Hesiod and Aeschylus 9780801466700

Table of contents :
Contents
Foreword To The Paperback Edition
Preface
Part One:Hesiod
Chapter I.The Theogony
Chapter II.The Works And Days
Part Two:Solon And Aeschylus
Introduction
Chapter I.Solon
Chapter II. Aeschylus: The Prometheia
Chapter III. Aeschylus: The Eumenides
Index

Citation preview

CORNELL STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY Edited by FREDERICK M. AHL * KEVIN C. CLINTON JOHN E. COLEMAN * JUDITH R. GINSBURG G. M. KIRKWOOD * DAVID MANKIN GORDON M. MESSING * ALAN NUSSBAUM HAYDEN PELLICCIA * PIETRO PUCCI JEFFREYS. RUSTEN * DANUTA SHANZER VOLUME XXX Hesiod and Aeschylus BY FRIEDRICH SOLMSEN

This page intentionally left blank

Hesiod and Aeschylus By FRIEDRICH SOLMSEN Professor of the Classics in Cornell University

With a New Foreword By G. M. KIRKWOOD

Cornell University Press ITHACA AND LONDON

Copyright © 1949 by Cornell University Foreword copyright © 1995 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 1949 by Cornell University Press. First printing, Cornell Paperbacks, 1995. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Solmsen, Friedrich, 1904Hesiod and Aeschylus / by Friedrich Solmsen ; with a new foreword by Gordon M. Kirkwood. p. cm. — (Cornell studies in classical philology ; v. 30) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8014-8274-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Aeschylus—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Greek drama (Tragedy)—History and criticism. 3. Hesiod—Criticism and interpretation. 4. Influence (Literary, artistic, etc.) 5. Gods, Greek, in literature. 6. Aeschylus—Religion. 7. Hesiod— Influence. I. Title. II. Series. PA3829.S55 1995 882'.01—dc20 95-15711

© The paper in this book meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

TO HARRY CAPLAN AND JAMES HUTTON

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Foreword Preface

ix xiii

PART ONE: HESIOD CHAPTER I. The Theogony 3 Introduction, p. 3. The Origin of the World : Three Generations of Gods, p. 5. Powers of Good and of Evil in the World of Hesiod, p. 27. The Role of Zeus in the Theogony, p. 47. Cosmology and Theogony, p. 58. The Synthesis of Old and New Figures, Earlier and Later Generations, p. 66. CHAPTER II. The Works and Days 76 PART TWO: SOLON AND AESCHYLUS Introduction CHAPTER I. Solon CHAPTER II. Aeschylus: The Prometheia Zeus and Prometheus, p. 124. The Crisis of the Olympian Dynasty, p. 157. CHAPTER HI. Aeschylus: The Eumenides Index

vii

103 107 124

178 225

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword to the Paperback Edition G. M. KlRKWOOD

URING most of the twenty-two years that Friedrich Solmsen Dwas a professor in the Cornell Department of Classics, he

taught a highly successful course entitled "Foundations of Western Thought," tracing the history of philosophical, scientific, and religious ideas from early Greece through the Hellenistic and GrecoRoman periods. The same dominant interest in the history of ideas is apparent in much of his published work, in such primarily historical studies as "Greek Philosophy and the Discovery of the Nerves" (1961) and his volume of Martin Classical Lectures, Isis among the Greeks and Romans (1979), and also in Aristotle's System of the Physical World (volume XXXIII of this series), with its telling subtitle, "A Comparison with His Predecessors" (1960). Hesiod and Aeschylus is a major contribution to this field. In the course of a brief, favorable review of the book at its first appearance, a distinguished scholar observed that its title does not fully represent its scope, since it makes no mention of Solon, the subject of an entire chapter (Chantraine, 1951). To Solmsen it would have seemed inadequate to leap from a discussion of Hesiod to the Aeschylean goal. In the introduction to the second part of the book, he somewhat apologetically defends his passing rapidly over much of the archaic period by explaining that his study is restricted to a "small sector" of the "immensum aequor" of Hesiod's influence (105). He wants to examine specifically the Aeschylean response to Hesiodic thought, but an account of the moral and religious thought of Solon, who brought the concept of Dike from "her Hesiodic sphere" to "the larger realm of political and legislative action" (123), is essential to this theme. The discussion of Aeschylus is divided into two long chapters, "The Prometheia" and "The Eumenides" The first is inevitably speculative in part, in view of our scanty knowledge of Aeschylus's IX

X

FOREWORD

treatment of the Prometheus story apart from Prometheus Bound. This play—supplemented by what can be reconstructed of the rest of the trilogy—is necessarily a major element in Solmsen's account of the Aeschylean presentation of the power and morality of the gods, Zeus in particular. In 1949 the authenticity of the play had already been questioned (142), but scholarly confidence in its authenticity had not been much affected. In recent decades, however, doubts about the play's authorship have been expressed repeatedly, especially with the appearance of Mark Griffith's Authenticity of Prometheus Bound (1977). Recent opinions on the matter can for the most part be divided into three categories: (1) the play is late Aeschylean; (2) it was composed or completed by Euphorion, the playwright son of Aeschylus; or (3) it is the work of an unknown playwright of the mid-fifth century. The debate continues, but the first position, the one taken by Solmsen, remains dominant. One of the most striking features of Prometheus Bound, a feature that has had much influence on those who deny Aeschylean authorship, is the great difference between the Zeus of this play and the Zeus depicted in Aeschylus's other plays. As Solmsen declares, "The Zeus of Prometheus Bound is not Aeschylus' Zeus at all but the Zeus whose manifestations he found recorded in the Theogony" (148). Yet parallels between the Zeus of the Prometheia and the Zeus of the Oresteia reveal the thoroughly Aeschylean character of this version of the story of Prometheus. In his analysis of the evidence provided by the fragmentary remains of the rest of the trilogy, Solmsen shows that the divine order under Zeus which is established in the Prometheia resembles the order presented in the Eumenides: "The inauguration of an order of Justice in the human world, symbolized by the foundation and the first action of the Areopagus, parallels the introduction of Justice into the world of the gods which must have taken place in the sequel to Prometheus Bound" (166). Although there is inevitably much that is speculative in any reconstruction of the rest of the trilogy, enough can be learned from passages in the extant play, and from the fragments of and information known about the other plays, to validate Solmsen's presentation of this aspect of Aeschylus's religious thought. Regardless of which opinion is correct, strong Aeschylean influence in the thought of the play is generally recognized, and so

FOREWORD

XI

the question of authorship is not of crucial importance for the significance of its relation to religious thought of the period. Solmsen's chapter on the Prometheia is a crucial part of his account of Aeschylus's development of Hesiodic theology, an account that involves not only the Prometheia and the Eumenides but Aeschylean drama as a whole. One revision is necessary to Solmsen's view of chronological development of Aeschylus's religious thought, however. Solmsen assumes that the Suppliants is the earliest of the extant plays of Aeschylus. This was the almost universal view of scholars before the publication, in 1952, of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2256 fr. 3, which dates to the 460s the production of the trilogy of which this play was a part. The effect of this revised dating on Solmsen's thesis is insubstantial. Otherwise, Solmsen's account of this aspect of Aeschylean drama needs little supplement and continues to provide an exceptionally well conceived and clear presentation of the history of Greek religious thought as it moves from the archaic world of Hesiod to classical Athens. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chantraine, Pierre. 1951. Review of Hesiod and Aeschylus. Revue de Philologie 25 (1951): 86. Griffith, Mark. 1977. The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Solmsen, Friedrich. 1960. Aristotle's System of the Physical World: A Comparison with His Predecessors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ùùù. 1961. "Greek Philosophy and the Discovery of the Nerves." Museum Helveticum 18 (1961): 150-97. ùùù. 1979. Isis among the Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

This page intentionally left blank

Preface npHIS book consists of two parts the connection between which JL is less superficial than may appear at first glance. When I had come to the conclusion that Aeschylus' debt to Hesiod goes deeper than is commonly assumed, it became necessary to unravel the complex fabric of the Theogony with the view of distinguishing therein between the results of Hesiod's own speculations and the masses of traditional myths and beliefs which the poem also incorporates. Only when we know where we find Hesiod himself can we decide whether Aeschylus' imagination was stirred by Hesiod's own conceptions or whether he responded to something that happened to be recorded in the Theogony. The method of both parts of the book is analytical; both aim at detaching personal 'form' from traditional 'matter.' I have done my best to see whatever books or articles bearing on my subject have appeared in Europe during the last ten years, and I am glad not to have missed certain important contributions that became available to me in the last few weeks before the final draft of the manuscript went to the press. I know, however, that there is much, especially in the field of Homeric studies, that I have not been able to consider. It would have been tempting to write more about Hesiod's influence on later poets and thinkers and to give somewhat more substance to the developments that are sketched—and indeed barely sketched— in the Introduction to Part II. This, however, is a large subject which cannot be treated by the way. Moreover, it is pleasant to see that after long neglect the subject is now receiving a good deal of attention; not only have I been able to refer to a number of very recent studies but I also know that other books that may appear shortly before or after mine will throw a welcome light upon these matters. The book owes much to the never-failing interest, the kind help, and the wise counsel of my friends. To associate their names with a work including many adventurous hypotheses, disputable points, and probably also errors of judgment that they themselves would never have committed, is, I fear, a dubious way of thanking them for all that they have done for me in the course of many years. xiii

xiv

PREFACE

Dr. Abbie M. Copps of Olivet College, to whom I have expressed thanks on an earlier occasion, has again endeavored to make the book more readable. The typewritten copy has been prepared with admirable care by Mrs. John H. Detmold. The editorial staff of Cornell University Press, in particular Miss Catherine Sturtevant and Miss Jeannette Frasier, have struggled patiently with my inaccuracies and inconsistencies. For a research grant, to meet the cost of preparing the manuscript, I am indebted to Dean G. Watts Cunningham of the Graduate School and to the Trustee-Faculty Committee on Research of Cornell University. My wife, Lieselotte Solmsen, has helped me greatly both with her encouragement and with her criticism. FRIEDRICH SOLMSEN Ithaca, New York February 28,1948

PART ONE

HESIOD

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER I

The Theogony INTRODUCTION HpHE ANALYSIS of the Theogony of Hesiod which I attempt in the JL following pages differs somewhat in aim and method from most of the scholarly work that in recent years has been done on this poem. The importance of distinguishing the ideas of Hesiod about the Greek gods from the mass of traditional material in the Theogony has to the best of my knowledge not been questioned—Wilamowitz, for one, was aware of the problem1—but two tendencies in recent Hesiodic scholarship seem to have diverted the attention of classical scholars from the historical analysis of Hesiod's thought. Because of the condition of the text that has reached us, scholars have found it necessary first of all to separate the genuine Hesiod from later accretions to his text. It takes little reflection to realize that analysis of the text of Hesiod is a prior condition to analysis of his thought, but it should be equally evident that the work of textual reconstruction will never be 'finished,' and that it would be irrational to expect that attempts to study the working of Hesiod's imagination and his approach to the Greek deities should wait until the textual critic has done his job and has removed the last doubt 1 See, e.g., the sections on Hesiod in his last book, Der Glaube der Hellenen (2 vols.; Berlin, 1931-1932) 1.341ÍL The same approach will be found in his other books and papers on Greek religion and Greek poets, to many of which I shall have occasion to refer in the notes of my chapter on the Theogony. Werner Jaeger has said recently (Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture [2nd éd.; New York, 1945] 1.433) that Hesiod 'a 'own share in the presentation of the mythical tradition as it appears in his works must be more clearly defined.1 That the Theogony is devoid of original ideas is often tacitly assumed ; it is emphatically stated by Louis Gernet and André Boulanger, Le Génie grec dans la religion (Paris, 1932) HOf. Cf. also W. C. Greene, Moiray Fate, Good and Evil in Greek Thought (Cambridge, Mass., 1944) 55.

3

4

HESIOD AND AESCHYLUS

as to what Hesiod himself said and what was added to his poem by later rhapsodes and interpolators. In the meantime, we may feel some satisfaction if textual criticism has been moving in the right direction. I will frankly confess that while the latest attempt to reconstruct the genuine Hesiodic Theogony seems to me to go too far in the elimination of supposed accretions, I regard the procedure as such and its fundamental idea as completely justified. To me, too, it is impossible to accept as Hesiodic everything that is in the manuscripts, nor can I approve of the fashion in which some editors, translators, and interpreters shut their eyes to real and very serious difficulties. It is idle to deny that the uncertainty and the unsolved state of many textual problems render the analysis of Hesiod's thought more difficult, and that frequently we are forced to acquiesce in conclusions which can be regarded as possible or, at best, probable, but hardly as certain. Moreover, it will constantly be necessary to pass from the consideration of ideas to that of textual questions. On the other hand, it is perhaps not overoptimistic to hope that, at times, the inquiry into Hesiod's way of thinking may furnish new criteria of genuineness that the textual critic will find helpful in his own work. Students of Greek mythology would probably have as little inclination to dispute the legitimacy of our enterprise as would students of Hesiod's text. Yet a tendency to take the Theogony as a solid whole and to present itg content as something like a canon of Greek mythology seems inherent in the very idea of writing a textbook or handbook of Greek mythology; the author of this study would perhaps himself adopt this procedure if he tried to compose such a work. In defense of this method it may be argued that the mythological system of Hesiod did enjoy a unique authority with later Greek writers. This contention is correct, but it is also true that the authority never quenched the freedom of altering and innovating. Greek mythology, as everybody knows, never was fixed, and its details were constantly being remolded. It is precisely this process of remolding the tradition which we are now attempting to study, not in later Greek poets or thinkers, but in the works of Hesiod himself.2 Students of Greek mythology do not deny, yet their 1 Throughout these chapters I have treated the Theogony and the Works and Days as poems of the same man, not of the same school. This may seem hazardous today when more and more voices are heard which deny that the two epic poems were composed by the same poet. See C. M. Bowra, Ancient Greek Literature (The Home University Library, London, 1933) 43; also his Tradition and Design in the Iliad (Oxford, 1930) 262 and Greek Lyric Poetry (Oxford, 1936) 80; H. G. Evelyn-White, Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homérica (Loeb Library, 2nd éd.; London and Cambridge, Mass., 1935) XV; W. C. Greene, op. cit. (note 1) 28.

THE THEOGONY

5

work sometimes obscures, the fact that in Hesiod, too, there is room for distinguishing between what he himself creates and what he merely passes on.

THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD: THREE GENERATIONS OF GODS Like many, if not most, great works of Greek poetry Hesiod's Théogony is the result of a struggle with tradition. To Hesiod, too, tradition The only elaborate defense of this view that I know is found in a paper by Pierre Waltz (Rev. ét. gr. 27 [1914]. 229ff). Since the reasons on which my conviction of an identical authorship is based are implicit in the analysis, I do not here attempt to summarize them. I do not deny, however, that some (though not, I think, all) of the agreements which will be pointed out are explainable also on the alternative assumption, and I shall not be surprised if some readers of the chapter on the Works and Days (pp. 76ff.) feel an impulse to reinterpret the evidence for the relationship between the two poems. It is heartening to see that Professor Jaeger in the notes to his new edition of Paideia (see note 1) 430ff., nn.2,14,25, has come out in defense of an identical authorship. I wish to refer in particular to his explanation of Op. 11 and of the crucial passage Theog. 22ff. The first of these two passages should be considered with the stylistic parallels adduced by Wilamowitz (Hesiodos'Erga [Berlin, 1928] 43); moreover v. 17 rr¡v ó' erkpr¡v (namely the good Eris) vporkpjiv ptv kyüvaro Nù£ kpefitwit seem to me quite clearly to presuppose Theog. 225 (see below, pp. 31f). On Theog. 22ff. cf. also H. J. Rose, A Handbook of Greek Literature (2nd éd.; London, 1942) 61. Waltz (see above) regards the words woe Ate as accusative of óoe ¿TCÓ; he does not mention that rá/Se can also be construed as modifying pWov. That an archaic poet should have referred to himself in this manner is certainly as unusual as that he should have mentioned his name. That he should have named his teacher or precursor would be another singularity. The ancients, whose feeling in this matter should after all have some weight, do not seem to have thought it strange that the poet refers to himself at the beginning in the third, later in the first person; no author of the classical period, no great Alexandrian critic, is known to have shared the view of the Boeotians reported by Paus. 9.31.4. It is evidently essential, too, that the Muses of Helicon whom the author invokes (vv. Iff., cf. v. 2) meet and inspire the poet at the foot of the mountain (v. 23); yet, if we accept Waltz* interpretation, the poet, while making clear that his precursor received his inspiration in that place, gives us no indication as to where he himself met the Muses. The poet would also mention that Hesiod was taught his beautiful song while he was tending his sheep, but would not tell us what he himself was doing when the Muses—rather suddenly —began to talk to him. This, I admit, would not be altogether impossible, yet is it not after all obvious that iroinalvovd* (v. 23) and irowtves aypav\oi, (v. 26) refer to the same situation? Note also that the topics of which the Muses sing (vv. 11-21; I do not now wish to go into the question of interpolations) point to the theme of the Theogony but not to that of the Works and Days as well. In other words, w. 22f., if understood as Waltz wants us to understand them, are an awkward interruption of a beautiful poetic train of thought. For the Prometheus story as told in the two epics see below, p. 78n.l2; for the relationship between Zeus, Dike, and Eirene, pp. 95ff.; for the problem of evils, pp. 80ff. If contradictions matter, it is well to consider that they may be found even within the same poem, not only between one poem and the other; see pp. 81ff.

6

HESIOD AND AESCHYLUS

was at once an inspiration and a challenge. The tradition which he inherited may have been more complex than we realize, but one element of it stands out as supremely important and was invested for him with a special authority. The heroic epos forms the starting point of Hesiod's interpretation of the world and of things divine and human. It is not at all necessary for us to assume that Hesiod knew the Iliad and the Odyssey in exactly the form in which we read them. In fact, a good part of the Odyssey may not yet have existed when he composed his Theogony? He may well have known more and at the same time less than we know of the heroic epos. Opinions on this subject differ and are bound to differ as long as some scholars hold that the Iliad and the Odyssey are in all essentials the work of one poet, while others assert that in these works are incorporated large bodies of earlier poetry; as long as for some these two epics represent the consummation, for others the decline of epic poetry.4 The writer of this study finds little force in the arguments advanced in support of the 'decline' theory, but on the other hand he does not believe in a creation e nihilo and thinks that analysis is—in spite of its many failures—justified. It does not, however, 3 See in particular Wilamowitz, Homerische Untersuchungen (Berlin, 1884) 17,229; Ilias und Homer (Berlin, 1916) 467; Die Heimkehr des Odysseus (Berlin, 1927) 49,77. For the view that Hesiod is older than 'Homer,' i.e., the Iliad and Odyssey in their present form, see, e.g., Erich Bethe, Homer, Dichtung und Sage 2 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1922) 303ff., 329ff.; Friedrich Schwenn, Hesiod's Théogonie (Heidelberg, 1934) 72ff. and passim. For an expression of the alternative opinion see Felix Jacoby, Hermes 68 (1933) .44 n.3, and for a discussion which leaves the question undecided see C. M. Bowra, Tradition and Design in the Iliad (Oxford, 1930) 261ff. A careful study of the relation between Hesiod and the Odyssey has been made by Inez Sellschopp (Stilistische Untersuchungen zu Hesiod [Diss. Hamburg, 1934]), whose observations suggest that large sections of the Odyssey, especially Book I-IV, V-VIII, and the whole second half of the epos as we have it, were unknown to Hesiod (p. 76). I have found no flaw in her arguments. However, if Wilamowitz' comments on Op. 705 (Hesiodos Erga [Berlin, 1928] 121) are correct, this line would be dependent on Od. 15.357 and could be used to invalidate Miss Sellschopp*s conclusions. To me, Wilamowitz' explanation of the relationship between these lines does not seem so cogent as to exclude alternative explanations. See further on the relation between Odyssey and Theogony Peter Von der Mühll, Die Dichter der Odysee (Aarau, 1940) 2. For our purposes, the Iliad will be found to be more important than the Odyssey. 4 The latest survey of different approaches to the Homeric question will be found in M. P. Nilsson, Homer and Mycenae (London, 1933) Iff. In recent years the position of the Unitarians has been strengthened by the publication of S. E. Bassett, The Poetry of Homer (Berkeley, Calif., 1938) and W. Schadewaldt 'Iliasstudien,' (Abhdlg. Sachs, Akad. 43 [1938J.6). If the Unitarians are correct, Hesiod's familiarity with and dependence on our Iliad may be taken for granted. I have, however, judged it safer to make a special study of the relationship between the Theogony and those sections of the Iliad which are relevant to my argument.

THE THEOGONY

7

seem either wise or necessary to base our investigation of Hesiod definitely and exclusively on one particular theory regarding the place of the two preserved Homeric poems in the history of the epic. It is sufficient to assume, what indeed I have nowhere seen disputed, that Hesiod presupposes the heroic epos—let us use this neutral term and, for the moment at least, refrain from determining how closely some epics which he knew resembled our Iliad and Odyssey. Hesiod's acquaintance with the heroic poetry is a fact of fundamental importance for the correct understanding not only of his diction, metre, and certain peculiarities of his poetic art and technique, but also of his religion and mythology. Hesiod's Zeus is Homer's Zeus—Homer's Zeus and something more, but even this 'more' must be understood as a development of that character of Zeus which had emerged in the heroic epos. But he owes to Homer not only the figure of his Zeus, he owes to him the conception of Zeus' eminence among the gods, of his lordship over gods and men,5 his direction of their destinies, his home on Olympus. He derived from the Homeric epos his knowledge of Zeus' marriage with Hera, his last and (may we assume?) final marriage. From Homer he knew Zeus as father of Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, and as brother of Poseidon, Hades, Hera.6 To be sure, none of these other gods is really very important for him. His religious thought is not bent on elaborating or exalting the position and function of, say Hera or Poseidon or Apollo, or even Athena. On the contrary, they fade into the background and are important only as Zeus' entourage. But if they do not mean much by themselves, it is yet essential to appreciate the fact that they are there as evidence of Hesiod's indebtedness to Homer. They are there merely because they were there in Homer, not because like Zeus they offer food for Hesiod's own religious speculations. Also, while they are not important as individuals, they are, in the Theogony at least, important as a group, as Zeus' set and family, as his helpers, fellow-fighters, and agents. Antagonism and factionalism, which loomed so large in the Iliad, mean nothing to the author of the Theogony. Jointly these gods represent a new dispensation, and this new dispensation and world order which emerges at the end of this poem is the very core of Hesiod's creed. Zeus' conquest and consolidation of his power fill the last part of the Theogony and form not only the end of the work 6 On Zeus as 'king* see M. P. Nilsson, Homer and Mycenae (see note 4) 2660°.; also his The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology (Berkeley, Calif., 1932) ch. iv. « Theog. 453ff., 918ff., 921ff., 924ff.

8

HESIOD AND AESCHYLUS

in an extrinsic sense of the word, but its culmination and reXos; it is the concluding theme toward which the poet works. How present generations of gods came to have their power and position is what he wants to show us7—the power and position which we know them to have, since they have them in Homer. But in Homer Zeus' dispensation was something static, something accomplished and established, and although we shall presently deal with the very few passages in which Homer looks, as it were, back of Zeus' rule, we may, broadly speaking, say that they are not typical. Homer had also shown implicitly, and on one occasion even explicitly,8 how the powers and functions are divided among the various Olympians —he makes us see which phase of life and nature each of them represents. No need for Hesiod to treat of these familiar things once more (the subject may not have held any special attraction for him either). He leads us just to the point at which Homer's order of things sets in. His audience knew Homer. There were rhapsodes even in Boeotia, and Wilamowitz9 is probably right in suggesting that much of Hesiod's activity as àotôos consisted in reciting the Homeric poems in whatever form he may have known them. The actual functioning of Zeus' regime, the relations between one god and other gods, their modes of intervention and interference in human affairs were matters on which Hesiod's audience received sufficient information by listening to the heroic epics. They would treat this information as authoritative, whether or not Hesiod himself approved of the spirit in which it had been conceived. His own message of Zeus' supreme and superlative power consigned much that Homer had told about conditions in the divine family to the realm of lies— 7 Theog. 112ff. ¿5s r'apevos 8áy making too much of the supposed rivalry of Hephaestus and Prometheus in Athenian cult (op. cit. 142ff.). Actually, although Prometheus has stolen Hephaestus' &t>0os (v. 7), this god shows more sympathy for him than Zeus or any deity of Zeus' group (vv. 14ff). Eirik Vandvik, The Prometheus of Hesiod and Aeschylus (Norske Videnskaps Akadimi Hist-Filos. Klasse, 1942) 2 came into my hands after this chapter had been written. 124

AESCHYLUS: THE PROMETHEIA 125

released him from his affliction, not without the will of Olympia a Zeus who reigns on high.'2 The other section to which I have referred is the account of Typhoeus' revolt—the last revolt—against Zeus and the Olympians. On the other hand, the passage which tells of the marriage of Zeus to Metis and the threat to his reign which developed from this union cannot legitimately be included in the same category of accretions that influenced Aeschylus.3 Simultaneously with the story of Prometheus' deliverance a new feature had probably been added to his sufferings with a view to increasing their severity before the appearance of the rescuer, to wit, the eagle which tears at his liver.4 When Heracles finally puts an end to Prometheus' ordeal he does so by shooting the eagle. Thus the eagle motif seems to be very closely connected with Heracles' deed of rescue, and it is probable that both were grafted upon Hesiod's account by the same rhapsode. This rhapsode obviously thought it desirable to include in the authoritative poem the aggravation of Prometheus' punishment which he knew from some other source.5 He found his way back to the authentic text in v. 534 where it is said that Prometheus had opposed Zeus' plans, but he ignored some later verses6 which make quite clear that for Hesiod Prometheus' punishment had not come to an end. In the Theogony, as Aeschylus read it, the crucifixion of the Titan and the daily tearing of his liver by the eagle formed part of a coherent story which included no suggestion that the second punishment was inflicted later than the first. It was Aeschylus who distinguished two stages of the punishment and decided that the daily torture should materialize only after Prometheus had defied Zeus and refused to disclose the secret on which the stability of the divine government depended.7 The deliverance of Prometheus which we find in our manuscripts of the Theogony and which Aeschylus also knew is important not so much for the one preserved play, Prometheus Bound, as for the conception of the whole trilogy. In this, Prometheus Bound was followed by Pro2 4

Theog. 526ff. 3 Theog. 820-880; 886-900; 9291"19; see above, pp. 67f. Theog. 523-525. V. 534 may be read as sequel to either 522 or 533 even though KpovLwvt, seems odd when Zeus is the subject of the main clause. Notice the imperfects in v. 524 which indicate that this punishment has come to an end. 6 It is impossible to specify a literary source, but see the archaeological material adduced by Bapp in Roscher (III, 3083ff.) and by Arnold von Salis in Sitz. Ber. Heid. Akad. 1936/37. 1. Abhdlg., 18ff. 6 Theog. 615f. 7 Cf. vv. 1021ff. and the account of his sufferings which Prometheus gives in Cicero, Tuse. Disp. 2.23 and which is usually taken to reflect a passage of Prometheus Unbound (see note 114).

126

HESIOD AND AESCHYLUS

melheus Unbound* a play dealing with a phase of the myth on which Hesiod himself, as we have seen, had said nothing at all. In both plays the material which the Theogony supplied had undergone considerable transformation, but in Prometheus Bound we can see clearly enough that the version of the Theogony was the starting point for Aeschylus' own approach to the myth of Prometheus. On the whole the Theogony9s scheme of the succession of rulers in the divine dynasty is accepted by Aeschylus and used as background for his plot. With the three generations, Uranus-Cronus-Zeus, which formed the backbone of Hesiod's system, Aeschylus indeed took some liberty. For some of his purposes he found two generations sufficient and in fact preferable. In Hesiod,9 Prometheus is the son of Clymene, an Oceania, and lapetus, who in turn is a son of Uranus and Gaea. Aeschylus had little need for lapetus and still less for Clymene but much need for Gaea, and in order to strengthen her connection with Prometheus and to make effective dramatic use of it he describes Prometheus as the direct offspring of Gaea.10 8 Like the great majority of contemporary scholars—the only dissentient voices in recent years seem to have beent hose of Max Pohlenz (op. cit. note 1,70) and Eirik Vandvik (op. cit. ibid. 68 ff.)—I believe that the Upo/w/flefc Etopo^ópos was the third play of the trilogy, not the first. To ignore or alter our only testimony (schol. P. V. 94) for the play because it does not agree with a modern theory seems a questionable procedure. The fire theft formed the subject of the satyr play Upon-rjOevs Hvpnaiefa which was acted on the same day as the Persians. For vases reflecting a central scene of this play see J. D. Beazley, A. J. A. 43 (1939).618ff.; more recently a fragment of the play has been identified on a papyrus in Oxford; to the best of my knowledge it has not yet been published; cf. Eduard Fraenkel, Proc. Brit. Acad. (1942) 247. 9 Theog. 507ff. See above, pp. 50f. 10 Pr. 209. Gaea is here identified with Themis (iroXXwv OVOHÓ.TUV /iop^ /*«*)• In Bum. Iff. the two are distinguished, and Themis succeeds Gaea in the posses sion of the Delphic oracle. D. S. Robertson, C. R. 55 (1941).69ff., suggests that Aeschylus introduced Themis into the Delphic succession 'to equate the assumption of office of the first three holders of the Pythian oracle,' Gaea, Themis, and Phoebe, with the 'three great allotments' of yepa and ripai among the gods, i.e., the allotments made by Uranus, Cronus, and Zeus. Professor Robertson's theory is attractive but has its difficulties. One difficulty lies in the fact that an allotment made by Uranus is nowhere attested, and I am not so sure as Robertson that it can be 'inferred,' for if Uranus kept his children in the womb of Gaea until Cronus rebelled, he could hardly divide the yepa and TI/ÍCU of the Universe among them. Moreover, since Themis and Phoebe belong to the same generation of gods, the 'equation' which Robjertson suggests could scarcely be obvious to Aeschylus' audience. For the identification of Gaea and Themis in the P. V. Aeschylus may well have had more than one reason. One reason will be discussed below in note 18; apart from specific reasons, it is possible that the identification appealed to Aeschylus if what Wilamowitz has so emphatically asserted is true (Glaube d. Hell., 1.206; cf. also his Introduction to the Eumenides in Griechische Tragôdien

AESCHYLUS: THE PROMETHEIA 127

As far as the divine dynasts themselves are concerned, however, Aeschylus clings to the three generations, not only because, thanks to Hesiod, they had become firmly imprinted upon the Greek mind nor because either Uranus or Cronus have themselves a definite function in his plot—in Prometheus Bound this is certainly not the case—but because the three generations as such made a special appeal to his mind. For do not some of his own trilogies trace the sequence of crime and punishment through three generations? Even while we were dealing with Hesiod we were at times led to point out features which his construction of the divine dynasty has in common with the plot of a tragic trilogy,11 and while we are anxious not to exaggerate the importance of these features and do not actually identify Hesiod's scheme with that of Aeschylus, we cannot ignore or dismiss as accidental certain structural similarities. Uranus becomes guilty and suffers retribution at the hand of his son who agrees with his mother that the father 'was the first to think of shameful things';12 Cronus in turn commits 'shameful things' (àeucéa epya) against his wife (and progeny) and suffers punishment at the hand of Zeus. Zeus maintains himself in power. His government, as the Works and Days shows even more definitely than the Theogony, is a government based on Justice. We shall return to the Hesiodic scheme and consider its significance for Aeschylus in a later part of this chapter.13 At present, one more feature calls for notice: In our text of the Theogony the government of Zeus, even after the defeat of the Titans and of the last rebel Typhoeus, experiences one more crisis. For a time, it seems possible that what Zeus had done to Cronus and what Cronus had done to Uranus might be repeated once more, i.e. that Zeus in turn might be deprived of his reign by a son. It is the marriage of Zeus to Metis which brings this possibility to a head,14 but we have found reasons for thinking that Hesiod himself either did not know or did not believe the story and that it was not he who incorporated it in the Theogony.™ The poet who did incorporate it regarded the danger to 2 [6th éd.; Berlin] 1910), namely, 'fruh hat Mutter Erde die Gesetzlichkeit, die Rechtsordnung in der menschlichen Gesellschaft unter ihre Hut genomnen.' Wilamowitz' view is rejected by Nilsson, Gesch. d. gr. Ret. 1.427ff., and it must be admitted that the passage in the P. V. can hardly be used as a testimony in favor of Wilamowitz' idea. 11 See above, p. 21, and below, p. 158. 12 Theog. 172; cf. 166. For the next pages cf. Murray, op. cit. (note 1) 30f. 13 See below, p. 157. 14 Theog. 892ff., 897f.; 929a. (See above, p. 67); cf. Paula Philippson, op. cit. (note 72, above, p. 26) 20f. 15 See above, p. 67.

128

HESIOD AND AESCHYLUS

Zeus' regime as past, for he says that Zeus was warned in time by Gaea and swallowed Metis before she could give birth to the son. Now, since this crisis in the government of Zeus is pivotal for Aeschylus' construction of the history of the divine dynasty, it is tempting to think that he owes it to the same source from which he derived the substance of this history, namely, to the Theogony. It is not impossible that he knew different texts of this work, some which did and others which did not include the section treating of Metis. Not much is gained, however, by speculations of this kind. We must admit that no passage in Prometheus Bound is in its phrasing so close to the Metis episode as to make cogent the inference that Aeschylus actually knew it; Pindar appears not to know it16 and—this is the decisive argument—the dangerous marriage which Zeus will some day conclude will be with Thetis, not with Metis.17 Another item in which the accounts of Hesiod and of Aeschylus differ is the fact that Prometheus has learnt the momentous secret not from his mother under the name of Gaea but under that of Themis.18 Thus we best assume that Aeschylus owes the whole motif of Zeus' marriage project to a different source. This source may be Pindar's VIII Isthmian Ode (as L. R. Farnell19 held), but it seems more 18

See above, p. 67. Hyg. fab. 54 in conjunction with Philod. De piet. 41 Gomperz (the text as restored by Gomperz can be considered sufficiently reliable; cf. Wilamowitz in his edition of Aeschylus [Berlin, 1914] 67, 73) shows that in Aeschylus it is the marriage with Thetis which brings about the crisis for Zeus. For the story of Thetis cf. Pindar, Isthm. 8.30ff. See also Felix Jacoby in the Praefatio to his edition of the Theogony 41ff.; Maurice Croiset, Eschyle (Paris, 1924) 136; Wilamowitz, op. cit. (note 1) 132ff. Cf. note 19. 18 P. V. 873ff.; cf. Pindar, Isthm. 8.31ff. By proclaiming the identity of Gaea and Themis Aeschylus made the goddess who, according to Hesiod, had aided Zeus so effectively in establishing himself in power and the goddess who knew the secret about Zeus' marriage one and the same person. Thomson in his edition (Cambridge, 1932) on vv. 225f. has the right idea but reverses the roles which the goddesses had in the tradition. 19 The Works of Pindar: Critical Commentary (London, 1932) 380. See also— another volume of the same work—Translation with Literary Commentary (London, 1930) 288. Farnell cannot be refuted. He rightly rejects Wilamowitz' theory (Pindaros [Berlin, 1922] 179ff.) that the story is known to the painter of the François vase, but I cannot admit that the similar wording of P. V. 922ff. and Pindar, Isthm. 8.36, proves the dependence of Aeschylus and may not equally well be explained as echoing a common source. It is attractive to think, with Farnell, that between Nem. V and Isthm. VIII Pindar invented the entire story of Thetis' warning prophecy which put an end to Zeus' and Poseidon's wooing, but I am— perhaps unjustifiably—reluctant to credit Pindar with the free invention of such an elaborate story and such a bold and speculative oracle, and incline rather to Wilamowitz' view (op. cit. 174ff.; see also Aesch. Interpret. 133 n.2) that Pindar knew a goodly number of tales about Thetis and her marriage and selected in 17

AESCHYLUS: THE PROMETHE1A 129

probable that Pindar and Aeschylus depend on the same 'theological' poem. Like the poet who added the Metis story to the text of the Theogony, Aeschylus welcomed the possibility of introducing one more crisis into the traditional, i.e. Hesiodic, account of the divine dynasty, yet he alone establishes an organic and at the same time extraordinarily profound connection between the new motif and the Hesiodic tradition. The prospect of Zeus' marriage and the threat which it holds for his reign are for Aeschylus much more than a fruitful dramatic complication; under his hands the crisis which faces Zeus' newly-won reign becomes a genuine parallel to the developments which overthrew Uranus and Cronus, and its solution, far from being achieved by a tour de force™ is now closely linked to the fundamental problem of Zeus' world government and reflects (as we shall see towards the end of this chapter)21 Aeschylus' persistent and penetrating speculations on this subject. Aeschylus clearly accepts Hesiod's idea of an embittered struggle between Zeus and his followers and the Titans over the control of the world. This discord forms the starting point of Prometheus' own account regarding his experiences and his relations with Zeus and his group.22 Like Hesiod, Aeschylus considers the Titans children of Uranus and Gaea, holds that through his victory over the Titans Zeus consolidated his position as ruler of the world, and regards the imprisonment of Cronus and his companions in the Underworld as the result of their defeat in the Titanomachia.23 As soon as Zeus was seated on his father's different poems whatever seemed best suited to his specific purpose. The reference to Poseidon's weapon (in P. V. 924f.) has no significant meaning in Aeschylus since Prometheus had no particular grudge against Poseidon. This motif had its function in the fuller original version of the prophecy which we read in Pindar; Aeschylus kept it to heighten the threat. »22 As in Theog. 888ff., 897ff.; cf. 9294ff 21 See below, pp. 162f. P. V. 199ff. By insisting, however, that victory was bound to come and indeed came to those who employed 66X0$ (v. 213; cf. vv. 206, 219) Aeschylus discards the details of the Hesiodic Titanomachia in which Zeus' invincible might and prowess and his irresistible lightning play a decisive part (see above, pp. 17f). A reason for Aeschylus' innovation was probably the realization that SoXot and /iT/xwai were contributions in keeping with Prometheus' character; he is iroXv/ifaaix* and irouuXojSouXos (Hesiod, Theog. 521; cf. P. V. 308). Aeschylus is anxious to give Prometheus a very important role in the crisis. Another point is that Zeus ought to realize that his rule cannot safely be based on mere 'power'— another meaning of «paros—but he is very slow in learning this lesson. M Vv. 197ff.; esp. 199ff., 205, 219ff. Prometheus can regard Oceanus as fellow rebel against Zeus (v. 331) because he is a Titan and brother of Cronus (Hesiod, Theog. 133, 207) ; a literal interpretation of P. V. 331 is bound to create difficultie and should indeed not be attempted; for who could have described Oceanus as

130

HESIOD AND AESCHYLUS

throne he assigned to each of the other gods his specific ' honor ' and province.24 Again, as in Hesiod, Gaea supports Zeus and his group during the decisive struggle with their antagonists; her counsel and her knowledge of future events are again important25—she knows more than the younger generation of gods. In fact, Aeschylus expands her role. Yet in Aeschylus' play Prometheus too is said to have taken the side of the gods during their struggle with the Titans and to have supported them even more effectively than his mother Gaea.26 This is a new departure, and the motive for it is not difficult to find—Zeus' treatment of Prometheus becomes all the more outrageous if he is indebted to Prometheus for his victory over his foes. In the Theogony the Titanomachia with its description of Zeus' crushing victory over the whole army of Titans is preceded by the account of Zeus' triumph over and punishment of individual antagonists.27 We have earlier in this study explained the poetic logic which accounts for this arrangement of the episodes and have realized that the order in which Hesiod presents his subjects is not intended to reflect a chronological sequence.28 The crushing of the sons of lapetus precedes the Titanomachia because the Titanomachia is the climax of Zeus' career and in a sense the climax of the poem. Aeschylus did not in any way 'misunderstand' Hesiod when he made Zeus' punitive action against individual rebels take place after the Titanomachia. The figure of Prometheus dominates the part of the Theogony which tells how Zeus crushed the sons of lapetus; his brothers are treated in a few lines each, but the brevity of their treatment does not lessen the importance of the thought which made Hesiod bring together the rebels in one section.and to assign to them a common father.29 (We may cornaiding Prometheus in what he did for the human race? Wilamowitz' contention (based primarily on this verse) that Aeschylus depends on a post-Hesiodic Titanomachia (op. cit., note 1,121, 132, 141, 148) lacks solid foundations as well as intrinsic probability. When we can see a reason why Aeschylus departed from Hesiod, as, e.g., in the motif of Prometheus helping the gods in the decisive struggle, the presumption is that he, not the hypothetical intermediate poet, is the innovator. Another gratuitous assumption is that Aeschylus needed the 'help' of an earlier poet to regard the stolen fire as the source of human civilization (Wilamowitz, ibid. 148). Thomson (in his edition, see note 18, ad v.) assumes that Prometheus is sarcastic and tries to emend the line. How does Thomson know that the Orphic tradition which he quotes, v. 300, is older than Aeschylus? 24 P. V. 228ff.; Hesiod, Theog. 885. See above, pp. 7f., 15. 25 Vv. 209, 217. Prometheus professes to have learnt the end of his own pfcfoi from the Ttram ©«¿us (v. 874), who is identical with Gaea. 26 See again P. V. 199ff., esp. 219ff. Prometheus evidently claims the principal merit for Zeus' triumph in the battle with the Titans. See also vv. 305, 439f. 27 For the 7^os of lapetus see Theog. 507-616; for the Titanomachia ibid. 617ff. 28 See above, p. 50. 29 See above, pp. 44, 52.

AESCHYLUS: THE PROMETHEIA 131

pare the subsumption of a great variety of monsters under the heading of Keto.30) Nor was this thought lost on Aeschylus. To be sure, in his play too Prometheus is the archrebel, the most important and most interesting figure of the group, and it is around his fate—as described in the Theogony*1—that Aeschylus' searching questions regarding the justice of the treatment which Zeus has meted out to the rebels have crystallized. But the other rebels are not forgotten. Prometheus himself draws the parallel between his fate and theirs.32 Theirs is equally unjust, equally a matter for pity, and a further indictment of Zeus' regime. As in Hesiod they too bear witness to the irresistible might of Zeus and to the futility of all opposition, yet at the same time illustrate also the more questionable aspects of Zeus' rule. It is relatively unimportant that Aeschylus has made some changes in the 'personnel' of this group of rebels. He ignores Menoetius whom according to Hesiod Zeus struck down with his lightning and threw into Tartarus,33 and he also passes over Epimetheus, who indeed even for Hesiod was not so much a rebel as a fool, but had to be mentioned because he had figured even in the Pre-Hesiodic story as brother and counterpart to Prometheus.34 On the other hand, Aeschylus has added to the list of Prometheus' relatives and fellow sufferers Typhon, who in the Theogony as Aeschylus read it has a section to himself and is described as making a last and violent bid for the overthrow of the Olympians after the victory in the Titanomachia had established Zeus' supremacy.35 We do not regard this section as a part of the authentic Hesiodic Theogony™ but as has been said before it must have been incorporated in it before the time of Aeschylus, who knew nothing of the methods of modern higher criticism. Nor is it in any way surprising that to Aeschylus the violent and futile challenge to Zeus' rule by this 'last son of Gaea' should have seemed to be of a piece with the rebellion of the lapetids and that his cruel fate should also have struck the 30 31

See above, p. 63. Wilamowitz, op. cit. (note 1) 130 suggests that Aeschylus misunderstood Theog. 521 ukaov ota KÍOV' eXácro-as. I agree that a KÍW is not the same thing as a 135 Hesiod had created the new goddess, he was convinced of her central role in human life, and it was he who made the realization of all those goods without which no community can flourish dependent on man's attitude toward Dike. Eirene and Dike, whom he had introduced in the Theogony as Horai, reappear in the Works and Days as inseparably connected.136 There is no need to assume that the passage in the Works and Days was the literary model for Aeschylus' songs of benediction either in the Suppliants or in the Eumenides. In fact, his models may rather have been ritual songs,137 but for him too reverence for Justice is the prior 133 134

Eum. 903-909 (H. W. Smyth's translation, slightly altered). Contrast Suppl. 635ff., 663. Aeschylus is proud that Ares 'inhabits' Athens (Eum. 918), and Athena welcomes the chance for victory and effcXcta which external war offers to her citizens (Eum. 864f., 913ff.), repudiating only civil war. I cannot agree with Gilbert Murray, Aeschylus 78, that 'Aeschylus hated war and preached peace almost as passionately as Euripides.' 135 Op. 230ff.; cf. 225ff. (above, pp. 97f). 136 Theog. 901ff.; Op. 225ÍL See above, pp. 91ff. 137 Jaeger, Paideia 1.325, refers in this connection to 'die Liturgien staatlicher Gottesdienste und ihre Gebetesprache.1 The songs to which Aeschylus himself alludes in Suppl. 694ff. may have been hymns praising a certain god, yet even such hymns may have included a prayer rávoe o-áouiróXw (Homer, hymn 13, 3; cf. Callim. h. Dem. 134ff). In general, cf. Eduard Norden, Aus Altrômischen Priesterbüchern (Skrifter Humanística Vetenskapssamfundet, Lund, 1939) 269ff.; cf. also ibid. 159f., 248ff. See also Wilamowitz' brief comment, Textgeschichte der Lyriker (Abhandlg. Gôttinger Ges. d. Wiss., Phil.-Hist. Kl. 54, 3 [1900]).38. Cf. my comments on Horace c. I. 2 in H. T. R. 40 (1947).217 n. 24.

214

HESIOD AND AESCHYLUS

condition of all the blessings which the choruses in these plays promise or prophecy. In the Suppliants this connection can be seen even more clearly than in the later play; for the songs in the Suppliants™ express the gratitude of the maidens who have just been admitted to the Argive community. The maidens make clear that the happiness which they invoke upon their hosts and benefactors is deserved because the Argives have satisfied the demands of Zeus, the guardian of Right.139 At the conclusion of the song they wish once more that their hosts may give 'decisions of good arbitration/ 'right without harm' to strangers as indeed they have just done in their own case, and likewise fulfill the two other basic duties, those towards gods and those towards parents; for the 'statutes of Justice who is held in greatest honor' (0éos) and suppliant of her goddess,141 an act moreover of paradigmatic and symbolic significance, since it constitutes the first action of the council which will henceforth for ever watch over the preservation of Justice in the city. It might even be argued that the admission of the Erinyes to the city is another act of justice, inasmuch as they are given their due, but even if this supposition should seem dubious it would still be true that the city has proved herself deserving of those blessings which only the just may expect. Hymns asking the gods for protection against plague, famine, bad harvest—perhaps also war or civil discord—were probably a regular part of many festivals which were celebrated in Greek cities. If it is 138 Suppl. 625-709; cf. Karl Deichgraber's paper on 'Althellenischer Segensglaube,' Die Antike, 13 (1937).79ff., and Wilamowitz' discussion of the chorus in Aesch. Interpret. 36ff. The song in the Suppliants is probably closer to the original pattern also in that it is uninterrupted. In the Eumenides Athena expresses after every strophe and antistrophe of the chorus her joy and satisfaction. 139 Suppl. 639, 646ÍL, 651ff.; cf. 672, 701. 140 Suppl. 701ff., 708f. Cf. Hesiod, Op. 327-334, where violations of such unwritten laws are in a kind of afterthought made a special concern of Zeus, whose close association with Dike has just been shown. Cf. Thomson as cited in note 77. 141 Cf. Eum. 241ff., 439ff. (although Orestes does not really come G> TPÓTTOLS 'IClovos as Athena suspects, 437f). Athens* generous and pious treatment of kerat looms large in the legendary tradition about its early history, and the Athenians were proud of their record in this matter; cf. Herod. 9.27.2 (see also the episode ibid. 6.108) and Euripides' Heraclidae and Suppliants, to say nothing of the epitaphs.

AESCHYLUS: THE EUMENIDES 215

safe to assume that Aeschylus incorporates motifs of this hymnic tradition in his songs of blessing,142 we should also realize that the place where he introduces such songs is chosen with care and that only in tragedy could the prayer for such blessings be linked to a deed of Justice which the city for whose welfare the chorus prays has just performed. For Aeschylus, this deed is a part of his city's life and thus it is natural for him to regard it as an act of Dike—no longer of the more archaic Themis to whose domain the proper treatment of strangers and suppliants had once belonged. When Pindar praises Aegina for its fairness to strangers who were sure to find justice in that city, he gives the credit for it to Themis, a fact which is typical of his way of thinking; for although he recognizes Dike's beneficial manifestations in a community, he is much more attached to the archaic goddess Themis143 than is his Athenian contemporary, the great citizen poet. The city (TTÓXW) to which Hesiod referred would in Aeschylus' eyes hardly deserve this name. In Hesiod's community it was a part of the * king's' functions to settle differences which had arisen between its members. He might use his 'persuasion'—if the Muses had endowed him with this gift—or else decide the matter in accordance with his lights, provided he was not swayed by private 'gains.'144 Hesiod knows nothing of such a 'bulwark saving city and land' as has now been set up in Athens, nothing of the religious awe which it enjoys or the element of fear which it represents. On a new level of political life, supported by new insights, Hesiod's confident assertion concerning those 'who give straight justice to strangers and citizens' is reaffirmed by Aeschylus. If we bear in mind the fundamental relation between Justice and prosperity, we shall be less prone to criticize Aeschylus for concluding his play on a note which in the view of some of his critics shows that he has lost interest in Orestes' problem. For Aeschylus' religious feeling the archaic beliefs and the old pious confidence which inspired the original conception of such songs of blessing are real and vital to a degree that may surprise us. For him, to understand the ways of God has become a matter of extreme difficulty, yet when finally after many perplexing developments and complications his 142 143

See above, note 137. Cf. 01. 8.21ff.; also Paean 6.131 (Aegina's Oepifrpos apera). See, however, frg. 1.4ff. (Bowra). A different Çevlov Atôs 0e/us is mentioned Nem. 11.St. For Pindar's appraisal of AUij see esp. 01. 13.6ff. 144 Theog. 81ff.; Op. 37ff., 260ff., and passim. Cf. R. J. Bonner and Gertrude Smith's paper 'Administration of Justice in Boeotia,' (Class. Ph. 40 [1945].llff., esp. 12).

216

HESIOD AND AESCHYLUS

justice has manifested itself, Aeschylus readily reverts to the forms and formulas in which earlier generations had expressed their hope for godgiven ivoatfjjovia. He raises them to a higher level of poetic dignity and religious thought, a process comparable to that by which he gave new depth and solemnity to the songs and prayers with which the chorus even before his time had entered the orchestra.145 It was in the nature of clan feuds and a succession of murders within the same family that one act of bloodshed inevitably gave rise to the next unless the last member of the family died childless as in the Seven Against Thebes. The belief in the necessity, the justice, even the divine sanction of such blood atonement had stamped itself upon and shaped the myths which were the material of Aeschylus' tragedies, and there seemed to be no escape from the dire necessity which engulfs one generation after the other unless an Archimedic point outside this cruel but airtight scheme of thought could be found from which it was possible to destroy its foundation. Aeschylus reached a solution by shifting the whole problem from the family to the city and transferring it from the sphere of one particular conception of Right to another. It is not the first time that the city appears within the framework of Aeschylus' tragedy, yet our very limited knowledge of his earlier plays keeps comparisons within narrow bounds. It is safe to assume that the sequences of family catastrophes which for obvious reasons recommended themselves to Aeschylus as suitable subjects for trilogies had in their original, pre-Aeschylean versions little relation to the ideas of a state like fifthcentury Athens. Yet so great is the hold of these ideas upon the citizen poet that they assert themselves and press their claims as it were upon the conception of his plots.146 In the Suppliants the city of Argos becomes entangled in the affairs of a family rent by the deadly hostility of two groups of cousins. We do not see how it weathers the storm, but there are reasons for surmising that the generous citizens of Argos who accord protection and hospitality to the fugitive maidens and their father have to pay dearly for this magnanimous course of action.147 Though the blessings which the maid146 14

Cf. Eduard Fraenkel, Philologus 86 (1931).Iff., 9, 16. « Cf. Jaeger Paideia 1.471 n.59. 147 Gottfried Hermann (Opuse. 2.323) suggested that the middle play included a battle in which the Argives were defeated, whereas F. G. Welcker (Kleine Schriften 4.104ff.) supposed that the maidens submitted more peacefully to the necessity of marrying their cousins. It will be remembered that these two pioneers in the reconstruction of lost plays and trilogies could almost never agree with each other; in this instance it is difficult to resist the impression that their solutions

AESCHYLUS: THE EU MEN IDES

217

ens lavish on the community of their benefactors may be belied by the immediate sequel, it is possible or even probable that still later developments substantiated their prophecies.148 Argos must still be there at the end, but how its existence and prosperity were related to the solution of the family problem is not known. In the Persians, Athens' democracy, its rule of law, and the determined will to freedom of the sons of Hellas carry the day over the impious invaders; this time the relation between Athens' victory, on the one hand, and the despotic folly and catastrophe of Xerxes, on the other, is one of contrast. While studying the Prometheia we have found reason to believe that the gradual emergence of Justice in the relations between different groups of gods and in the order of the whole universe is accompanied by similar developments in human relations and in political life. It is at any rate Dike, this central concept of Aeschylus' political thinking, that leads from disharmony to unity and solves the otherwise insoluble problem, Dike in conjunction with Sophrosyne,149 another cardinal virtue which finds its realization in the mature city. Whether Aeschylus thought of the harmony which finally prevails in the divine community in terms of an earthly city or whether he merely allowed the more satisfactory conditions within the circle of gods to find a reflection in man's communal life is again a question which cannot be settled in the light of our information, but it is very probable that the rescue of the ruling generation of gods from the curse that hangs over their heads was accomplished through a moral reform of Zeus' government and that this reform parallels the inauguration of a new era in human life, as in the Oresteia.UQ In the Seven Against Thebes, the interests of a city are definitely reflect their respective temperaments. As a rule, Hermann's theories have prevailed; in some instances they have been borne out by new material. Among more recent scholars Wilamowitz (Aesch. Interpret. 20f.) inclines to the view that no fighting took place and that a compromise was effected. Cf. also Smyth, op. cit. (note 1) 43; Kitto, op. cit. (note 103, above, p. 146) 16ff. We cannot attempt more than a guess, yet it should be borne in mind that in the first play the sons of Aegyptus are quite prepared to use force and that the maidens are in a mood in which nothing but force would make them enter into a marriage with their detested cousins. 148 Cf. P. V. 869, avrrj (Hypermestra) Kar"'Ap7os /Sao-iXi/coi/ Tt&iytvos. 149 It is evident that in P. F. Zeus lacks oucauxrfoij as well as «rw^porfoi;, and Prometheus himself is deficient in the latter quality (the chorus rebukes him for this lack, e.g., vv. 178ff., 932ff., 1036ff). See above, pp. 135f. The citizens of Athens are called awvpovowrcs kv xp¿»«t> Eum. 1000. The ^0os of the men whom Eteocles appoints to defend the gates of Thebes contrasts with the hybris of the attackers (Amphiaraus* character being an exception). 150 See above, pp. 154f. (or below, pp. 221f).

218

HESIOD AND AESCHYLUS

bound up with the fate of a curse-ridden family, but the lines which start out in the same direction and run parallel for a time diverge towards the end. Both groups share the danger; the curse includes the city along with the race of Laius, for he had been bidden thrice by the oracle of Apollo ' dying without offspring to save the city' and had acted against this divine injunction.161 Moreover, Aeschylus gives us the most vivid picture of the inhabitants as seized by panic and anticipating in fits of despair the complete destruction of their city.152 Yet the concentrated attack of the Seven is beaten off and the city survives. Eteocles is successful as organizer of the resistance, but in his own person, as son of Oedipus and grandson of Laius, he succumbs to the onslaught of the Erinys, and his brother perishes with him. Already in this play it appears that for Aeschylus the city has sufficient intrinsic strength and worth to withstand the working of the curse. The city is an entity above and beyond its reach. By setting the city thus apart from the fate of the brothers, especially of Eteocles,153 Aeschylus shows himself aware of a sphere in which the tradition of inherited guilt and doom has lost its power and meaning. Yet, as we have seen, he allows the curse to be fully effective within the family. We know little about Eteocles' own crime; in this play there is only the briefest reference to it,154 and our ignorance on this point makes a comparison with Orestes and his situation precarious. It is clear, however, that Aeschylus has not seen fit to create an issue between the different approaches and principles of Justice. He makes no attempt to stress the ideological foundations of the city state, nor does he develop the 181 162

Sept. 742ff. See esp. Sept. 78ff., 203ff. 278ff. It will be evident why I cannot agree with Wilamowitz' judgment (Hermes 32 [1897].390): lDie Sieben haben es überhaupt nicht erreicht, die zwei Stoffe, die Rettung Thebens und den Untergang des sündigen Hauses, miteinander zu verschmelzen.1 Quite apart from other features of lVerschmelzung'—Eteocles organizing the defense, the city too menaced by the curse —the very fact that for a while we forget Eteocles ' individual danger and fate has a definite function in the economy of the play; for it makes the onslaught of the Erinys all the more appalling. On the other hand, Wilamowitz may be correct in thinking that Aeschylus' t*v0os is drawn in part from the Thebaid and in part from the Oedipodea (Aesch. Interpret. 67; cf. also Griech. Verskunst [Berlin, 1921] 199; his views in the matter are criticized by Bruno Snell, Aeschylus und das Handeln im Drama, Philologus, Suppl. 20.1 [1928].89 n.!31a). isa For gOOCi comments on this subject see Albrecht von Blumenthal, Aeschylus (Stuttgart, 1924) 88ff. Méautis, op. cit, (note 69, above, p. 137) 104 argues that already in the prologue Eteocles is isolated and marked out as a man who has his own fate. Though one may hesitate to go as far as that, it is well that he draws attention (p. 105) to the yk in TO\H> yc (Sept. 71). 164 See above, note 48.

AESCHYLUS: THE EU MEN IDES

219

intrinsic opposition between two different religious and moral outlooks, as in the Eumenides, or allow Eteocles' relation to the city to counterbalance his unhappy entanglement in the ancestral curse. Thebes, though not saved by Eteocles' death,155 is certainly indebted to his circumspect leadership, and the survival of the threatened city is a triumph of the spirit of piety, moderation, and patriotic courage which distinguishes him and the other defenders from the arrogant and impious attackers.156 In this play too the city embodies certain moral values, especially moderation (wppovwrj) ;157 it is a Greek city which has within its precincts altars of the gods to whom it pays reverence, but it lacks power to interfere effectively with the operation of the Erinys. To be sure the myth had it that the expedition of the Seven ended in failure; but the myth also told of the successful enterprise of their children,158 and it should not be doubted that Aeschylus either chose or 165

Cf. T. A. P. A. 68 (1937) .205f. To the list of scholars who hold that Eteocles' death saves Thebes (ibid, n.28) add W. C. Greene, op. cit. (note 1, above, p. 3) 11, and Méautis, op. cit. (note 69, above, p. 137) 113ff., 116. On the other hand, Benjamin Daube, op. cit. (note 36) 88ff., has come out strongly against this view. Cf. also J. T. Kakrides, APAI (Athens, 1929) 149ff., and Albin Lesky, Deutsche Literaturzeitg. 51 (1930)1171. On Eteocles' figure and its tragic quality cf. Jaeger, Paideia 1.259. 166 See in particular Sept. 375-630, a section of the play in which it is pointed out again and again that the defenders are animated by a spirit which contrasts with that of the attackers (cf. Walter Porzig, Die attische Tragôdie des Aeschylus [Leipzig, 1926] 178f.; Daube, op. cit., note 36, 88; Croiset, Eschyle 117; Walter Nestle, op. cit., note 59, above, p. 135, 7ff.), though Amphiaraus, one of the Seven is different from the others in his grou'p (cf. Eteocles at v. 597