'hus the play ends in something of a deadlock, al thoug

clear ly , the grea ter wrong is on the side of Zeus. The ru le r of

l'rrlplacable t y r a n t ~ the champion of mankindhe gods i s a harsh, . ,

i s gl.'il ty of stubborn pride . Both are d i s eased. The wrath of

Zeus is a disease; the unres t ra in t of Prometheus i l ' l a disease ••he metaphor, carrying i.vi th it the hope of a cure to come, recur:

again and again throughout the play.22 Of the many loc i ci ted

Thomson we give four . As quoted above in reference to the sus

picion in ~ t i c h Zeus holds his f r iends: uFor there i s somehow

th is disease in tyranny, tha t it does not t rus t i t s fr iends ."24

Oceanus, str iving to persuade Prometheus to accept his good of

f'ices as mediator, says: "Do you not know tha t words a.re the

!Physicians of a diseased temper?"25 The Ohorus half-sympathizes

jlvith, half-admonishes the ']litan: "Deserted by your wits you h a ~wandered. off , and l ike a poor physician taken by some di sease,

trou are disheartened and cannot find what nostrtLms to apply. If 26

s the play draws to i t s close we find a f ina l reference. Pro-

.etheus has jus t proclaimed to Hermes his hatred of the gods Who,

having receivel good a t his hands, were requiting him w i t ~ evi l .

lIermes breaks in : I I I hear you, diseased with no Blight madness."

~ ~ 2 6 1 - 2 6 2 , 267-278.2 3 T a ~ e n f r o ~ T h o ~ s o n , l lor

I b ~ d . , 11. Pr.D. 251, 386-387, 597-598, 604-607, 632-633, 685-

686, 698-699. '"-24226-227.

22)§379-380.; O L L t 7 ~ A"'"



72

To whi0h Prometheus rep l ies : "Diseased? aye, i f disease i t be.'o hate one's foes. u27 This f igure of disease, so ins is ted upon

in the f i r s t play of the t r l logy , would have i t s natura1 working

out in the form of a cure in the subsequent plays. I t is t rue ,

and to asse r t the opposite would be fu t i l e , tha t we have no

f r a g ~ e n t s from the Prometheus Unbound to bear out expl ic i t ly our

contention tha t th is metapnor was carr ied out and developed in

the remainder of the t r i logy , but the f,;;Lgure of disease in Greek

l i te ra ture i s a common one, one which i s resolved in ei ther one

of two ways: ei ther the disease proves f a ta l and he inwhom it

iruleres i s destroyed, or i t is cured and he upon whom it has

preyed comes to the fulness of his perfect ion, be that perfectio

human or divine.

Another point in which we may foresee the intent ion of

Aeschylus i s given as in the large numher of texts which t e l l us

and keep callinG to 0-:;;'1':' at ten t ion tha t the power I)f Zeus i s new.

It i s the opinion of the dramati s t - -and, 1.ndeed, the maj ori ty df

Plen would a2:ree, for it has been amply borne out by his tory-

the.t one Who i s but recent ly possessel of power, one who has

~ i s e n by violence from a subordinate to a supreme posi t ion, i s

pnly too prone to harsh and arb i t ra ry domination. The resul t is

tha t anyone who t rans8resses the wi l l of the master i s made to

f'eel the fu l l force of tha t master 's new power. That such, is the

~ e u s of the Prometheus B01Jnd i s borne out by an imposing series

pf t ex t s . "The hear t of Z e l H ~ i s hard, for everyone i s harsh

Ivhose power i s new. lf28 "Such is the unseemly bond tha t the new



73

[a r sha l l e r of the Blessed has discovered fo r me." 29 "For new.'ords re ign in heaven and Zeus with new-devised laws holds a rb i -

t r a ry sway.,,30 tI ••• adapt yourse l f to new ways, fo r new, too,

i s the t y ran t anong the gods. lf31 Prometheus warns Olleanus l e s t

the l a t t e r I s la.."11enting of h is pl igh t gain hi' 'l enmity "wi th him

ew-seated on his a l l -powerfu l throne;4t32 "Young you are , and

01mg your power, and you th ink to inhabi t bat t lements beyond th

each of gr i e f . 1f33 tlDo you th ink , fo rsoo th , t ha t I t remble and

uai 1 before these new gods?1f34 NOB it t h i s convict ion of Aes

hylus t ha t new power i s harsh power nne a s s u r n e ~ merely fo r the

omposJ t ion of the Prometheus; r a t he r it i s with him a f ixed

r i nc ip l e . Thus we f ind in the Agamemnon, fo r example: If. • •

here i s much reason fo r thankfulness in having masters of ancie

e a l th ; fo r those who, beyond the i r hope, reap a f u l l ha rves t ,

re c rue l i n a lL ways to t he i r s laves and beyond a l l measure ." 3

This emphasis on the newness of Zeus 's power i s anothe

means our poet takes to poin t to a fu r the r development in t ha t,...

de i ty . tiRe i s displaying to us ," says Thomson, " the world , no t

as it i s now, but as it was in the beginning. In tbe course of

a.ges, taught by exper ience the adversa r ies w i l l be reconciled. , ,3

h is gain ing in knowledge through exper ience Aeschylus c lea r ly

s t a t4s in severa l p laces . 'rhus when the Chorus i s seeking to

i s suade Prometheus from too reck less an ut te rance l e s t the in -

996-97.

0148-150.1311-312.2391.3955-956.4959-960.5!g. 1043-1045.6Tliomson, 11.



74

exorab1e Zeus" with hear t hardened agains t entrea ty , fur ther.'las t hi:n, the Ti tan rep l ies tha t he knows Zeus to be harsh and

a dealer in arb i t rary j '(mtice, "but none t..he l ess he shal l one

~ a y be softened in h:ts judgment ••• and then" cooling his s tub

~ o r n wrath, he sha l l a t length join eagerly in pact and f r iendIship with me" no le ss eager. I I 37 Or a g ~ n, in the exchange be-

!tween Prometheus and,iermes which concludes the play we have a

rOinted reference to the fu ture :

Pr orne tb eus :Hermes:

Prometheus:

AlasJflAlas"? That is a word notlmown to Zeus.

But aging tlrrle teaches a ~ Sthings m o ~ t effec t ive ly .

Irhat "aging 'rime" should teach Zeus moderation wi th and through

f-he meaning of "Alas" was" no doubt, the devo"t;t wish of Pro

Inetheus. Much in th is same s t ra in i s the re i te ra t ion of th is

~ r e e d of learning by suffering tn two of the plays of the Oreste

1m t r i logY--"ffl£UltL..,LtJ.eo'S 39 ando/04c:r-l V7l... TT.J. 96(11', 40 wb.J.ch appl i ed

~ o Zeus in the mind of Aeschylus" as well as to :nan.

That Zeus actual ly did learn by experience to become,...

!less harsh and arbi t rary i s shown us by the poet in the Pro

metheus Unbound" as much of i t , tha t is" as we can gather from

~ h e ra ther inadequate fragments. This play opens some 30,,000

~ e a r s l a t e r with Prometheus again restored to the l igh t of day

fifter h is long imprisonment underground. The Titan now seems to

be af f l i c ted with a new torment--an eagle which comes every othe

day and tears his Ij.ver. A Chorus of Ti tans" freed by Zeus from

the ir bonds" enter to sympathize with him. After some conver-

37190-195.~ 8 9 7 9 - 9 8 1 .09Ag • 177. 40 r·O.b -T< ")12



75

between the bound Prometheus and tho 'I'i tans" Eeracles" sor

.'f Zeus by one of I ( ) I S l i ne , comeR upon the bound Titan. Hera

i s t r avers ing the ear th overcoming b l t t e r foes and l eaving

monuments of h is explo i t s . '1'0 him, as to h is ances-

10, Prometheus reveals the labors he must yet perform and,;,

hi'1 d i rec t ions fo r : 1 i s journey. Even as he i s descr ibing

he wanderings of h i s ~ i s t e n e r a beatin;s of \1IT.i.ngs i s heard and

he eagle appears . herac les bends h is famous bow and, invoking

•he a id of Apol lo, speeds th e arrow on i t s way. The eagle f a l l a

nd th e Ti tan hai l s h i s de l ive re r as "beloved son of a hated

1t41

The sec r e t which menaces Zeus st5.1l has to be revealed

Prometheus can be re leased fro:n h is tonds . Somehow--the

manner in which the r econc i l i a t ion was ef fec ted i s beyond

someL.ow, a t r e a ty i s conclude:;d. Cer ta in ly ,

concess i ons ':->ave to be made. The name of Ear th , mother of

and the person who revealed to ilL,} the sec re t of Zeus IS

appear 's in the dramat i s personae of the Pl'om.etheus

together with the name of Heracles . Since she do as no t

any par t in t ha t play , i t i s e n t j r e ly reasonable t ha t she

i d have a pa r t , again along with l le rac les , in the second play,

Prometheus Unbound. What t ha t p a r t was we may conjec ture

,...

i th a f a i r degree of probabi l i ty . Doth Zeus and Prometheus were

now cooled of t h e i r wrath . ' rhey were, however, both of them"

on t he i r digni ty . 1'1 ei ther would unbend and t eke the

s tep , though each would gladly have seized upon a ~ y advance

other as more than s u f f i c l e n t grounds fo r r econc i l i a t ion .

201.



·'CHAPTER V II

QJJIBUS DICTIS ••

Conclusi ons a re hard to write:? One has nothing to say ,

has sa id a l l t ha t he cares to : i f the re were more to say , he

not be concluding--and ye t , they must be wrj_ t t e n . Long

•ont inuel custom, it seems, assumes the force of law.

The problem of th e contradic tory Zeus of Aeschylus i s ,

t must be c lea r by n o w , one of some l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y . We have

t i s re l ig ious ly bel i eved , es tab l i shed a t l eas t t ha t poin t . We

have adduced more ex t r ins i c e vidence of the d i f f i cu l ty of

we might, t ha t l s , have quoted A c . ~ : m , Oroise t , Harry,

J:Jorwood, Sheppard, T l 1 o m s o n , v ~ e c k l e i n , and a hos t of

too n l l i ~ e r o u s to mention a n ~ w h e r e but in a bibl iography, to

he e f fec t tha t the problem we se t ou.rselves in under taking the ....

0puscul1L.-rn i s not an easy one. It was decided to throw

t h i s ex t r ins i c crutch and allow the d i f f i cu l t y to s tand, if

on i t s own l eg s . I t has done a t .cleast t h a t . In f a c t ,

eading through these pages again , we become more and mOI'6 aware

d i s t inc t ly t rampled-upon f ee l i ng . The d i f f i cu l ty does not

eed a cru tch . I t n e e ~ s shackles .

It has been our at tempt to reconci le what are , a t f i r s t

lush, i r r econc i l ab l e - - t he Zeus of the Prometheus bound and the

eus of th e remaining s ix extant plays . Vii th. in t roduc tory and

mater ia l disposed of, we se t t l ed down to the de l inea -

77



78

of - the orthodox Zeus of the s ix plays . We found him to be.'e sup:oreme ru l e r of the universe , j u s t , noble , benevolent . Our

of the Zeus of the Prometheus 00und produced some

a t d i __ f f e re n t r e s u l t s , d i f f e r e n t to the poin t of cont rad ic t ion ,

r Zeu.J:l.S i s engaged in a cont inu:us s t ruggle to mainta in h:ts un. •

th::Arone, he i s unjus t , he i s ungra te fu l , he i s harsh . 'ii:i th

e con Jl t radi c t i on thus c lea r ly e s tab l i shed, we under took to pre

d : l l scuss , and r e j ec t tb..ree common l o lu t ions of the problem

f . - i r s t of Wllich would solve the d i f f i cu l ty by saying tha t

did not solve it, t ha t he ViaS s1mply t aking the s to ry ,

s of its cons eqllences; the second would have us see in

e ProI.met.heus Bound anyone of numerous a l l egor l es , po l i t i c a l

d 11Or.-al; and the t h i rd , whi ch sees in Zeus of the play exac t ly

e samne dei ty as i s seen by a l l in the other p lays , not a d i f -

much l e s s a cont rad ic tory , Zeus a t a l l .

A ll of which brought us to our own sOlut ion-- t lour own",...

an a .....dopt i ve, not in a paren ta l sense . 'llhe theory of a pro-

...e Zeus seems to be of a l l so lu t ions presen ted , the most

_ble . 'rlhe so lu t i on i s not per fec t nor have we 8. tterrlpted

por t : . r ay : i t as such. But in view of the pi t j_ful ly meager re -

o: . f the othe r two plays of the t r i logy which scholarship

s beeI n able to sa lvage , it i s , in our opinion, the bes t , and

bo- · th pos i t ive ly and nega t ive ly . Cl'hat is to say, it answers

qU._6stions with every appearance of t r u t h than does any othe

s a n d thus bu i lds up the best explaJ1at ion based on Given

a and it answers more objec t ions aga ins t i t s e l f than does

y othe er theory. The one obvious objec t ion which it does not



80

.'IBLIOGRAPIIY

Adam, James. The Religious Teachers of Greece. Edinburgh,

T. & T. Clark, 1923. -

Aeschyli Septem Quae Supersu..'1t Trago'irdiae. Recensui t GilbertuMurray. Oxonii, E Typographeo Clarendoniano, MDOOOC-XXXVII.

Aeschylus. Ed. Herbert W. Smyth. Loeb. 2 vols . London, William Reinemann Ltd. , 1922. •

Aristophanes. Frogs.

Aris tot le . Poetics.

Browne, S.J . , Eenry. Handbook of Eomeric Study. London, Longmans, Green, & Co., 190E7

campbell, Lewis. A Guide to Greek ' r r a g e d ~ l . London, Percival& Go., 1891.

Croiset , Alfred e t Itaurice.Tome Troisi8me, par

Libraires T ~ o r i n e t

Eistoire de la Li t te ' rature G r e c q u eMaurice C:r'oiset. Par is , Anci:annes

Fontemoing, 1935.

Eschyle. 2 ,Ed. Paul Mazon. BudEf. 2 tOTIes. Paris , Societe ...D'Edit ion "Les Belles Lettres,U 1931.

Fairbanks, Arthur. A Handbook of Greek Heligion. New York,American booK Co., 1910-.-

Gildersleeve, Basil . Pindar, the Olympian and Pythian Odes.New York, Harper &, BrotFi"ers Publis}j.ers, 1899.

Hack, Roy. God in Greek Philosophy to the Time of Socrates.Princeton, Prine eton univers i ty Pre'S"S"for the :Jni vers i ty of Cincinnati , 1931.

Haigh, A.E. The Tragic D r r u l ~ of the Greeks. Oxford, At theUniversity Olarendon presS;-1896.

j.1amilton, Edith. Tb.e Greek Way. l'Jew York, W.W. Norton & Co.,I n c . ~ 1930.

Harman, E.G. The Prometheus Bound of Aeschjlus. London, Edwqrd Arnold, 1920.



81

Harry, J o s ~ p ~ 1 . . Aeschylus Prometheus. New Yorl{:, A.'11eri4Can BookCo. , 1905.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Greek Tragedy. 2 vo l s . TTew York, Colu.11lb:taUnivers i ty Press , 1933.

Hesiod. ' rheogony. Works and lJays.

Homer. I l i a d . Odyssey.

Jaeger , ~ ; l I e r n e r . Paidei a : The Idea ls of Greek Cul ture . 2Gi lbe r t l-lighet. Oxford, Ba8irLlack. .vel1 , 1939.

Trans

Jevons, Prank. A History of Greek L ~ e r a t " , - l r c . 2 London, CharGri f f in & Co., 18897

McKerrow, Ronald. Prolegomena fo r the Oxford SDakespeare.fo rd , At the Clarendon Pres"S';-'1939.

IIIat thaei , Louise . Studies in Greek Tragedy. Cambridge, At ththe Univers i ty PresS; 1918.

Moul ton , Hichard . '1'he Ancient Class i cal Drama. 2 Oxford, Atthe ClarendO' i lPress , 1898.

1,1urray, Gi lbe r t . A HistorJliof Ancient lfreek Li t e r a tu re . Londo

Will iam HeTnemann L td . , 1897.

Nilsson, Mart in . A lUstory of G-re3k Rel ig ion . Trans . } ' .J .

Oxford, At the Clarendon Press , 1925.i e lden .

Norwood., Gilber t . Greek Tragedy. 20s ton, John Vv. Luce &: Co. ,Inc . , 1928.

Oates , VJhi tney , an,:} « Nel l I , J r . , Eugene. The Complete GreekDrama. 2 vo l s . New ~ : { o r k , t ~ a n d o m .:IOU:-Se, 193(3.

Pa t in , :,1. Etudes su r l e s ;fraglques Grecs. 7 2 tomes.Llbra l r e Haehet te e t Compagnie, 1890.

Par i s ,

Pindar . Odes.

Plais towe, F . , and h: i l l s , T • .Aeschylus Prometfieus Vinctus .London, Univers i ty Tuto r ia l Press , Ld. , 1911.

Pohlenz, Max. Die Griechische Tragodie . LeipZig und Ber l in ,

Verlag und Druck von E.G. Teubner, 1930.

Rose, II . J . A }landbook of Greek Li t e r a tu re . New York, E.P.Dutton &: Co., 1934.



82

Schmid, Wilhelm, und s tah l in , ot to . Geschichte der G r ~ c h i s c h -en Li ta ra uY'. Erster ' : 'eil , von Vi. Scfuiiid.'" Mtlnchen,G:-H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934.

Scott , .John. The Unity of Homer. Berkeley, California , Uni- versi"fjrof' California Press, 1921.

Sheppard, J . T. Aescn:)' Ius and Sophocle s. New ·York, Longmans,Green, and Co., 1 9 ~ "7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Greek Tragedy. Cambridge, At the Universi tyPress , 1911.

Thomson, George. Aeschylus and A t h e n ~ London, Lawrence andWishart Ltd . , 1941.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aeschylus·the Prometheus Bound. Cambridge,At the Universi ty Press , 1932.

Verral l , A.W. The 'Agamemnon' of Aeschylus. London, Macmillan&. Co., 1889.

Wecklein, E. The Prometheus Bound of Ae schylus. Tran s. :F' .D.A l l e n . ~ o s t o n , Ginn & Co.,-rS97. - - - -

the aeschylean concept of the supreme deity

Documents