This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
Recommended CitationDevault, Joseph Joel, "Te Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity" (1943). Master's Teses. Paper 614.hp://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/614
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
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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."
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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 :- -
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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-
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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 .
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
-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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
,...
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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 . ... ..
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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.
7/28/2019 The Aeschylean Concept of the Supreme Deity
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