H
I L LINOI S
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Brittle Books Project, 2012.

COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION
In Public Domain.
Published prior to 1923.

This digital copy was made from the printed version held
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It was made in compliance with copyright law.
Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
by
Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2012

(OI
00.)'

I~I - I I

ullr

II~

b

1

I

I

- II

I

TH-E UNIVERSITY
OF ILLINOIS
LIBRARY

A'2.'r' '

9~1

r

II

Cp
~-

IC

I C~--L

- ~-

~-p-

*--rs I

II -~- I

L~

@
Comparison of

te

dbob3ea&
opiode

Aeabing

a
of eaiyfus nb

A THESIS

FOR THE

octorate in 10bi1osopbp

-BY-

W. WRIGHT FISHER

APPROVED BY

THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE

OF THE

ALNEW

YORK

UNIVERSITY, 1900oo

NEW YORK
1900

SCHOOL

<acE"N

i
1;.a

PREFACE.
IN bringing out this thesis, I wish especially to thank the auo thorities of Columbia University, through whose kindness I have

enjoyed the privileges of the Columbia Classical Library.

My

especial thanks are also due Dr. Ernest G. Sihler for his valuable
aid in proof reading, as well as for the kind and helpful interest he
has taken in my work generally. His recent Seminar lectures at
the New York University on the Epics of Homer gave to my
~ study of Attic Tragedy a new interest, and his first hand treatment of the Homeric gods led me to see more clearly than ever
before what I have strongly felt throughout this study ; namely,
that the words of Herodotus were strictly true so far as popular
b eliefs were concerned, even in the speculative age in which he
wrote of Homer and Hesiod :
obro
oY
,

KaElTic6

d delo rot oavresP
of
GeoovlYLv
TE Kcd
rTEE

T"xvatE &eX

6

Kc1

"EXXot
3

Kac T0OLO

e'ea EaITV

E

T

bTCJVU/lag
'OLOL

B vres

T)(L9Za-vavrE .

Hence, considering that Aeschylus and Sophocles could impart
their teachings only through the types and symbols of the accepted
, Greek bible, whose gods were so far removed even from an approximate ideal of consistent morality, strength, and wisdom, their position in the evolution of rational religion among the Greeks
becomes, if not unique, one of paramount interest to the student.
COLLEGIATE

SCHOOL, N.

Y., March 24, 1900.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
CAMPBELLAND ABBOTT, Sophocles, with Notes.
F. A. PALEY, Aeschylus Tragoediae.

(Oxford, 1886.)

(London, 1879.)

M. PATIN, Etudes sur les Tragiques Grecs.

(Paris, 1890.)

LEWIS CAMPBELL, Religion in Greek Literature. (London, 1898.)
HEINRICH BLOMNER,
Aeschylos.

Uber die Idee des Schicksals in den Tragoedien des

(Leipzig, 1814.)

W. H. ROSCHER, Ausfiihrliches Lexicon der Gr. und Rom. Myth.

(Leipzig,

1884.)
ERNEST CURTIUS, History of Greece, Translated by Adolphus Ward.

(Lon-

don, 1868-70.)
ARTHUR W. VERRALL, Euripides, the Rationalist.

(Cambridge,

1895.)

Edi-

tions of Septem and Ajax.
THEODOR BERGK, Anthologia Lyrica.

(3d Edit., Leipzig, 1883.)

GOTTFRIED BERNHARDY, Geschichte der Griechischen Poesie.
F. T. ELLENDT, Lexicon Sophocleum.
LUDWIG PRELLER, Griechische Mythologie.
K. W. DINDORF, Lexicon Aeschyleum.

(Berlin, 1894.)

(Leipzig, 1876.)

Aeschyl. Tr. Superstites et Soph. Tr. Superstites.

(Leipzig,

1869.)
PETER ELMSLEY, Scholia in Soph. Tragoedias.
C. A. LOBECK, Aglaophamus.
K. F. NAGELSBACH, Die nachhomrerische Theologie.

(Nirnberg, 1857.)

TABLE

ANALYTICAL

OF CONTENTS.
PAGES

INTRODUCTION ........................

.................

.- Io

Eleusis and Colonus viewed symbolically-Theological back-

ground of Sophocles and Aeschylus: Herodotus as mirrrorSketch of our poets' own immediate times and

environment-

The setting for our investigation.
ARGUMENT.....

MAJESTY, AND

TI-46

.............................
....................

(A) COMPARISON OF EPITHETS AS TO DIVINE

POWER, WISDOM,

MYSTERY ..............................

II-2I

General view . In both poets the conceptions are those of the
poet-prophet, though in the case of Sophocles they may partake
more of the poet-artist.
Divine omnipotence specifically examined-Fate is not a separate
power superior to this omnipotence-The Prometheus examined
separately on this point-The Sohpoclean conception comparedWisdom,

majesty, and mystery of God considered separately

and characteristic differences noted-Difference in the treatment
of the Eumenides especially noted: its significance.
(B) PLOTS OF THE TRAGEDIES AS

EVENTS UNDER

GOD ........

General view :.In both poets, events are divinely ordered and
divinely just; but Sophocles sees that calamity is not penalty
alone, but that it has also a chastening and disciplinary effect.
Growth of both poets over the older religious ideas maintained by
Herodotus-Seeming exceptions in Aeschylus examined-Reasonableness and certainty of divine justice in both poets-Difference
in explanations of calamity-Apparent fatalism of AeschylusApparent insinuations at the justice of God examined-In Aeschylus, justice may come to the wrong-doer as a sort of reprisal; yet
also it ever appears as appointed law of Heaven-The efficacy of

21-30

V111

ANALYTICAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS,
PAGES

prayer in bringing justice as conceived by both poets-The difference in their conceptions of retribution-Sophocles midway between Aeschylus and the scepticism of the succeeding age-Aeschylus not wholly blind to disciplinary effects of God's visitations.

iC) THE SEVERAL DIVINITIES ................................

30-40

General statement of differences.
(r) Aeschylus-gloomy powers.
Sophocles-gods of light.
(2) The literalness of the Aeschylean conception of the " Gods
many and Lords many."

Nothing directly antagonistic to this

view in Sophocles; yet he holds " a veil over the central truth."
(3) Monotheistic views show greater growth on the part of
Sophocles.
Specific examination of (I)and (2): Plural forms common to
both poets considered separately.
Ares,

Aphrodite,

Poseidon,

Among these Zeus, Artemis,

Hermes,

Erinyes,

Apollo,

Athena are studied, first in Aeschylus, then in Sophocles.

and
Dif-

ferences stated in (I) and (2) now noted in detail-Greater growth
found in Sophocles-Sophocles' special treatment of Dionysus,
and Aeschylus' special treatment of Demeter characteristic of
the poets.
Special examination of (3)-Aeschylus' conception of Zeus in
the Suppliants specifically examined.

(D)

CONDITION

AFTER....

AND

COURSE OF HUMAN

...............

LIFE ON

.....

.....

..

EARTH

AND

...................

(I) The question of free agency-Great advance in both poets
over theory of fatalism as presented in Herodotus-The

doc-

trine of an hereditary curse as the most complex form of the
problem of fate and free will-Modification of this doctrine by
both our poets-The doctrine of inherited

" tendency"

as a

parallel to the doctrine of " original sin "-The position of our
poets on the doctrine of divine infatuation..

40-43

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.

ix
PAGES

(2) Is LIFE WORTH LIVING? ...............................

43-45

In both poets we get an affirmative answer, but the vehicle of
the answer is very different-The irony of Sophocles-Aeschylus'
stern scheme of justice under which it is "worth

while ' for a

man to struggle.
(3) IS

THE SOUL

45-46

IMMORTAL?............................

Scattered passages might easily be gathered from Sophocles to
prove him a preacher of immortality; but these are too easily
construed as a recognition of popular belief.

Only tendencies

can be traced-In Sophocles there isa good hope ; in Aeschylus
hardly so much can be said with emphasis: in him there is an
implication of future life which seems intended mainly for the
wicked.
CONCLUSION .........................

....................

Eleusis and Colonus again considered symbolically-Application to completed investigation.

47

Missing Page(s)

A COMPARISON OF THE LEADING GOD-IDEAS
OF AESCHYLUS AND SOPHOCLES.

INTRODUCTION.
FROM Eleusis' to Colonus in point of space, as from Sophocles

to Aeschylus in point of time, is not far; and, viewed symbolically
from a religious standpoint, with reference to the poets who first
saw the light there, the local traditions and characteristics of these
places make a fitting prelude to the study we propose.
Both spots are forever to be associated with the supernatural
and transcendental.'

To whom does not the name of Eleusis sug-

gest those weird arcana which, dating from remotest antiquity,
were celebrated there for eighteen hundred years? And whatever
may have been the real purport of their much mooted teachings,
who does not still, on every contact with the Greek mind of the
classical period feel the sombre gloom, horror, and unearthliness
of their strange and fearful objects?
In Colonus, too, God has his acknowledged
worship.

seats and especial

However, mark here the difference, not in God, but in

the way we instinctively turn to worship him.
1 Paus. I, 38.
1 Thucyd. viii, 67.

2 Grote Vol. I,p. 43 et seq.

For it is through the

6

GOD-IDEAS OF AESCHYLUS

" lyELa &rS-v,"' the "rv
XAp3oTpos vapK Lo-o-o,"

3

AND

v TOV

SOPHOCLES COMPARED.

vEoG

aXXSa
p.vpL6Kapirov,"

2

the "KAX-

and the "&vlrvoL KpgvaL jLVoOo-Lv Kr+Lo-os vodSEs

4

epEBpov,"
while "A6vvsos

E'L j.PaL~EEL, eOEt
S

4L rOXOv

eTLOiVCLs."6

Again, before entering directly upon our study of the poets'
relations-in respect of God-ideas, it will be advantageous to consider their theological background as we have it in the preceding
age.

And nowhere else shall we find this so plainly mirrored for

us as in the works of the Ionic Herodotus."

And we shall find it

pervading his pages as a strong vein of fatalism and pessimism.
Said the Oracle to Glaucus when he was tempted to commit
perjury:

CaXX'

pKOV

rwAS

E0TLV,

OUS r6SES KprVOAS
E
o-vpaLpJas

oXE'o~

SE

AVWjV1pOS
(E7EPXETaL

yyevV K

No man could escape destiny.

O)S6 E
ES

0

XEpS
Ar

-7o^V

KE

s

oLKOV &1,rOVTOa.

The course of every life was pre-

A god might sometimes obtain a boon of the Fates,
:
(as did Phoebus in the case of Croesus) yet their decrees were
determined.

none the less ultimately sure.
If there was one attribute of God more prominent than any

1Qed Col. 672.

2_L.675.
3J. 683.
4

1d. 685.
L. 679.

c K. O. Mueller, Vol. 6, p. 454, Gesch/. d.griech. Lit. herodot ist w irklich eben so
sehr ein Theolog

Dichker
zind

7Vide Bk. VIl so et seq.
Herod vi, 86, 50.
"Id. i,

911.

roie er Iisloriker ist.

INTRODUCTION.

The Deity was the enemy of human

other, it was malignity.'

prosperity-a doctrine of profound bitterness and disappointment,
exemplified in the story of Mycerinus.
This Deity is well set forth in the words of Artabanus to Xerxes:

tE

6 e~es Gov o-as463ov

-4V
(f

favrv.

y&p o

oi

pEya

povE'yv

iP,3X. i ppovriv,
j
0Ses
6

8'

Av

Ee&prjo-av Aavtgws

cLXXov j invwr6v.'

Further, we see everywhere a sense of the miserable and ephemeral in human life, which undoubtedly

had been growing

up

throughout Ionia along with the growth of luxury from Persia.
In a different spirit, it is expressed by the sceptical Euripides in
the words:
rbEyv

O

ElS OVSEV

Pet.

Next to be considered is the social and intellectual environment
of our poets, and the fitting it gives them to live in or grow out of:
the theological conceptions of the age which cast its receding
shadow upon them.
They both lived among a people of whom Thucydides says:
7<iTE &XXOS AvOplorovs E&v.
TOYS

iErE ahrots 'EXEL 1o-vXLav

But it was allotted to Sophocles to live and write during the

1In

many cases, however, he recognizes a kind and benevolent

idence.
pK.

In

OLK6
S

iii,

1o8,

OrTL, o0o-

we
oo

have:
i

.

'
7erpr4fis 'HpoS6TOV KKOOE~1S.

2Herod. ii. Ioo.
•Id. vii,

4Meleag.

0o,
55.
fr.

xv, 2.

SThucyd. I, 70.

KOt

KWS

TO

With reference

OEtOV

7~
rpovol,

Provo-rr-

to malignity, vide Plutarch

8

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYLUS AND SOPHOCLES COMPARED.

time when the activity of this people was at its very acme of restHis life was coeval with his country's greatness 1 and his

lessness.

associates were the heroes, scholars, poets, artists, statesmen and
philosophers of her proudest age. His opportunities for culture
and refinement were boundless, and the fact that even Aristophanes can find no flaw in him is perhaps sufficient evidence of his
faithfulness in improving his opportunities, despite the reports of
That he enjoyed the highest

the scandal loving Athenaeus.

esteem of the restless, intellectual society about him is witnessed
in the sacrifices offered to his Manes.4

Legend 5 has it, too, that

Bacchus demanded of the Spartan Lysander, at that time besieging Athens, a safe conduct of the poet's body to Decelea, 5 where
we know it was buried in the sepulchre of his fathers and honored
by the ever enduring epitaph of Simmias, the Theban:
-crXopots Lp.A'ava, Zo

Tv

'rv rpayLK
6

?rOXX .KLS

pXato-s

iV

S

Movucr's

okXa

9Epa

VOEXprL KCi, EV

TKqV^O"L

TEOT1x(S

pE1IE K6pLV
'AXcapvLlrS KLO"O~6S

3

TlJj OS E)XEL,KL yis oXLyov p.pOS.
at.V

ratSa Eo Xov

KEKp6'rLOV

.av.TOLs

SEpKEIOL

4XX 6

v crEX(L.

TEpLOGOE

1

1Curtius, Vol. III; p. 8o et seq., Vol. II, p. 639, Vol. II, pp. 541-607.
2 Aristoph., Frogs, v, 82.

3Athenaeus,

XII, 51I0,; XIII, 81; XIII, 592,b; XIII, 6oi,a.

4 Vide Vit. Anonym.

5 Vide

For different story, vide Paus. I, 21.

Dindorf, De vita et scriptis Poetarum Scenicorum, pp.

II-15

"Aesclyl. Trag. superstites et Sop/i., Trag, sutperstit.," (Leipzig, I869).

in his
For

legend of burial vide p. I2, lin-s 75 et seq.

6Against

this, vide Schoell, " Sophocles,"' p. viii; also Bede's "Gesck. des

Hellen., Diektkunst, Vol. III, p. 366; also Lytton, Athens, II. 520, note.
7 Brunck, Analect. vet. poet. Graec., Vol. I, p. 168.

INTRODUCTION.

Aeschylus, too, lived in times hardly less stirring ; and hardly
less stirring, moreover, in a world-wide than in a strictly Greek
sense. He is our many-sided " soldier poet," ' and can hardly fail,
therefore, to express the significant features, not of the Athenian
mind alone, but also of the Greek.

The cultured, aesthetic, and

speculatiive Periclean age, with its feverish activity, was yet unfelt
when he had attained to the maturity of stalwart manhood." The
halo of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis encircled the life of
his ripest years at a -time, also, when, more than any other, the
world he lived in was neither Athenian nor Lacedaemonian, but
of this world was not speculations
but faith. This general environment; coupled. possibly with his
special training in the mysteries at Eleusis,4 particularly fitted him
Hellenic.

And the keynote'

to be a poet of the heroic ages, and Athenaeus would have us
believe that he said of his writings:

atl

ov Tpay oilat eil

fE'ydXcov

v'O

tnrepdnX
cpov

bEIirvWv.6

1 Collins's Ancient Classics, p. 28, essay by R. R. Coppleston.
2 Vide Dindorf, De vita et scriptis Poetarum Scenicorum, pp. I-1o,in his
Aesc'yl. Trag. superstites et Sopk. Trag. superstites.

Other authorities that I

have followed in the statements I make about the life of Aeschylus are : Frogs
Of Aristophanes, Athenaeus, and translations from the ParianMarble.
[{jK. O. Mueller, Gesch. grieck. Lit., Vol. I, p. 544.
Even life at Eleusis fostered this spirit. For, as Coppleston says in his
essay, Ancient Classics, " Aeschylus," pp. 22-23 : " A boyhood passed in longing to know the meaning of crowds that were constantly coming to his native

village; in wondering at the awestruck look of the men who came out from
the sacred place ; a boyhood so spent must surely give a solemnity and earnestness to the whole nature. And such a boyhood was that of Aeschylus."
5 Athenaeus, viii. 39.

GOD-IDEAS

IO

OF AESCHYLUS

AND

SOPHOCLES COMPARED.

There can certainly be little doubt, whatever the authority of
Athenaeus, that his Eleusinian training was peculiarly in line with
" the banquets of Homer " and their teachings of the mysterious
and inscrutible ways, the irresistible will, and the inviolate majesty
of God.

Accordingly, we may naturally expect some of these

" crumbs " in our poet's tragedies.'
It remains to be noted, further, that the character of Aeschylus
had become too fully matured in this atmosphere of a nascent
Greek, unity and the genial warmth of a nationally accepted and
authoritative faith to allow him to fall in with the social progress
which was co-eval with the beginning of Sophocles' life. On the
contrary, he maintained a stern and haughty conservatism, so that,
indeed, he could hardly be popular at Athens, but went to Syracuse
to end his days with Epicharmus, Simonides, and Pindar. 2
With these observations on the general setting of our poets in
Greek History, we turn to their works, endeavoring always, as we
proceed to interpret them, to look and judge through the medium
of this setting.
'Eschyle, de son propre aveu, n'ofrit sur sa table que les reliefs des grands
festins d'Homere.-PATIN, E'schyle, p. 5.
For an another source of Aeschylus' inspiration, vide Athenaeus, i. 22,'a, b,
and x. 428,
2

f.

Q'int. x. I, 66 : Tragoediasprimus in lucemn Aeschylus protulit sublimis et

gravis et grandiloquussaepe usque ad vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus ; propter quod correctas eius fabulas in certamen deferre posterioribus
poetis A thenienses permiserunt suntque eo modo multi coronati.
Vide Dindorf's De vita et scriptis Poetarum Scenicorum, in his Aeschyl.
Trag. superstites, pp.

I-io.

ARGUMENT.

II

ARGUMENT.
COMPARISON OF EPITHETS AS TO DIVINE POWER, WISDOM, MAJESTY,
AND MYSTERY.

(A) A detailed comparison of epithets shows clearly enough
that the power, wisdom, majesty, and mystery of God moved
Aeschylus much more deeply than they moved Sophocles.

Never-

theless, I cannot bring myself to feel, with Dr. Westcott,' that for
the latter poet "the solemn, the beautiful, and the terrible " have
become simply an element of art, and that he has " no convictions
beyond such utterances as complete the symmetry of his poems."
Certainly the poet-prophet, as well as and even more than the
poet-artist, appears in these lines:
Ted

'ao

v, Ze,

ris Chep6v
S

urep3paaia KT40 XOL

7&v
pd0' iuvos

aipe?

7roO' 6 7cir' ciyp62v

ob'r'

&Kd/Iaot O'KEWIT1'v
/LJvaes,
KaTrXe
s

6

ipVic X p vc &vvdo'ias
'OX6tsirov

sLapcap6eaoav ai'yXav.2

Elsewhere, God the Omnipotent overshadows and impresses
with an effect that is certainly something more than artistic :
1 Brooke Foss Westcott, Essays on the History of Religious Thought in the
West, p. 57 et seq.
The Vita says Aeschylus

was crowned after death.

Inst. x. 7, is more nearly correct.

Perhaps Quintilian,

Vide note, p. Io.

Aristophanes, in his Frogs, makes the shade of Aeschylus manifest

angry discontent.
2 Antig. 603-10.

an

12

GOD-IDEAS

'rt

/ dyas

rd

woXX&d

OF AESCHYLUS

odpav$
e

ydvouro

AND

'roXX&

Zeus; 1 at

Ppovral

ecrpdciavra XELpbS
T75

6

SOPHOCLES COMPARED.

tarceXEis

CdVLK5TOV X;

2

OeoG rexydvrwov.;

&v
rav

dXX' dvayKOccatL Oeo6s
u

&Av IJ OIhXwotv o B' ~v et s 860var' ciAp ;4

rrayKparTs

Kpbvov rra ;
s

drrcsoo'

dyvbv Zyb's b

orov o~eSaS."

, But that Aeschylus was more deeply moved by his conceptions
He even delights to transof Divine Power is certainly evident.
In the
fer us to " the convulsions of the world of Titans."'
Suppliants, especially, we get the full Oriental grandeurs of his
conception:
el Oest ALbs e1
5ravacX/-

Abcs

Ods.

rrcvr7a
KcV
by

@epos

ots

XeydOet

TKOrTC

teXav
6

rX59 /ep breo

IriirreL 6'
rq At
KpavOfl

oKic

6

&-rdX
l

eO'paros

L Xao s

do'a/as ob6 ' Eirntvb-

s eKOpoc9c
wrpciypla TiXetov.

9

And throughout his extant works the Divine omnipotence impresses us, much oftener and much more directly than in Sophocles.

I find his formal invocations and references to bear the

1 Elect. i74.
Philoct. 679.
7

Antig. 1314-15.

* Ajax, 86.

Oed. Rex, 280-81.

* Philoct. 1289.

A. W. Schlegel, Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature (London, 1896).

Lect. VI, p. 8o.
8 Vide Miss A. Swanwick, Introduction to Oresteia, p. xvii.
9

Supp. 85-92.

1

ARGUMENT.

relation of three to one, when compared with those of the younger
poet. The following bears witness :
&,a

CLicKTwv,

caiCCpwv

/caKprae, Kai reXiWOv
6

TrXL TaTOV KpdTos,

6Xf3Le Zev.'
'

Zebs al vos KpiWv dra6rov.
& 8wvorrbvpre 8alawov.'
Zebs

* . .

KaXoVOa,

4

efvEvos papds.

Kai rCiXetLOv
itorov Ala.
iw'

diKapes

ei~ pot,

EXeBOepos ydp d rts ao 7rXi
i

5

6
r

A6s.

7

We might add such examples almost indefinitely. But these
are sufficient to show that Aeschylus not only never doubts God's
omnipotence, but that his conception of it saturates his dramas far
more fully than we find it in Sophocles.
In these examples, therefore, we find no important difference of
conception : the difference lies rather in the intensity of feeling,
illustrating and confirming the truth of Prof. Symonds' statement
that " Sophocles, unlike Aeschylus, keeps his religion in the background." 8 But we cannot pass from this point without considering the question of the relations of Zeus and Fate.9 The question
resolves itself into this : Do our tragedians regard.Fate as a separate power, or is it rather another name for the will of Zeus ?
In Homer it is sometimes clearly enough a distinct power ; 10 at
1 Supp.

5r8-2o.

Septem, 94.
s

J.

2

Supp. 568.

* Per. 517.

4 Per. 824.

5 Eum. 28.

7 Prom. 50.

A. Symonds, Studies of the Greek Poets, p. 227.

God and Fate; i.e., God in the highest sense conceived by the poet, as in
his Zeus Soter.

11.
0o

xx.

127.

14

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYLUS

AND SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

other times it can ,barely be distinguished from the will' of the
Gods, either collectively or of Zeus in particular."
If we turn to the Prometheus, we shall undoubtedly find a conflict between Zeus and Necessity, as guarded by " the triple Mopcu
and mindful 'Epw6es .
6

XO.

TLS OUV

IIP.

Moipac rTpiop/ot pv
vYons 7'''EpLVeES.

XO.

To5TW

HIP.

ooKOUV

dCdiyK7~S oTiV

&pal

(OS

iOTZ cV
OOeviEY'Tepo

Ze6S

lK0

OlaKOoTp

6

7e
rJv

yOL
,V

;

;

T7re7rpwfyV7V.

And such is the fate of Zeus, that Prometheus says:
do00 KatirEp Kparepas
i py i'ETL
i

yvULordeaCts aiKt~-O/VOU

XpEla' ieE
eaT
a

J.aKdpwv

7rp6Trav
s,

7b Viov fo6XevU3 i' ' 6ro
6

o'Kf7rTpov

TLfdJS

7

4

'

lrOoTvXcTat.

Here, as elsewhere 5 in the Prometheus, it certainly seems that
the power, and even the life, of Zeus is limited. Prof. Butcher
holds that the Zeus of this play is not the Omnipotent, but the
God of a passing epoch when the turmoil of contending dynasties
was hardly subdued and might was the only right. His will has
come into conflict with an inscrutable power against which he canI1. xvi. 441;

Od. iii.

269; Od. xxii. 413.

Vide also in this connection

Niigelsbach, Dritter Abschnitt, § 5, 5b, 7 et seq.
2

Il.

XVii. 321.

P3
rom. 523-24;

cf.

Herod.

i. 91.

Vide Blimner,

Schicksals, pp. 6-21, Der gefesselte Prometheus.

Ueber die Idee des

Note especially p. 12, and

Ueber die Schicksals-Gottkeiten, pp. 114-132.
4 Prom. 174-77.
Prom. 195, 775, 927, 961.
6 S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of Greek Genius, in essay on Sophocles.

15

ARGUMENT.

This explanation seems hardly adequate to me.

not prevail.

I

should prefer to consider such sentiments merely as the murmurs
of discontented subjects,' which are altogether relieved by the
general tone of the play.

For this general tone, it seems to me,

tends clearly to show the omnipotence of Zeus.
Moreover, if we do not choose to consider Prometheus' answer
in v. 524 merely as the vaunt of a fallen rebel, we may fall back
upon the poet's conception of the Erinyes2 in the Oresteian
Trilogy, where they appear as subordinate to, or at least in harmony with, God's will."
The only other place where we find a similar reference is in
Agamemnon, 993. But here there is nothing against MoZpa being
There is no evidence of actual conflict, but
rather an implication of what the result would be should the Gods

the will of Zeus.

interfere' with heaven's appointed
Oejv eipye ij irXdov Sbipect.

FK

law :i

/Loipa
hreva

TET/'

rl

iopav

4

Elsewhere in Aeschylus the decrees of Fate are closely identified
with God's will :

s roXu4

auscpy
aoave

6

Oe e v y p KaTA& Opa

6pOo%.

tKpdcr77rev

ridpats roXFptovs rvpyoCalKTOUS
TEKX6vovS

IroXEtwoT'r

To

raXalov

7riOK'frE 6b

BIEdreLV i7rtoXdplras
CwTOChELc.

6

Eum. 162.
s

The connection between the soipat and 'EpLvrbE which Aeschylus conceives

is ably set forth by K. O. Mueller in his Dissertations on the Eumenides, § 92,
pp. 214, 215.

And they (the Erinyes) exercise their function in the name of

God (Eum. 340).

Vide Klausen, Theologurena Aesckyli, p. io6 et seg. ; also

PP. 39, 66.
W. H. Roscher, sub porpa, Ausfiikrliches Lexicon, says: Unter den Tragikern
liisst Aeschylos besonders die nahe Verwandschaft der Moiren und Erinyen
hervortreten, die bei ihm geradezu selbst Schicksalsgattinnen sind.

" Eum. 340.

4

Ag. 993, 994.

' Supp. 763.

6 Per.

IO8-11o.

16

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYLUS

AND SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

The usage of the term fate in Aeschylus, accordingly, suggests
not so much what is predestined as what is ordained.

For instance,

the adjective 6pLpos' is applied even to the marriage tie ordained
between man and woman.

The primary etymological idea of the

word poipa, that of distribution, allotment, is in line with this usage.2
In Sophocles there is no mistaking the usage of the word;
there is no intimation of conflict in his mind.
Fate is above the Gods, yet it is of them ;

As in Aeschylus,

i.e., it is their decree,

their will.
Man's fate is a scourge4 which " God's will sends on."

Morpa

is counsel of men and gods :"
Xatp
Kai t'
VO'

&

ArLlov

r

lov

eurXoia rE'I ovJ
/LeycdXl

yvwIJS7' TE

ialXov,
[e/rTJws,

oipa KO/aiUL

RiXwv Xdw7rava
L/6Tr&wp

aiczwv, bo TaWT' ErKpavev.

Evidently, therefore, Fate with our poets is another name for
the will of Zeus.

Hence the voice uttered, a- a, and the lot, oipa,

by him once assigned, he can no more be above than he can be
above himself.

There may be conflicting fates, and a higher may keep in check
a lower, yet in the end the will of Zeus, which includes in its
1 Eum.

217.

2 Vide Nigelsbach, Dritter Abschnitt, §

2, 3, 4.

2. Obgleich die Etymologie von aica sehr unsicher bleibt-am wahrscheinlichsten ist mir die von DOderlein

Gloss. 429 versuchte Zuriickftihrung

des

Wortes auf dem Stamm aos das kann doch mit Sicherheit angenommen werden
dass es so viel als portio bedeutet, also den richtig zugemessenen gebihrenden
Theil, so dann das richtige, gebiihrende Maas Uberhaupt.
'Philoct.

III8.

4 Frag. 14.

1

Philoct. 1464-68.

I7

ARGUMENT.

action the separate actions of any other will, is finally accomplished:
el

h

TET7raydvaL

Jporpa f/olpav K 6Oew

dpew

epye fn wrXdov

7rpopOdTaoaro

Kapiia

ykro-av

7rape

Pv

dXet.1

Therefore, to summarize briefly, our position is this.: Were God
and Fate to conflict, God would be inferior ; but as it is, they are
in harmony," and thus working with Fate, God is omn:potent-

li,

l,

Al s

kca

7ravatriov, iravepydra.'

When we come to consider the wisdom, majesty, and mystery
of God, we shall find clear evidence of the influence of environment and training upon our respective poets. It will be most
convenient to quote characteristic passages alternately.'
Kai
Oeou

y
yoTOv

1 Ag. 1025-29.
2 Eurip. Alcest. 977

b tML KaKWS
Wpov.

: Kai

bpOvEiv

5

yp

SZeu v
67'

6
7

o(Ty ci TOO
7070

76XEUT,.

s Ag. 1461-62.
In selecting these passages I have tried to avoid those epithets and expressions which are evidently " mere formula

adapted to the exigencies of the

metre "-such, for instance, as so often recur in Homer in this connection.
Vide Od. xiv. 119; xv. 523.
"

Zevk yaip

iro' r6

ye o6e Kai daOvaTOtL O0Ei

&XXoL."

Od. xiv. 119,g.
The context of the passages I have chosen makes them appear to me to voice the
poet's own convictions.
5 Ag. 9oo-9o0.

Vide also Supp. 130; Choeph. 203.

T8

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYLUS

AND

SOPHOCLES

8

r' 'Air6XAw v

ciXX' 6 edv ovz'Zeus

COMPARED.

~VETol f3pOTWV
Kai 7-6,

6

ei6 TEs.'

br'

cipxcs 6' oircvos Uociwv
6

To [ EV

KfJE0cT

'WPKpcLT6PeL

OUTLPO3 &PWOEJ) i 7 i4
6'

7rcpeiarc

OirEULaai

oOL3EL

eKaiT&).

iPfYyOV E_703
W'

TO TWi'

f3oiAcos

/JL'pEL cOp?5'P.'

ic, Zi'i, IXvTcLPXeE6iwii,
lravTO~rTcl.

Mll-6ci& 6 iz-cvrTa v4ccn'
6a y9'Cw~LcKpdTOS cilTL~rcc~olJZdis.'

OEtT'

iorw

Zeus 6oiv6'

'p

dl.

*

6cq6vwv 6E' irou Xacps /lcws
olbX/.L

IE/.W61)

cvwv. o

civaXyfra yap o66'

e rbf3ctXE

Bh'cT0L5

6OrdVera Kpcd pw

Kpovi6ccs.

aot-i'ius

7

6

6oX jofTLz'6' cc rcrccv lEOl
TIP

cavh'p

arop

dX

8

EL;

8

Zeiv,
LiXX,

wI'r' cicioo-wv.

9

x~Ovz'ot 6cdIwvEs 0fyVoi,

T'77-6KaidEp

si7, 3acnXeu r' tcvpwv."o
ii,

wp6s .06

Tov) KcT' &KcpoP Oi-rjou'

AdOs KcTa0"TpdirTOPTOi', EKKX6,P

?f

vciros
s

X6'yov."

6 Tov KcL' &orpa Z-qvos av6q6eis 'y6vos.

Oed. Rex, 498.
Prom. 535.

Vide also Ag.

2

44;

Col. 1462 ; Frag. 659 and 701.

a Oed. Col. 1085.

Supp.589-98.
Supp. 54,

6 Ag. 175-6.
Antig. 184.
' Per. 630.
Oed. Rex, 904.
12 Trach. I o6
Vide also Philoct.

468; Septem,

490; Choeph. 633.

8Per. 95.
Trach. 126.
11Trach. 436.
; Antig.
and 1 147 et seq. ; Oed.
7

391

1

1116

19

ARGUMENT.

From the above excerpts, and others we might make, it appears
that neither Sophocles nor Aeschylus makes any question of the
divine Omniscience.
The former believes that Zeus and King
Apollo are wise and know the hearts of men ; ' that Zeus sees
eternally and beholds all on earth.'
" ranks among the gods most high." "

" True wisdom," he says,

To the mind of Aeschylus, likewise, it is God that leadeth men
in wisdom's way.4

God seeth all, and we call on Him as on one

In the Prometheus, however, God seems deficient

that knows.'

in wisdom, as we have before noted, he seemed deficient in power.
He sends to Prometheus, and through Hermes says :
7rar p

AvwyE

a4lcv,

7rpbs

' oiUOTLVas
v

EKE
IOS

KO[LreiS ydovU

EK L7riTEL KpdcTOU.

6

But we have already spoken of the position of this play and its
The Zeus of Aeschylus' mind

setting in theological evolution.

is no longer the Zeus of that transition age.
Accordingly, under this head we can hardly note any difference
between the conceptions of the poets, even in coloring.
In reviewing our epithets of majesty and mystery, we find their
impressiveness differing again only in intensity. Aeschylus is the
more awful; Sophocles, the more picturesque and beautiful.
Nevertheless, even Sophocles can, and does sometimes, give us
1 Oed. Rex, 498.

* Ag. 170.
-we

3 Frag. 662.

2 Oed. Col. 697.

And in this line also-Zva .....

.

T

</povei
Y

fporobs

0oavrea
6

have a hint that sufferings "contain in themselves, as a peculiar property,

a morall'

The allusion here is to Agamemnon, and the Chorus is convinced he

will be taught wisdom by the same severe discipline which ordinarily falls to
the lot of suffering mortals.
5 Choeph. 203.

Vide pp. 27 , 42.

FProm.

968-70.

20

GOD-IDEAS OF AESCHYLUS

AND SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

the terrible.

The Choruses of Oedipus Rex ,and Antigone
might almost have been written by Aeschylus. (And, of course, it
is to the Chorus we turn for the poet's own conceptions and
teachings.)'
-a

Yet we find even here greater calmness and serenity,

deity, as it were, speaking from within.

some independence.

Sophocles has learned

God is a spirit, and a man need not worship

on Olympus alone.
Aeschylus dwells more upon the gloomy deities belonging to
the sphere of conscience and responsibility. He was haunted
from boyhood by a consciousness of God's presence.' Sophocles
turns more often to the cheerful gods of the natural world. As
Professor Symonds so beautifully says,' he leads us "from

the

shadow cast by the sun into the sunlight itself." Aeschylus gains
mystery and awe by his power of suggestion, in a way Sophocles
knew nought of. Note his special power to suggest the terrible at
the close of the Choephoroi. 4 In this respect also he sought help
in his subjects. Note the time and place of Prometheus Bound.
And,, what subject better fitted to this cast of mind than that of
the Suppliants ? Of all wonderful lands of monsters, Egypt was
the most wonderful.
Before passing from this .head, it will be well to note how
strongly the difference in cast of mind is brought out by our
poets' treatment of the Furies, especially in Oedipus Coloneus
and the Eumenides. In neither case is there an absence of

SVide K. O. Muller, Gsch.

der griech.

Lit.,

Vol.

I,

pp. 479, 518,

536.
2Aristoph.
ioyv

a

J.A.

3

Frogs,

886-87:

A'

qrep

Opepaca To v

lvy

v.
vtrvlrpl Paus. i. 14.
Symonds, Studies of the Greek Poets, p. 227-228.

4Choeph. 1020-end.

cpeva, elval

Ae

riv

21

ARGUMENT.

horror, clearly showing the reverent attitude of each poet.'

But

in the former the goddesses are kept characteristically in the
background, and mentioned only by euphemistic names. Aeschylus, on the contrary, before the victim of persecution can be
delivered and the land participate in the blessing, must congeal
the blood of his spectators by bringing forward the goddesses in
all their infernal horror.

So also in the Choephoroi,' the shadow
of the curse rests upon the murderer and darkness broods over all.
But in the Electra the bright influence of Apollo prevails.' The
matinal sights and sounds' with which the tragedy opens are fit
symbols of his presence. To be sure, the powers of the nether
world are active, but they are here making common cause with
the light and purity that streams from Delphi's fane.'

PLOTS OF THE TRAGEDIES

AS EVENTS

UNDER GOD.

(B) Next we come to study the incidents that make up the plots
of our tragedians, as " events under God." Such we shall surely
find them in both poets, events divinely ordered and divinely
just. For both poets have grown away from the doctrine set forth
in Herodotus, a doctrine resembling that which Aeschylus quotes
in Agamemnon:
EK3'

Wyaeas

TdXas

yPEL

oi
3XowrcTiEv aK6pE rov7O

u

'InSophocles we feel the presence, and have the sacred grove as its symbol.
In Aeschylus the Furies themselves constitute the Chorus.
2
Choeph. Io2o-end.
i6.

'Elect.

*Patin, Sopkocle, chap. vii. p. 301: L'auteur d'Electre semble avoir voulu

iclairer les tindbres des Chodphores de

cette fine et riante lumindre emblbme de

la serinitd de son genie et qui a une place dans toutes ses tragddies.
' Electra, 120-25.

6 Ag. 730-I.

.2
2

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYLUS

AND

SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

and in the following lines expressly dissents from:
6ixa 6' XXwv

l*

el-

sovb9pwv

b 66vooef3s
y&p

Upyov

terT 7rrXelIova
6Yv
rlKTEL,
oEdTEpL

8'

l

EiK6Ta y5P1'V

while Sophocles makes every calamity, with scarcely a single
exception, not only deserved but also disciplinary and chastening
in its effect."

Aeschylus seems, however, to hint favorably at the

doctrine of divine jealousy when he says:
7rp67pvwua 6' iKP3OX&PLV
pet
av6pwv aA4orav

(Xf3os&yav raxvelis.
6

iv'av6pwiv y&p Troo v6'
elazaadev 7'
fV
PP oLKOLS o'rTLOL,
br6Xeos 6

boor 767'

roAdl3paTs T'

dyV

p3porwv,
f

'

Ol6irov, riov

and so also Sophocles in Trachiniai:
6'1ews 6' vGeort .roToV e6 OKoTovkU

OLS
4

rapf3ev rby e6 rpdiooovra, 7A? aXh 7rote.
o

But in both of these instances we must consider the context.
For Oedipus, " whom, of mortals, gods and fellow-worshippers
most did praise," had sinned before his prosperity came to him,
by murdering his father and wedding his own mother.

Hence,

very clearly, his woes are but the retribution for sin.

In the

latter instance the words quoted are put into the mouth of
1Ag. 732-35.

' Septem, 766 et seq.

2

This is proved on page 28.

Vide also Ag. 980.

4

Trach. 296-7.

23

ARGUMENT.

Deianira, and her sudden transposition from sorrow to joy makes
her almost unable to believe the news that has come to her. So
she seeks relief in trying to explain it away by almost any
sophistry she can think of.

Note a similar instance in Philoc-

tetes.'
In both poets the conception of divine Justice as reasonable
and certain is absolute.

In Aeschylus it may be traceable to a

more direct and explainable reason, but it is in no case more
certain than in the younger poet. The sombre sternness of
Aeschylus has already been mentioned.

A casual reading might

.lead us to an impression of gloomy fatalism in his tragedies.2
But close study always shows the outcome of his plots to be
subject to moral laws.

To be sure, the victim of the curse sometimes speaks in the language of fatalism, but he acts always like a
freeman, and as such meets his just deserts.' .God's will is just,
and eternal Justice is mightier than any ordinary will, such as
men attribute to the gods.

That will cannot, if it would, help

the vile.
KpaTETal tr

s 7T OZo,

rcdpa b pT., V JCa

8'

. . .

rovpyeV KaKaoiS,

opavooxov

apXv

o
OLv

4

.

God's wrath is for all after-time to those who do unjustly." He
taketh vengeance even on the dead." He distributes, as is right,
unjust things to the bad, but the compensation of piety to the
1 Philoct. 777.
2

And perhaps it is not too much to say he was a pessimist.

Professor Ken-

nedy, in his edition of Agamemlnon, p. viii., says : " Aeschylus is a pessimist,
the very patriarch and first preacher of pessimsism."
3 Septem, 689.
4 Choeph. 945.
5 Frag. 243.

6

Supp. 617.

24

AND SOPHOCLES

OF AESCHYLUS

GOD-IDEAS

COMPARED.

His commands are just and must be considered." Justice
shines in lowly dwellings, and honors the holy life.3 With averted
eyes doth she leave impure prosperity, 3 and despises the power of
Just.'

wealth when falsely stamped with praise.4
alone does she come ; but,
o0v

6'

o.v TraXdv-

WIrav

Ti 8'

7ro.

Not to the favored

ooOev Ova-

vey

T700L TE6dhe6v EoTLw;

Only in the words of the frenzied Prometheus and the terrified
Danaides have we in Aeschylus any insinuations that God may
be unjust, even on the part of inferior beings. Prometheus hates
all the gods who have done him wrong:
6

XA
y

&rX

Tobvs
rdvTas dXOaipw Oeobs,

o'oL lra6vrTES

E)

KaKOOiL

pK6IKWS
L'

"
6

and he says of Zeus:
6

VEox0oi

v6uotls Ze s

6

40/TWS

6

7

Kpa7rST L.

The Danaides, fearing the wrath of Hera, which overcomes

1Supp. 402 etseq.

2 Supp. 437.

3 Ag. 774 et seq.:
X

AIKa

v
aTre pVL~VU o'KATrvoLS8CaoLv,
L

8'
7b'y EvatTLO V TieS

rd

Xpvo67raa

Piov"

8' E6eXa

ivt Xepwv
oLbv .v

ra-

XAvTrp6roeS
36uppaot Xtouro'
o,
S6vaely

3ota rpoOEfPhETro
6

o~povoa

wrXo -

TOyv7rapiTr27Lov at'vr
7rv3'
4

Ag. 778.

i
7r T p8La vw

' Supp. 822.

Po.

Prom. 975-77.

Prom. 150.

25

ARGUMENT.

Heaven,' deliver themselves thus in the midst

of agonized

prayer :

BLKlaOLSs

Kal r6r' O
Zebs

CWferat X6yots,
j]obs

rby rs

7raB' Adrctoas, rv ad6

s 7rOT'

VLJV

~'KTL(TEV yb6p,

VXWP
W

6,w

7POITOV

oV
X7raLT rpTLV'
6

bl68ev 6' e KX OL KCaXoEVOS.'

In Sophocles, likewise, the conception of Justice is fully as
absolute. The Gods bestow their due reward on all impiety."
They love those of ordered soul, but hate the vile.' " Thou shalt
" Hast
find a God that loves strict justice ; that, and that alone."
Thou must bear evil as fearful.

thou done fearful evil ?

The

holy light of righteousness shines clearly." 6 Philoctetes laments
his hard lot, only to be reminded by the Chorus :'
1

70ot

0

TOtL Ka7)r10
WCS

&tXXoOev& rTXa a'
e
i

'ye 7rapbv

XAovos a

3f0apt6rorp', 06K

Tarob
pei~ovos,

ppov7rat

6ai6covos
oi

r6

UeXov

A

"
7
6eI

KtKLOV X

and Neoptolemus further reminds him :
Kal raTT' ~.7r1OTW KaCp
'YpdOU ip peCV
lrb y&p

66

voories ' &Ayos K Oelas
7

Xpdo'rrs reXar'Oeles

'7KVY vX~TeL Kp

Supp. 178 :

KOVC

SElect. 1380.
Philoct.

o1095.

rs
' alav
yaueT

4 Ajax, 134.

6XaKaos,
bs 7bv
OIKOUPWV
tOS

ovpavbVLKov.
5 Frag. 709.

Philoct. 1325, et seq.

T

'rWO.
6

X97s,
7

4KaEX

Lts.

*
6

Supp. 167 etseq.
Frag. II.

26

GOD-IDEAS OF AESCHYLUS AND SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

Sometimes, it is true, his characters also, as for example Heracless' and Philoctetes," seem to question God's justice in his cruel
treatment of them. But in each case we are to consider their
physical condition, and may well regard their sentiments as ultranormal and superinduced.
But it is, after all, in their respective conceptions of the administration of Divine Justice that we find one of the greatest elements
of difference between our poets.
In Aeschylus, suffering implies guilt.

Every visitation of ill

fortune is penal, and no other conception is allowable. Men have
no right to lay to the charge of a star " what is simply the surfeit
of their own behavior."

3

To his mind, nothing can extend the

law of retribution beyond the strict limits of Justice ; neither can
anything stay the course of Justice.
" The soul that sinneth, it
shall die ; " likewise the converse is just as clear to him : The soul
that dieth, it has sinned.
He states formally Rhadamanthys' great law of retribution
twice, first in the Agamemnon and afterwards in the Choephoroi :
deVELe

I vovuros jv Op6v~ Abs

raOeirv Tvy 'pavra-&o-'lov

T

1rXlyes qrovtas

4

oviav

6pdcoav'r raOedv,

7rXrlyjv TLV&W.
rptyepwv

7ycp.

0o s Trd8.eqv6. 5

1 Trach. 995 :

cd Krlvcla Kp7ry s 3wlwjtv,
lepcjv oiav o'wrv drt
EVpCe Xdptcv
oi'av /' gp' 'Oov
2 Philoct. 254.

1

Choeph. 304-6.

pot

vd6oj
'

Ze3.

XA3Pav, olav"

King Lear, Act I, Sc: 2.

4 Ag. 1541-42.

27

ARGUMENT.

Therefore, Justice comes to the wrongdoer as retaliation'

or

reprisal.2

Yet we must never forget that it appears as the appointed law of heaven, and not as the legitimate indulgence of
It was according to this law, o<ruos, " that " a
resentful feelings.
tooth must be given for a tooth and an eye for an eye," because
crime was too dreadful- a thing to go unpunished-so dreadful a
thing, indeed, that nothing could condone it, not even an appeal
to fate:
i" MoZpa ro6rTY,

Kai r76v

Tro

Kapatc'ia.
C r6KYvov,

vUVMoip' ib6povvev

6pov.

4

Therefore, its retribution comes and comes inexorably, whether
to men or nations, and when it comes there is never a doubt in the
mind of Aeschylus as to the wherefore.. And here we might
digress for a moment to say that in both poets we are taught the
efficacy of prayer in bringing Justice, notwithstanding the fact that
to both it is foreordained and certain-a point of view not foreign
to the Hebrew mind. This is expressly taught in the following :
rb

6

potpoYv

erodois 8'

dve irdcXac,

pV

lXOot.b

In the theory of retribution, Aeschylus seems satisfied that he has

But Sophocles,
found a solution of the varied problems of life.
as an explanation for many of life's
while not rejecting this theory
woes, still saw there were many phases of human suffering which
1 Choeph.

goo et seq.

2' Ag. 944 et seq.

Like 8dps, that which is laid dozwn (Latin institutum).
only once.(Od. 22, 296)..
the gods.

In

Homer, found

It was used properly of ancient laws sanctioned by

In this sense, vide Eum. 391 ; Antig. 799 ; Ajax, 11o4.

4 Choeph. 90o-II.

Choeph.. 465.

28

GOD-IDEAS OF AESCHYLUS AND SOPHOCLES

it did not explain.

COMPARED.

God did not seem to him to make his .awards

plainly in this life ; sometimes " He moves in a mysterious way,"
and " visits the sins of the fathers upon the children."

Yet he

does not fail to make prominent that suffering is not simply the
result of an inherited curse.

There are always defects of some

kind in the sufferer himself which demand' chastisement. -The
mockery of Iocasta'

and Ajax,2 the pride of Oedipus,' the sacri-

lege of Philoctetes,4 the lust of Heracles," are all kept prominently
before us ; and these, if not primary, are still elements in the causes

of their sufferings.

Yet it remains clear that suffering is not
Oedipus declares he has borne

always simply and purely penal.

full evil fortune,' but that he is not guilty, since all through ignorance he did the deed.'
god-sent visitations-Oeia'

And in the end his sufferings appear as
His death
TvxaL-not penalties of sin.

comes under kindly, peaceful auspices :
o6 ydp rts a6rbv or e irvppbpos OeoO

de
drpagev ore

Kepavvbs

06eXXa
dXX'

KLv7Oec+a

7'r, iK Oewv

e'vovv &ar&v7

wozrTvia
T

rTp 7r67r
worotrbs

Xp6V

,

7)-b veprdpWov

ys dXr-qrov fPcOpov.'

Such visitations are a part of the permitted evil of a harmoniSOed. Rex, 707.
' Trach. 272 :

' Ajax, 764-67.

' Oed.

Rex, 8, 392.

4 Philoct. 1327.

exovr', dr' dKpas )Ke 7rvpybovs 7XaK6s
&va
T70U86 GYOaS
pyov 8' KarGtL S
6 r7Twv rivrwv Zebs raTrp 'OX6,weros

1
rpar6v vLv. edresievr o)3'
60o.6vec' aOrbv

SOed. Rex, 522.

doxero,

ovov dAv6pdmorwv 86X

' Oed. Rex, 547.

' Oed. Col. 1658-62.

29

ARGUMENT.

ously ordered universe : they may vindicate the higher law, as in
the Antigone :; they may advaice a preordained and divine purpose, as in the Trachiniae and Philoctetes; or they may simply
develop character, as in Philoctetes and Oedipus.

And thus does

he explain seemingly unmerited suffering as far as may be.

He

stands midway between the theory of Aeschylus, that suffering is
retribution, and nothing else, and that of the sceptical succeeding
age, that calamity is due to contempt of the gods.2

Before leaving

this head, however, it must be noted that Aeschylus was not blind
to the disciplinary effects of suffering, rightly accepted. Yet this
is never to him more than an incident, though it is casually
directly referred to, as it were, in passing:
AlIKa
rb

6

lXXov

'rppdret

h
v
roTis 7iracOoUvoy pLacevy
Yedyor' CV KX6OLS,7rp xac6' wrerl
pio"3

1Antig. 73 :

lXy

e7Tr'
abroU Keto'OaL,

bLXov
U

rat,
6

Tata wravovpy?5oa'" Frel 7rXElwv Xp vos
6

8V eP~ ' ApdoKeLv TOis KCdT

dKeL
yp

aie KeioOtatL oT

8',

~W

vOC6e.

el 6iOKe,

ra&Twv Oewv 'VTL' dLcr-aca' EXe.
2

In

Aeneid,

Bk. IX,

184, Virgil makes Nisus

interrogate Euryalus as

follows :
Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale ? an sui cuique deus fit dira cupido ?
With reference to men and their development under divine

chastening,

Sophocles seems to have asked himself this question and to have answered it in
his dramas.

Cf. Butcher, essays on Some Aspects of 'Greek Genius, in the

essay on Sophocles.
3 Ag. 241-3.

30

GOD-IDEAS OF AESCHILUS

AND

8etv6v

6' ' brou vb
Kl
e

/pevWv

SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

eB,

Krl(7KO7rov

KaOLyEvOv.
d/EVELV

pU4pesL

1

ocopOvey

vel.
bbbordvTT

THE SEVERAL DIVINITIES.

(C) Having discussed the chief attributes conceived "by our
poets as 'belonging to God in the abstract, we now turn to the.
several deities and their individual characteristics. In immediate
connection with this, we shall note any trend toward monotheism
in their respective utterances.
In both our poets we undoubtedly find "gods many and lords
many," and in their treatment of these individually and collectively we shall find some characteristic differences.

Generally

stated, these differences are as follows:
(i) Aeschylus gives prominence to the gods dwelling in darkness.

He draws a clear distinction between these gloomy powers

and the more benign Olympian gods, YveCrepot

ot.'

With Sophocles the gods of light are the gods preeminent, and
he seems to show no consciousness of any conflict between higher
and lower forms.
(2). To Aeschylus the "gods many " were " gods indeed," individually and collectively. Zeus, Apollo, and the rest to him are
real, and not metaphorical beings.
In Sophocles it is specifically to be noticed that there is nothing
directly antagonistic to this view. But there is "a veil over the
central truth." Surrounded by all these forms of mythical religion,
he feared to lessen men's reverence for them (as Euripides did

IEum. 491-5

.

2 Eum.

I56.

ARGUMENT.

3I

not fear),' inasmuch. as he had nothing better to offer.

So he

accepted them as symbols of truth, and carefully, in his presentation of them, keeps their coarser qualities in the background.
(3) In the Zeus who reigns supreme, now that Uranus and
Kronos have been successively dethroned, we have in Aeschylus
an obvious recognition of a Supreme Father," and oftentimes this
conception bourgeons forth in words that savor of a monotheistic
creed.
In Sophocles even the plural forms of the gods suggest a grand,
vague thought of an overshadowing presence, an invisible Power.
If only we could accept the .passage cited from Justin Martyr 3 as
really coming from our poet, we should have an open confession
of monotheism :
els Trais iXOelatecv ets dorve Oe6s
's obpavbvy Trevxe Kai yai'av /aLKp&v
ToUTrov e Xaporrbv opSLa Kai cv

wv 3as.

Under (i) and (2) let us first notice the chief "plural forms "
common to both our poets. These are Zeus, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Hermes, Erinyes, Apollo, and Athena.
In his treatment of these, Aeschylus shows firm belief in the
myths of Greece as representing the facts of divine history. Most
1Who, as Verrall

says in Euripides the Rationalist, p. 260, end, " was a

resolute, consistent enemy of anthropomorphic theology, a hater of embodied
mystery, a man who, after his measure and the measure of his time, stood
up to answer the Sphinx."
Vide also, in this connection, pp. 217-230, Euripides in a Hymn.
2 And in his conception of 6 ZrwT'p we have the nearest approach to a real
and. lofty monotheism.

6 Zwr' p is

Aeschylus' real god in the highest sense.

(Vide Mueller, Dissertations, p. 223.)
3

J.

Vide p. 32, note.

Martyr,.Cohortatio ad Graecos, pp. 17, i8.

32

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYLUS

AND SOPHOCLES

especially is this true of his Zeus.

COMPARED.

From the god of the remote

past who hurled the Titans down to Tartaros, who ruled with
inexorable severity

and had almost no sympathy

2

with suffering

humanity, he has become the highest embodiment of the God-idea
in Aeschylus-'

TXeXeos,' 6 KrT1OLos,

4

6 Aioi'os,5 6

cos,6 and, above all,

the intermediary between the adverse Chthonian dynasty

6,TrWp,'

and that of a benign Olympian providence, 8 the friend of man,
whose paternal spirit ' pervades the Universe10 and conducts the
course of all things gently " to what is eventually the best possible
issue,
The mind of Aeschylus was no doubt deeply imbued with the
element worship of the Pelasgians and Argives.

Yet to him the

other gods just mentioned, as well as Zeus, were something far
more than mere symbols of nature powers.
Artemis is the "beloved
The chaste
pangs.

1

wielder of the bow. '"

is she and, as Hecate," presides over woman's travail

She also,

1 Prom.

Ag.

1'

guardian,"

756.

Prom. 240.

3 Ag. 946; Eum. 28.

Supp. 188.

2

oo003 Supp. 438:
;

6

Ag. 61.

7 Athenaeus, i. p. 296.
6 TwrTp, as Mueller says (Dissertations, p. 223), is a "generated

not produced till the third stage of nature development."
ob'O'

s To8
rrcrpot6ev

god, and

Vide Ag. 162 :

(vlpyas

7rap/ciX& OpereL Jpdcwv
vvyv AXe eTac, irply toY
but for Aeschylus that third stage has passed, and he is now the " Spirit
that pervades the universe." Vide also Supp. 26 and Eum. 730.
$ Supp. 24-29.

* Supp. 29; Septem, iii. 290.

10 Frag. 293.

11

Supp. 1050.

1s Septem, 136.

14

Supp.

1oo9.

Septem, 444.
s Supp. 660.

12

ARGUMENT.

33

O~Xovoa 8' a, O Xovav a-

yvc,

' hrLtTWo Acos Kbpa,

eXOv'acLv' Eivw7r'
4"

dopaXs.'

Ares, to whom alone the wild tribes of Thrace and Scythia

built temples,2 is sometimes spoken of in connection with these
fierce peoples, and his attributes are fitting to them.

The prayers "

to him admit of no doubt as to the poet's belief in his reality.

Aphrodite,

Kai K6vrpts,

&Te ydovs

7rpor4Wp,4 and

Poseidon, a0'

"

ros 7ovroo w tvat, are pictured in purely orthodox colors.

Ir-

To-

gether with Hera, as next to Zeus, Aphrodite is mighty:
6cva r

yap At s Lyxwora o:v,"Hpct.

6

We have already spoken (p. 20), in connection with Aeschylus'
fondness for the awful and terrible aspect of God, of his proneness to dwell on the deities who live in darkness rather than upon
those who live in the light.

At this point, to what was said there

about the Erinyes 7 as individual goddesses we need add noth1 Supp. 137.

2 Herod. iv. 59.

3 Septem, 104-106.

6 Supp. IOI8.
' Septem, 130.
7 As to traits in detail, it may be said further here that in both Aeschylus

4 Septem, 129.

and Sophocles the Erinyes never forget (Eum. 361; Ajax, 139o); so also

both poets think of them as hounds, KwVES. In Aeschylus they hunt Orestes
(Eum. io6, 127, 295). In both poets also, as in Homer, they appear on the
side of the elder against the younger. Vide 11. xv. 204.
But both depart from the old legend, according to which the Erinyes
perpetuate the crime of Kronos upon Uranus. In tracing or referring to their
genealogy, their father's name being unmentioned, they are called NvKT6S
aiav)

rTKVa

(Eum. 312, 394, 760, 808), and she is a goddess at once terrible

and mild; and such, indeed, are the Erinyes according to Aeschylus.

But, as,

compared with Sophocles, the terrible aspect is predominant and is effected
chiefly by his fearful physical representation of their ideal nature.

34

GOD-IDEAS OF AESCHYLUS AND SOPHOCLES

ing.

COMPARED.

Relatively, however, it may be said that the same tendency

leading him to give such prominence to these gloomy deities led
him to dwell on the office of Hermes' as the escort of the dead.
Apollo and Athena remain.

The former's identity with the

light is hinted at rather than expressly stated, if we except the
single passage:
ortyaorpov vpodr
5

.oy

o1

b4s,

irap9 p/ot

rbV8'

os

rbvy

&sr'yp 7rap,

vayra yrpdo's ~pya Tr7s e"is*

"HXwos,
Ws liv

Befal',

6
c&XX' rdavr' drorredw, 7T 8E

dyc'

rp6r

61

/JppTUS dV 8 Kt

p/er7XOlOw

inlKS

rOT ,
bpov

6

Aiyloiov ydp o AXgyw pov

Athena is the especial patron of Athens ' and of cities in general,4 and the impersonation of wisdom. More especially to be
nioted with reference to Apollo, Athena, and Hermes is the conflict' between the Olympian and Chthonian powers and their
reconciliation.
4

Choeph.
Eum.
Choeph. 970-75.
SBut notwithstanding the apparent reality of this conviction to Aeschylus,
1Choeph. i.

he is also convinced that the conflict between these two orders is transient.
The Olympian gods are improvements upon, and not merely and chiefly antagonists of the Chthonians. In place of the old legends of conflict, he supplies
milder ones. In Eum. 6r5,
iri6ar

/bPy Av iELev, ib'O ro'

&cKOs,

we have an obvious recognition of the story of Zeus' liberation of the fettered
Kronos and of his propitiation.

Likewise here it is apropos to note how the

Eumenides begins and ends with repose and solemnity, while the terrible parts
are found in the middle.
Especially between Prom. and Zeus in Prom. Vinctus, and between Apollo
and Erinyes in Eumenides.

35

ARGUMENT.

And now a study of Sophocles' treatment of the deities Zeus,
Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Hermes, Erinyes, Apollo,
and Athena will bring out, I think, the truth of our statements
under (r) and (2), p. 30.,

to his conflict with

In the case of Zeus we find no reference'

the Titans and cruel injustice to man in the remote past.

Many

are the instances where the younger poet's conception of him
seems almost identical with that of Aeschylus.

But in all his

highest flights, there is a monotheistic strain, found in a far less
degree in Aeschylus.

Sophocles avoids reference to Hera's rela-

tions of jealousy and intrigue with the god.

Likewise, all the

coarser qualities of the popular superstition about him are simply
left

unmentioned.
'

maker of kings,

He is

apKeZos, 2

he reigneth

1

rarpWo ,

rpora ios.

Father and

supreme on high.'

But he has

been beguiled by Aphrodite :
/Aya

TL o-0vos d Kvlrps

?Kc/J4EaL

lEl

VIKaS

KaL TK Lp-v Bewv

8
rapi3av, Kai 7ws Kpovilav

&drdTracoevo

Yet note the mildness of the reference-oo
metaphorical sense which the context allows.

X3yw.

7

x yw-and also the
Elsewhere Aphro-

dite and Eros are usually well translated Love."

Often the allu-

sions are felt to be merely for artistic effect,'

So also Ares,

That is, no reference we can construe as the poet's conviction.

Antig. 487.

3 Trach. 288.

4 Antig. 143.

Trach. 443.

2

7 Trach. 437.

8

9Antig. 801.
Col.

5 Philoct. 140.

Antig. 78r.
For further purely figurative use, vide El. 1242, Antig. 952, and

o1065,
where Ares is simply Animus bellicosus. In Ajax, 614, and Col. 1679,

Ares means caedes.
1423 ; Ajax, 706.

Antig. 781.

But he is the god of war in the following : Elect. 96, 1385,
Elect. 1423 : <otvla

Xep ordcieL
O6vlXqs
"Apeos.

Vide also

36

GOD-IDEAS OF AESCHYLUS

AND SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

spoken of perhaps in terms quite as stern and wild as in Aeschylus
can be taken for the personification of any hostile influence. For
instance, we have the Ares of pestilence, aXep6v,' and the Ares of
the battlefield, olvto.2 The allusions to Artemis are characterized
She is the Huntress:

by beauty and picturesqueness.

PorTe TAY 66o7ropoP "AprTezy ' Oprvytav,

/
Xaabl36ov d ptvpov,
ye rov'cs re vu as.
L

'

The same may be said of Poseidon':
'b y p v v els

768'

oacr a'xnp', Avaf IIoo etdv,

'7rlrouv TbP &KETTCpa Xhabv
rpTtratco1rLL 7re

KTiOaas

yvcLai.

Likewise it may be said of Athena and Apollo that they have
grown in magnitude of glory and brightness; nor are they used
as agents, after the manner of Aeschylus, to effect any reconciliation between heavenly powers.

Their predominance, too, under

Zeus the supreme, is clearly acknowledged, as for example in
Ajax and Electra; but no such predominance as is given them by
Aeschylus. The voice of the oracle is the voice of Zeus:
Oed. Rex, Igo; Ajax, 706.

2 Elect. 96.

3 Vide I Oed. Rex, 160:

yatdox6v r' c&Xee&v
"AprTeUv,

6

& KUKX ePV'

a

opa6s

p6vo v eoKXAa OdoOEL'

and Ajax, I7I:
5 p oe T avporbXa Ahbs *Apre ts.
4 Oed. Col. 705 ; vide also Trach. 212 ; vide also Oed. Col. 1072.

37

ARGUMENT.

W'
Al6s

4crt,

ASverb

IIvOvos

dyXas

is

W7ore roXvXpvov
rd&

"

'p3as '

for Apollo is thought of as his prophet.
daughter."

Athena

is his "golden

The brightness and the loftiness of the Sophoclean

conception of Apollo, 3 Artemis,' and Athena are typified in the
invocation of the Ch'orus of Theban Citizens:
6

'AOdva
rpwra oe KeKX tevos, 06yarep At6s, &iAppor'
yaciox6v

L,

"Apre

& KUKX

evr' ciopas Op6vov e KX a OdooeL

4ot(3ov hKaG3Xov,
Ka2
rpLc

oi

e a6eXCXev

6

12d

4Xeiopo L rpod/av7yrd) otL.

Allusions to Hermes are similar to those found in Aeschylus.
Ajax invokes him along with Zeus:
rovaOTd

', & Ze9, 7rpoorpdrw, KaXw

7rolerator'EpPvY Xb

6

6' I

ov e6 / e KOL"lOcL.

ca

7

And in the Electra he appears as the guide of the avengers.'
And so, as often, the difference is in context and spirit, and not in
the mere words of the allusions.
1

Oed. Rex, 157.

2Oed.

Rex, 159.

Oed. Col. Elect. 1376, tvaf "A7roXXov; vide also Elect. 655, 1379.
Tb A
&yperav"AzrokXov.
XvKe' "AAroXXov; o1091,
Oed. Col. 919,
Trach. 209,
Ajax, 703,

Tvb

&

eBirapdrpav"Ar6XXw 7rpovrdrav.

6
"AtrA76XXCovAdCXos.

Trach. 212 ; Ajax, 172;

Oed. Rex, 16t, 207 ;

Elect. 553, 616,

1230;

Oed. Col.
Oed. Rex, 159, Obyarep As
Oed. Col. 706,

a&

?tp3por' 'AOdva,

y7avK7rLs 'AOdva;

o9go, 7raXXa'AOdva,

Ajax, 757, Blas'AOdvas.
( Oed. Rex, 159-63.

'Ajax,

831.

8

Elect.

1395.

38

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYLUS

AND

SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

So much for the deities to whom both poets refer in common.
It remains for us to mention Dionysus,' to whom no single invocaWhen we consider Sophocles'

tion is to be found in Aeschylus.

treatment of this god of mirth and joy and the great prominence
he gives to it, the fact is very significant as corroborative of our
position under (r),

p. 30.

In

the same connection

we may

adduce the prominence which Aeschylus gives to the worship of
Demeter, as one instructed (?) in her mysteries, and (as compared
with Sophocles) his serious view of Hera, who, "great and dread,"
is "mighty next to Zeus" and whose vindictive jealousy brings
woe to the Danaides.
As to the question of monotheism, Sophocles is certainly in
Yet we find in the latter many utterances

advance of Aeschylus.

of a sublime faith which passes above the popular polytheism of
his day-a dim apprehension 2 of one Supreme Ruler above the
numerous deities. The Suppliants is especially strong in their
utterances; note, for instance, the following.:
adrbs 9 rarip ovrovpy bsa)6bXetp &v4a.

But when we consider the prominence given to the other gods,
Oed. Col. 684; Antig. 945 et seq., where the Muses are mentioned as his
companions and nurses.
2 Ag. 16o et seq.:
Zeb,

7T

&ILe
r

-

ror' derlV, el r68' a-

1LXovKEKXfkVIp,

r70o76 vv 7rpooevdr~w
The revere ntial attitude of the Chorus here reminds us forcibly of, " There is

none other name under heaven whereby we may be saved."

Compare this

with our poet's God in the Promethean Trilogy, and we feel at once that he

has grown wiser.
8Supp 586.

ARGUMENT'.

39
'

as, for instance, to the Lyceian Apollo

a few lines after this, and

the further fact that the Chorus may be thinking of Zeus as a
father by blood through their ancestor Io, the great lesson of
reverence

for the " invisible Power" taught in every drama of
God is great, and his

Sophocles stands forth in clearest light.
Providence is over all:
et /po0 (vely

951povnL

rowgpa
rdvY el oerrov Cyvelav XabywO

v

pywv r e irdvrwv,

vb6/

ot rp

6

KeLV'ra

6/itroer, odpavlav
d v"OXv/wros

0t' ailOpa rCKVWOVTrS,

vrarjp /lbvos,
Ovard

#ao-ts

obzi vi,
dpwv

iETLKrTEoSe A7or7E XdOa KWraTKOAyTV'
g yas dv Trorots Obs obSl6 yqpdo(KEL.
4ppes

rVTE6Ee
r6pvvov

"
2

I Pves, cdyp5pp 8' -Xpbvcp

6vdctora

KafTLs ' OX6purov

1aapzap 6 ecrav

al'yXcav.

3

That Sophocles and Aeschylus had both :made considerable

1

Supp. 668.

Supp. 68I el seqg.:
voowvm

' gJb61 dar' dorTWv
a

itot Kpa6 CTep7r s75

6' 6 A6KEos
<rm 7rday veoXaly.
ebpAeVr'

And here it is to be noted AvKelos

has not its original meaning, " god of

light," which we have said is not the Aeschylean conception of Apollo, but
means the might of destruction, and as such he is called upon to spare the
people.
SOed. Rex, 863.

Antig. 608.

40

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYLUS

growth in monotheism
For instance,

AND SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

is evident from their use of abstracts.

such terms as 7

O
Bei
w'

and

a~p6aLov are compara-

T7

tively common with them, whereas 7b Oetov3 was used for the first
time by Herodotus.

CONDITION

(D)

AND

COURSE OF HUMAN

LIFE ON EARTH

AND

AFTER.

Under such conceptions of God and the gods, what was

the condition and course of human life on earth and after ?
(J) Of course, the question of primal interest is that of free
agency.

The keynote of Aeschylus' teachings along this line is

struck in these verses:
o

yap i'pyov

SwEs'

6

/ 7e&UAyv rXelova TIKTEL, & ETep
C

q5cei

6 7TiKTeLY fppcs

{oav
cV

' elK Ta yevv

4

v 7raXadA ved-

KCKO S (3pOTWV,
6

6

fUppLp, ' 70', 7e 7b KipLtov ,p Xp1 (dos
767'

&XX' 5Tav

KOV,

T

5

o're56p 7Ts ai6ds, Xd Oebsd
vvrTETaLc"

and of Sophocles' in these:
'

eIKGalaG
oxoX"5

7lKTEL y &p o'&j' jAd
b
ObK
o0

a'L 7 s
T0OS
Si

Tos

4 6
,
0 LSO

fL
p
TXr

t

caXOS
L

q o7 XXevLa

6

"

7T X7*'
3apdvet.'

Here is a great advance over the fatalism of Herodotus.

A

Choeph. 953; Ag. Io54; Oed. Rex, g91o ; Trach. 1164.
Septem, 93; Ajax, 376 ; Elect. 1269.
Herod. i. 32 : 'erurrdc Tevv
pe 76b irav elv 8ovep6bv7 Kai 7-apayXEs. Here
Oe
the term may mean simply whatever depends on fortune. Vide also Herod. iii.
40; Herod. iii. io8,
2

Ag. 734-35.
Frag. 228.

' Ag. 738-39.

Frag.

302.

* Per. 742.
" Frag. 666.

ARGUMENT.

41

man may be master of his own fate, and he is everywhere encouraged to assert himself.
Of course, the problem of fate and free will presents itself in its
most complex form in the generally accepted doctrine of an hereditary curse:
el g 0yw¢
abrol

5XvOe

yf?8
8eiv

Lorp'

drLoUa

KIX

rdivrws ac0ts avacIot 'pya rt'owevo

1 iraZSes ro

6
rwv

4 ydros

PrtTW.
V

1

We see the intense hold of this idea manifested in the repeated
incidents of the Alcmoeonidae.

Later, this was flatly protested

against by Euripides," and by Isocrates " who praised the Egyptian
idea that the penalty of the deed is exacted at the moment.

In

both Aeschylus and Sophocles " the old-time efficacy of a
father's curse " 4 is modified.
With Aeschylus, not so much the curse, as the tendency to sin, is
The chain of crime may be broken, but naturally is
not, since guilt rather tends to extend itself. His words to that
inherited.

effect in Agamemnon remind one forcibly of George Eliot's,
"Our deeds are like children born to us ; they live and act apart
from us."
2 Isoc. Busiris, xi. 25.

Bergk. Solon, xiii. 29-32.
* Hippol. 831-3; Orest. 491.
4

Od. ii. 135 ; I1. ix. 453:
T1

7rt66/Iv1 Ka2 pea" l7rarep 8' 4tS ClrTLK' UOele

roXX& Ka-TqpdeTO,
I

TVyEp&s

rote yobvat otov

Sd

yeyawra-6eo1 8'
~ev

Zeds .rE KCaX
vrra~il

6G1
aLOS

5 Ag. 758-60; vide also Per. 603.

8' E7 EKrKET' 'Epvs,

f&TevOat tlXov vbv

dedXetov

drapds,

repaoeq6vea.

42

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYILUS

AND

SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

With both poets the operation of the curse is a part of a moral
law, and invokes not suffering alone, but increased guilt.
sins admit of no repentance ; e.g., filial impiety.'

Some

To be sure,

the victim sometimes speaks in the language of fatalism ; and this
in Aeschylus, together with his general ultra-seriousness, leads the
casual reader to think of his teachings as fatalistic."

But every-

where in both poets the victim acts like a freeman.
Now, it cannot be said that the doctrine of inherited tendency
toward guilt is fatalism.

If so, then the doctrine of " original

sin," as the consequence

of Adam's sin, is fatalism.

And the

operation of a curse under moral law is but effect and consequence.

Here, however, is to be noted Sophocles'

theory that

innocent children may sometimes suffer for what their parents
did.

But the suffering in any case is a logical effect, though not

admitted by Aeschylus, who always saw back of the sufferer his
own sin.

(Vide pp. 24-26.)

Then as to the doctrine of divine

infatuation.

Theognis'

states the popular form of this doctrine :
7roXX&K 13' ds ctphr'q
Oar

BO

e avip KIP S 1?5 /LEOS, 6'vrtva

irp6pwv ELe
ieycLXv7
Kal

ol
f6'7KE

6OKEt
Y

e/icuapews 6 6'

dv

6o v
7

aiEwv

dl7rXaKIav 7rapcy ,
KaKA&,

TaUT'
aya'

p1cL/cL aTaTLa

cvat

KaacL.

To be sure, our poets, too, recognize a certain form of mental

1Vide

in this connection K. O. Mueller, Dissertationson Eumenides, p. 141

et seq.
2 Patin,

dclatantes

Esckyle, chap. i.,

images,

ces

p. 34: De la cette pompe majestueuse, ces

figures hardies,

nergique, impdtueux, d'un

ces pensies

tour si inusitd,

naturellement un si grand, un si trange spectacle.
sTheog. (Bergk.), 402-406.

sublimes,

ce

style

si extraordinaire, qu'appelle

ARGUMENT.

43

But this is only when a man has

blindness as a divine influence.
wilfully set his heart to evil.'

We have the examples of Xerxes
in Persae of Creon in Antigone, and Ajax in Ajax. It reminds
us of "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart " of the Old Testament.
(2) And now let us put to our poets the oft-mooted question
Is life worth living ?
Perhaps no Christian could answer with a calmer, more assuring affirmative than does Sophocles in these lines:
ob y&p e
KacJ

OJLt KV

flporo s"

l3tac
cTvvPO6rlKet

OdVWOLV,

O1K

a7r6XXvr-at.

Such sentiments, too, undoubtedly pervade every drama.

If his

heroes are ever tempted to "curse God and die," it is only when
they are unmanned by physical torture, and then such impiety
meets its own reward.
The feebleness
Nevertheless, there is a melancholy in him.'
of the human intellect and the shortness of human foresight
oppress him. Like some master-spirit, he views with a halfcontemptuous pity the actions and passions of his characters.
Men promise much and perform little.
6pG. y&p i~4ccoi8v
ei'wX' aoLw p p

Says Odysseus to Athena:
&XXo

dvras

Ev ) K

6

7rXjv
4

,VOKLcaV.

/

And the goddess replies :
c

iLp
/CA

KXIYEt Te Kdvtye L rciXcv

&7ravra TcivOpd7retcLa ro6es
deol

tLXOJLO Kal

Antig. 621-4 ; Aes. Frag. 386.

adporas
6

(TTU7OL

70rob

KaKO S.e

' Philoct. r443- 4 .

s Vide Bishop Thirlwall's essay in his Remains, Literary and Theological,

edited by J. J. S. Peroune (London, 1878), on Iron)y of Sophocles.
SAjax, 125-6.

6Ajax,

130-2.

44

GOD-IDEAS

OF AESCHYLUS

AND SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

Historical examples about him, of whom defeat, dishonor, and
disaster had been the common lot, undoubtedly pointed the moral
Was he constrained to think of such celebrities as
Themistocles, Pericles, Alcibiades, and Nicias ? With their lives
he must couple banishment, the plague, treason, and a death of
of his irony.

disgraceful misery, respectively.

0

els oov KXvwva
rOTe
Ov/?rv

,~
lpav

GeLLv9

Svra
KlvPv

And so he holds:
ovTupops ~X~Xv0ev.
Tr'TEXEV Cralav 18Ie6v

7rLKorovra /u 7v'

euv, rplv &v
lX LI

P3lov lrepdo p/LAv

r7aOv.'
AXyELtvbY

Tpp/a 70o

This is his philosophy of life-" his irony," so called-sad on the
one side, cheerful on the other. For, from the consideration of
human impotence and ignorance, he draws lessons of sobriety and
2
tempered joy. There is perplexity, mystery, but not 'despair, except, as we have said above, when his heroes are unmanned by
great physical suffering, and their utterances at such times cannot
be taken to voice the sentiments of the poet. Through all, there is

a suggestion of Thackeray's pitying tolerance and sense of littleness, in a strange union of sympathy and satire. For instance,
Oedipus can solve the riddle of the Sphinx, but is blind to the riddle of his own life. Yet there is a blessedness in the death of
Oedipus which takes the mind irresistibly to something beyond
itself.'
This speculative irony and perplexity is wanting in Aeschylus.
With him human life is lived under a scheme of stern and relentOed. Rex, 1527-30.
2 For this view of life in general Greek literature, see Niigelsbach, Siebenter

Abscknitt,
S Oed. Col.

14.

1662-65 :

wind, did he die.

" For not by thunderbolt of Zeus, nor by blast of whirlBut the gods sent some one to guide his steps, or else the

45

ARGUMENT.

There can be no questioning of this justice, no
less Justice.'
doubt as to the antecedent sin when suffering comes. Yet it is
worth while to struggle; for a man may overcome according to
his strength of character, and through suffering the penitent may
come to wisdom.'
(3)And now, what answer have our poets for the question, Is the
soul immortal ? We might select a few scattered passages from
Sophocles to show him a preacher of immortality. But it is altogether too easy to construe these as a recognition of popular belief. In reality, the veil over the future was thick and dense.'
Yet we can surely trace tendencies, and in these we have good
grounds for classing him among those noble souls who adhered to
all elements of popular belief that pointed upward. Ajax bids a
gentle farewell to the sun and the streams and the plains of Troy; '
4
For Anall else he will reserve for those who dwell in Hades.
tigone, death has no terrors. It removes her to a world where
Electra is consoled with the
right is eternally triumphant."
thought that her father, who had suffered so much, was reigning
6
in the other world in the fulness of life.
From. Aeschylus' stern scheme of justice on earth, there comes

Earth in friendly mood had opened wide its jaws without one pang."

The

messenger says, concluding his report:
Av p y&p oi oTrevaKT

&XyccLv
6

Oav,arT .

225.

2

3

et

TL f por~'V

pov.3v X yewv,

8 og
O
ei & /e5

o0K &V lrapetlrlqv oloL t /J

'Supp.

oiv v6rocs

ot&

e7r/l7lrET', dXX'

oKW

q5povei~v.

Ag. 176-81.

In this connection vide Nilgelsbach, Siebenter Abschnitt,
tin, chap. i, p. 25.
8

4 Ajax,

834 etseq.

' Antig. 75, 521, 450.

$6 25,
6

26.

Pa-

Elect. 838-41.

46

OF AESCHYLUS

GOD-IDEAS

AND 'SOPHOCLES

COMPARED.

He offers no specu-

no relief from the prospect of a life beyond.

lations on the future life, and, like the Hebrew Bible, no sanction
for it, though the fact is implied.
So far as he is concerned with this implied fact of a future
world, it seems to exist solely for the guilty :
6rd

Kai

a'crxvdvra

is
hvrcroiv' r1vq

&XXos
6 bec8r KeiTLS 1Xcrev
Oeby

7
4'

cLootat KdTW,

arpocpbvov

6as.

I3porwv

a

doePoivres I
yvov

'roK^s /9XovU,
Xove'' tKcfTOV 7?f SiK'9 IfrSc*La.
fPpoircv
pyas y&p "Atts ori~Y eOvos

6vepOe xOovs,
S 7rcivr' hrw7r¢
eXTroypcaip.

pevl.'

Beyond the fact that resentment lasts after death, the state of
" No light, but darkthe departed spirits is cold and cheerless.'
Existence is
visible." Joy and vigor are unknown.'
ness: ever
either unbroken rest or a faint reflection of the past, or suffering
4
for the past. Sorrow there is possible, but not joy. And so with
Aeschylus, law, and not love, prevails until the bitter end.
' Choeph. 319.

Etim. 267 et seq.

Per. 839-43.

When he makes the farewell of Darius' ghost as follows:
r
dy 6 dtre/hL yfs brb [6ov KdTW.
t'/et

6&, irp4of3eta, Xalper',

vXIy)v 8t6vres

P KaKOis

KCGO'
Sovnf^ 'jpav,

c~ rotS Oa vov c7rXOvrorS obQv weXi.

Eum. 423.

W
6l

47

ARGUMENT.

CONCLUSION.
The site of Colonus is marked at present by two low hillocks, a
short distance to the right of the verdant olive grove lining the
banks of the Cephisus.'
At Eleusis the spot occupied of old by
the temple of Demeter is covered by a little chapel.'

And thus

in a religious way the two places still carry with them suggestions
of the master minds that to-day give them most of their literary
interest.
The first suggests nature, serene and orderly under God; and if
anything is needed to suggest devotion to truth, may we not find
it in the tomb of Mtiller ?
The second suggests the longing that man's bosom has known
since the beginning--the longing to stand face to face with God,
to see Him in forms and rites, to reduce. His ways to rule and
measure. In its intensity, it has often led men to forget that He
is a Spirit, to worship whom they have no need to go up to
Jerusalem.
1Dr. Baird, " Modern Greece," pp. 280, 294.
Studies and Rambles in Greece.
et seq.

Eleusis, pp.

197

Vide also J. P. Mahaffy,
et seg.; Colonus, pp.

149

VITA.
Gulielmus Wright Fisher, Jacobi Fisher filius, in vico Drawbridge qui est in civitate Delaware, die octavo ante Kalendas
Decembres, anno Domini MDCCCLXVI, natus est. Duodeviginti annos cum suis parentibus domi ludum vici hieme frequentabat et tempore aestivo agros colebat. Duodevicesimo autem anno
in ludum in oppido cui nomen Milton sito in eadem civitate paucos
Aliquanto postea unum annum Latinae maxime
menses ibat.
linguae rudimentis studebat ut se aptum collegio redderet.

In

eodem anno, ludi qui erat in oppidulo Fairmount, civitatis Maryland, princeps magister factus est et cum tribus magistris comitibus ducenos discipulos docebat per tres annos.
Autumno anno Domini MDCCCXC in Universitate Wesleiana
inscriptus est, e qua sexto mense MDCCCXCIV cum laude perfectarum artium et cum eximio honore quem adeptus est Graecis
literis excessit, et paullo post in Universitate Harvardiana inscriptus est qua unum annum Latinam et Graecam linguam omnibus
aliis rebus posthabitis discebat.
Quinto mense MDCCCXCV scholae cui nomen est Collegiate,
Novi Eboraci, magister Graecarum literarum factus est, ubi munere
magistri fungi mense Septembri eodem anno coepit et qua adhuc
manet.

Hoc tempore, autem, in Universitate Neo-Eboracensi,

Doctorum Baird et Sihler discipulus fuit, et sexto mense A.D.
MDCCCXCVIII, gradu Magistri Artium ornatus est.

Aestate

anno Domini MDCCCXCVII per Angliam, Scotiam, Galliam,
Germaniam peregrinatus est.

This book is a preservation facsimile produced for
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival
60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper).
Preservation facsimile printing and binding
by
Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2012