The Compassion of Orthodoxy: The Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
A Zeus wronged by Prometheus and an
Aeschylus wronged by the critics
The Compassion of Orthodoxy:
The Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus
Robert L. Houbeck, Jr.
ONE OF THE central interpretative dif- of Prometheus, as savage, arbitrary, even
ficulties with the Prometheus Bound of ~njust.~
Aeschylus has been to account for the Surely Prometheus sees Zeus as a cruel
poet’s seemingly uncharacteristic treat- and high-handed tyrant. So too have most
ment of Zeus. The problem for the critics critics seen him. Yet, was this the poet’s
has been simply that the Zeus of the Pro- view of the Zeus of his Prometheus
metheus Bound does not seem very Bound! With whom do the poet’s sym-
Zeuslike. The poet has portrayed him as pathies truly lie: with Prometheus or with
brutal, vengeful, insecure-not at all the Zeus? The answer is incontestable. The
far-seeing, wise Father-Zeus of Hesiod or Zeus of the Prometheus Bound is not a
the other surviving plays of the Aeschy- brutal and arbitrary despot, but is in fact
lean corpus. the same protector of the unseen measure
Most commentators have sought to of Dike, of justice, that Aeschylus depicted
resolve this seeming anomaly in in his other dramas. Prometheus, as
Aeschylus’s treatment of Zeus by sug- Aeschylus portrayed him, is not a victim,
gesting that, over the course of the trilogy, but a justly punished transgressor of the
Zeus would “evolve” into a mellower dei- divine order.
ty.’ Others have brusquely cut through the This view nas seemed incredible to
knot by positing a Zeus who, rather than some critics. Podlecki mentions the no-
change his character, would simply tion, but dismisses it almost contemp-
change his mind. They construct a Zeus tuously.6 Lloyd-Jones finds it “an opinion
who will “do a deal” with Prometheus;2 or that has gone out of fashion in this cen-
a Realpolitiker Zeus, a sort of Attic ~ a careful if un-
tury, and no w ~ n d e r . ”Yet,
Bismarck, who will strike a power-political fashionable reading of the play will reveal
bargain with the rebellious Titan3 Others that the poet’s sympathies lie not with Pro-
wonder whether Aeschylus really wrote metheus but with Zeus. The “problem of
the play after alL4 What the majority of Zeus” is a problem only for critics who
the play’s modern critics do agree upon, have read literally what Aeschylus has
however, is this: The Zeus of this play is meant ironically.
different from the traditional Zeus. The This interpretation of the play is neither
poet has portrayed him, in his punishment perverse nor unique, though a reading of
Modern Age 33
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITEDthe critics, where they mention it at all, vik plausibly suggests,” this was a
would incline one so to think. Nicolaus tempered generation. They were nat the
Wecklein formulated the view well in progress-fattened, increasingly bellicose
1897: Athenians of the later fifth century. They
The whole plot of the drama turns on were not possessed of a sense of skep-
the character of Prometheus. By his ex- ticism about the gods. They had ex-
ample it is shown that every revolt perienced, and recently, their providence
against Zeus must necessarily come in the Persian wars. They would have
from ignorance of his wise designs, that been particularly grateful in recollecting
every fault imputed to him has its foun- that providence. These men had seen, too,
dations in a purblind and malicious the ambiguous benefits of that fire which
judgment, and that any seeming was Prometheus’s special gift to mankind,
ground for insubordination, however fire which indeed warms the hearth, but
specious and seductive, must in the end also forges the weapons that slay com-
prove a snare and a delusion.8 rades and razes the homes that shelter
loved ones. We may well wonder with
Zeus in the Prometheus Bound of Aeschy- what unalloyed enthusiasm such a pious
lus is not a despot; he is a father. Pro- and annealed generation would have
metheus is not a rebel to be admired; he is entertained such a gift and its larcenous
a rebel to be punished and, perhaps, giver: “benefactor,” indeed, who gave
through punishment, made to see the er- men fire but not also the sophrosyne, the
ror of his pride and the justice of his wisdom and due measure necessary to use
bonds. that gift well.
A handful of other commentators have ‘To be sure, we know nothing about the
also argued this position: Eirik Vandvik, in criteria the archon might have applied
a 1942 monograph, and, more briefly, Eric when approving plays for production. Nor
Voegelin (1957, 1968) and Leo Strauss can we be sure precisely how audiences
(1968).9Yet, a student perusing the critical reacted to this particular play (or to any
literature will scarcely find these commen- play of the early fifth century). But it is im-
tators cited, even in bibliographies. More plausible to suppose, as both Wecklein and
important, he will virtually never find the Vandvik point out, that a play which truly
position they argue examined and con- portrayed Zeus as a cruel tyrant (especial-
futed. This silence is a puzzle. ly if that play were the first play of a
As Eric Voegelin once observed, the trilogy, as the “evolutionary-Zeus’’ critics
stream is clearest at its source. Let us try are constrained to argue12) would have
to get behind the secular, romantic con- been t01erated.I~ We do know that
notations that have encrusted the figure of Aeschylus was an unusually respected
Prometheus and re-examine ,the play that citizen and that his plays were accorded
Aeschylus, not Shelley or Coethe, actually the unusual honor of being re-produced (at
wrote. What we will find is a Zeus a time, perhaps, when some thought his
wronged by Prometheus and an Aeschy- dramas might fortify an increasingly deca-
lus wronged by the critics. dent p ~ p u l a c e ) In
. ~ sum,
~ the Prometheus
I1 trilogy, or any other play produced at that
time for that audience, could not have por-
Many in the audience that attended the trayed Zeus in any but the traditional
Prometheus trilogy, first performed at Hesiodic light, as far-seeing, wise Father-
Athens perhaps as early as 479-.78 B.C.,l0 Zeus, at once stern and gentle, who
would have been men of the generation of establishes and ensures justice, but a Zeus
Marathon, men who were, like the poet also possessed of a “mind unknowable for
himself, “Marathon champions,” men who men.”15 And this latter is the key point. As
had seen war and experienced the all Athenians knew from Hesiod, Pro-
“miracle” of the Creek victory. As Vand- metheus had sought to deceive Zeus at
34 Winter 1986
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITEDMekone, but “Zeus, full of eternal counsel, An Athenian audience, though, mindful
saw through the stratagem and noted it of the cruel excesses of genuine tyrants
we11.”’6 Through the rage of the im- like the HippiasZ0of their fathers’ genera-
moderate Prometheus the Athenian au- tion or the contemporary Hiero at
dience could read the true face of Father- Syracuse, could understand how absurd
Zeus. Children cannot always com- and even self-damning such a description
prehend the wisdom of a father, especially of the wise and mighty son of Kronos must
when he is teaching them hard lessons. be. In Prometheus’s prideful and distorted
How easily they misconstrue his actions accusations that audience would im-
and his intent. His ways often seem alien mediately sense disorder. They would see
and excessively hard. But mature men can the irony in these descriptions of Zeus as
recognize the directing heart behind the cruel and arbitrary tyrant: Zeus, who
firm hand. They recognize the gift of in- overthrew a genuine tyrant, the
struction, the need for them to learn cer- murderous Kronos, swallower of his own
tain things, if not through obedience, then children; Zeus, who established in place of
through suffering. the ancient chaos, not a new tyranny, but
To modern critics the gods may be mere the order of Dike,an order mirrored in the
literary figures. We are tempted to read lawfulness and security of the polis. An
them automatically, when we encounter Athenian audience, though not all modern
them in myth or drama, as symbols for critics, could distinguish between the
man. But to fifth-century Athenians the ironic voice of Aeschylus, the playwright,
gods were living realities. One might steal and the deluded voice of Prometheus, the
from one’s neighbor and the gods look the punished.
other way. But only a madman - or a Finally, again from the point of view of
mad god - would steal from the hearth of that early fifth-century Athenian au-
Zeus.I7 An Athenian spectator, though not dience, consider the disparity between the
a modern critic, would take seriously that Prometheus portrayed on the stage - de-
he was watching a play about the gods. fiant rebel, self-declared enemy of Zeus
How that spectator must have shuddered who considers himself an unjustly
to hear even another god, let alone a man, persecuted “coordinate power” - and the
call himself - as early on in the-play Prometheus that audience knew well. The
(1. 120)1*- the enemy of Zeus! How chill- audience knew the altar to Prometheus in
ing to hear Prometheus’s outburst, “In a the Academy. They knew the torch-race
word, I hate all the gods!” (1. 975.) And run each year in his honor. They knew
how that spectator might have nodded in him as a deity, though a minor deity.21He
agreement with Hermes’ quietly precise was the god of potters and craftsmen. He
diagnosis of that outburst: “It appears you was not, in the fifth-century Athenian pan-
have been stricken with no small theon, in any sense a rival of Zeus. That he
madness.” (1. 977.) Such a spectator might may have once so imagined himself must
admire Prometheus’s courage, his en- have been, to a contemporary audience, a
durance of pain, might even sympathize striking example of self-delusion. More-
with his unfortunate plight; but it is ex- over, if Prometheus once did imagine
ceedingly dubious that any sensible himself a serious competitor with Zeus for
Greek, though not necessarily every honor, an Athenian audience would ex-
modern critic, would fail to understand pect the poet to explain, not merely how
precisely where justice lay between Zeus the Titan came to be released by Zeus, but
and Prometheus. Prometheus had directly how he came to be reconciled with Zeus,
violated the order established by Zeus. how he came to recognize his own delu-
The Titan and even Zeus’s own rather sion and to accept Zeus’s position - and
slow-witted henchmen, Strength and his own - as just and ordinate. Deals and
Violence,lg might characterize Zeus’s rule bargains are not the stuff of reconcilia-
as that of a “tyrant.” tions.
Modern Age 35
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITEDIll seems to regard it, as a tyrant’s allocation
of the booty, where Prometheus feels
Still, such external evidence is only cir- himself to have been “shorted”? Or was it
cumstantial. What evidence is there within perhaps in truth something nobler and
the play to suggest that Prometheus, subtler: the establishment of order
though the central character of the drama, through the apportioning of that which
is not intended by the playwright to be was due each in justice? In either case,
seen as an admirable character? Prometheus does not say what place he
The first thing to notice is the most ob- was given - perhaps a place not high
vious of all: Prometheus is a prisoner. He enough for one of his intelligence and
is being punished. Now some punishments foresight? He then defied the will of Zeus
are justified, some are not. We do not and somehow “protected’ the race of men
know at the beginning of the play (at least from being destroyed by Zeus, who had
those of us for whom the first play of the intended to create in their place another
trilogy has been lost) whether this punish- race of men. With what was Zeus
ment is justified or unjustified. But we do dissatisfied in the present race of men that
know that the testimony of a prisoner he intended to create them anew? And
against his jailer will not necessarily be with what new characteristics would they
dispassionate. When Prometheus calls be endowed? Prometheus does not say.
Zeus brutal and ungrateful, we ought not Nor does he specify how he managed to
to be too ready to believe him without preserve the race of men from the god
evidence. It is precisely here, in for- who had just subdued the race of Titans.
mulating their evaluation of the character Prometheus, we observe, had not been
of Zeus on the basis of the testimony of a able to preserve himself.
pinioned opponent, that many critics Prometheus continues, boasting to the
become astonishingly docile. They believe chorus, ‘‘I dared” (I. 236), and seems
the prisoner.22 pleased with the pity his plight arouses in
Yet as we observe the character of Pro- the chorus. But Prometheus has not been
metheus closely, as the poet develops it, totally candid. The chorus senses that he
for example, in the exchanges with the has omitted something from his account.
chorus of Oceanids, we notice unsettling “Did your offense perhaps go further than
traits. We learn that Prometheus, when he you have said?” “Yes, I caused men no
was unable to persuade the other Titans to longer to foresee their death.” (11. 248-49.)
use guile to defeat Zeus, went over to He gave men blind hopefulness. It was
Zeus’s party in order to be on the winning a strange gift, one reflects, to obscure
side. His Titan kin were severely punished from mortals their essential mortality. Pro-
by the victorious Zeus. Prometheus now metheus then volunteers yet more infor-
complains when he, having in turn mation. “I did more than that: I gave them-
betrayed Zeus as he had his fellow Titans, fire.” (1. 253.) This revelation shocks the
is similarly punished. In one of Aeschylus’s chorus. “What? Men, whose life is but a
additions to Hesiods account, Prometheus day, possess already the hot radiance of
claims that it was his counsel that had fire? . . . This then was the offense for
given Zeus victory. We note, though, that which you suffer. . . . Oh, you were wrong
he does not say precisely what that - do you not see?” (11. 254,256, 260.) Pro-
counsel was. Does he mean that Zeus had metheus then petulantly, turns upon the
been without sufficient cunning to defeat Oceanids: “Oh, it is easy for you who are
the dull Titans? Prometheus tells the free to give advice. ‘Wrong?’ 1 accept the
chorus that when Zeus finally gained vic- word. I willed, willed to be wrong! . . . Yet
tory he “at once appointed various rights I did not expect such punishment as this.”
to various gods, giving to each his set (11. 263-68.) H e exults in his willfulness. He-
place and authority.” (1. 232.) Ought this is also, surprisingly, surprised at his
apportioning to be seen, as Prometheus deserts.
36 Winter 1986
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITEDThe poet, in a short space, reveals this about him only through others. He never
suffering god to be ambitious, a little appears, yet his presence broods over the
dense, and not entirely open in admitting play - not at all unlike, one might sup-
the nature of his trespass. We wonder pose, the all-seeing sun whom the Titan in-
what sort of plan Prometheus may have voked in that opening monologue, who
thwarted, what sort of race of men Zeus “looks upon his suffering.” Nor is the idea
may have been intending to bring forth on the face of it absurd that far-seeing
before the theft: a race perhaps less in- Zeus is looking on. With what motive? To
clined to misuse the gift of fire because sate his lust for vengeance? Perhaps. But
wiser and more measured; perhaps, in what if Zeus were in fact allowing events
fact, a race of men more like the virtuous to take this course for another reason?
and just Heracles, whose father was Zeus What if he had foreseen and permitted
and whose great-grandmother was lo, Prometheus’s deception, permitted his de-
whose fate Prometheus misconstrues as fiance, permitted his gift of fire? What if
mi~fortune.‘~ Prometheus, the proud fore- Zeus were allowing events to trip along,
thinker, seems not to have foreseen the seemingly out of his control? After all, it
mixed consequences for man of his “gifts.” was Zeus who had commanded that Pro-
Even the rather flighty Oceanids see metheus be bound far from the company
something disturbing and even horrifying of gods and men. Yet, apart from his brief
in the gift of fire to “creatures of a day.” opening monologue, Prometheus is never
And why does he who can discern the alone. He is visited by Oceanids, by
future seem surprised and irritated by the Oceanus, by Io, by Hermes. All have
chorus’s admonitions? Did he not foresee something to say to him about repent-
their reaction, even as he did not foresee ance. Even Hephaestus, though pitying
the punishment Zeus would visit upon him, admonishes him that he has trans-
him? Frankly, we soon begin to wonder gressed. Yet Prometheus is not disposed to
how stable and reliable are the claims of, hear these counselors whom Zeus, if not
as Wecklein describes him, this “short- provides, then certainly allows.
sighted Forethinker.” What of his Consider, too, the seemingly minor mat-
testimony can-we believe? Perhaps the ter of the location of his punishment. Zeus
loyal Strength was not being cruelly taunt- has ordered that Prometheus be isolated
ing but simply direct when he left the from the community of the gods. Yet he
newly bound Prometheus to his suffering: also apparently permits a whole battalion
“You’re wrongly named, Prometheus, of characters to troop across a desolate
Wise-before-the-event! Wisdom is just the beach giving him advice. The Titan’s reac-
thing you want.” (1. 86.) tion to this parade is revealing. It does not
Reflecting on these curiosities, we begin occur to him that Zeus must certaiiily be
to suspect that the poet had, from Pro- permitting these visitations to go on. He
metheus’s opening monologue, begun to does not consider to what end. Rather, he
hint at the Titan’s instability of character. condemns Zeus for the humiliation of such
Conacher points out clearly, but without a public punishment. “Would that Zeus
suggesting their possible significance, the had sent me under the earth.. . . Instead
rapid fluctuations of mood Prometheus ... my torments bring joy to my
displays in his opening lines (11. 88-10 I), enemies.” (11. 152-59.)This particular place
from restraint through passion to self- of punishment, on the contrary, has been
rebuke.24 Through this indirection, the arranged by Zeus as an opportunity for
poet powerfully suggests that this god is Prometheus to “focus his mind,” as Dr.
indeed erratic and disoriented, a prisoner Johnson might have described it, yet to
not only of Zeus but also of his passions. focus it apart from a scorning multitude. In
Unsettled by these oddities in the por- this place the Titan might learn the mean-
trayal of Prometheus, we may then begin ing of his crime, through suffering, yes,
to wonder about this Zeus. We know but also through counsel by sympathetic
Modern Age 37
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITEDcreatures for whom Tartarus would have shall prove true.” (11. 928-29.) His state-
been inaccessible. Until a punishment is ment is not conditional.
seen by the one punished as being just and Increasingly Prometheus appears a
deserved, then resentment gnaws, as ef- short-sighted, impetuous, albeit generous-
fectively as an eagle gnawing at a liver - hearted boaster. We see everywhere the
the locus of the passions - and one will ironic hand of the playwright. With uner-
not repent. Rather, any punishment will ring precision, Aeschylus has selected his
then seem outrageous and unjust. Zeus protagonist for this theme of rebellion
was not seeking the “secret” that Pro- against the divine order: a Titan. Kerenyi
metheus thought he could use against the reminds us of Hesiod’s words about this
god, nor was he seeking vengeance; he race:
was seeking repentance and with it
Father Ouranos had given them (the
restoration of the disrupted order within
race of Iapetos, the father of Pro-
the community of gods and men. But Pro-
metheus) the name “Titans” as a term
metheus, prisoner of his passions more
of abuse and as a pun, as if the word
than of Zeus, could not see in his situation
were derived from titainein, “to over-
the directing hand of the god.
reach oneself,” and from tisis, “punish-
How, exactly, one wonders, ought Zeus ment”: the Titans had “over-reached’
to have reacted toward this god who hates themselves, in their foolhardiness, by
the gods? He did with him what one does attempting to perform a great work,
with those who defy the law: separate him and for this they were later punished.25
from the community and punish him. Pro-
metheus was clearly neither powerful As the play proceeds, Prometheus ap-
enough nor clever enough nor far-sighted pears less wise rather than more noble,
enough to elude him. He reveals himself stubborn rather than forebearing. His
to be a most “ungodly” sort of god: con- catalogue of the gifts he has given to man,
sumed with anger and resentment for the for instance, bears examination in this
god who will not give him what he insists light. His gifts are not exclusively
is his due. He rages, but he is powerless. materialistic. Rather, they are useful, prac-
He boasts of his foreknowledge, yet that tical gifts: carpentry; arithmetic; medicine;
which he foresees that we know to be true the harnessing of animals, especially
he has learned only through his mother, horses; shipbuilding. These latter gifts,
Themis (1. 873), not through his own gifts. though, are not without ambiguity. A
When he claims, concerning the secret harnessed animal can be used to haul
consequence of Zeus’s future liaison with water; but it can also become “an orna-
Thetis, “There is no god but I who can ment of wealth.” (1. 468.) Shipping, too,
reveal to him [Zeus] the way to avert this can transport timber and grain but also
ignominy [of Zeus’s fall from power unguents and fine cloth. Both gifts would
through a son born of Thetis]. I know it imply to a fifth-century audience the prob-
all.” (1. 915.), Prometheus has forgotten lems attendant upon the growing wealth
that there surely is another - the woman produced by a vigorous, disciplined peo-
from whom he learned the secret in the ple: corrosive tendencies toward in-
first place, Themis. How much else that he dulgence in luxuries and extravagance in
“foresees” does he know only through consumption, both recurring concerns in
her? How much in these “foresights” are Athenian society. Prometheus’s gifts en-
self-deluded boasts? He solemnly assures tailed dangers, dangers to private and
Io several times that Zeus shall be de- hence to civic virtues.
posed, which his audience knows to be un- What sorts of gifts were left off the
true. The chorus even suspects the emp- Titan’s list? He did not give men the polis
tiness of these assertions: “These threats - that was the gift of Zeus. He taught men
against Zeus surely voice but your own divination - but not the offering of due
wish.” Yet the Titan insists, “I speak what sacrifice, not piety, not the justice of wor-
38 Winter 1986
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITEDship. His gifts to man reflected his own metheus Unbound, that the Titan would
limited perspective: useful gifts but not the come to see his delusion, to face reality
noblest. Isolated from controlling wisdom, squarely. That reality was that he was a
a wisdom which he himself rejected, these minor god under the order of Zeus, the
useful gifts could become, in the hands of order of Dike. As the fragments we do
unvirtuous creatures of a day, positively possess of that final play indicate, the van-
perverse. To rule themselves, in the polis quished Titans have made their peace
and in the soul, but under the acknowl- with Zeus. They have submitted to his
edged aegis of far-seeing Zeus: that was order. Prometheus, too, will submit, not
noblest for man the creature. The highest from exhaustion but from recognition of
gifts came from Zeus. They could be the rightness of submission.
secured only through self-control, self- Prometheus was great-hearted and
denial, suffering. courageous beyond the measure of mor-
What precisely was Prometheus’s tals. To call him a minor god is not to
crime? Was it ultimately this “gift” of fire diminish much his distance from the
(which had not been his to give)? Was it creatures he loved too well. Yet, as Leo
these unblessed blessings, whose am- Strauss observed:
biguous consequences in some way The very greatness of Prometheus,
reflected their blemished origin? Voegelin which is so powerfully exhibited in the
suggests that the theft was “only the most play, may be meant to give us an ink-
tangible symptom of a more primordial ling of the greatness of Zeus, of Zeus’
defiance.. . . This self-willed defiance of wisdom. Zeus is so great that he cannot
Prometheus (see especially 1. 268) is not be understood, that he must appear as a
the assertion of a righteous claim against cruel tyrant, before he has manifested
despotism.” Rather, Prometheus does not himself.28
“know himself”; he does not possess “the
reflective self-knowledge that makes one Zeus is never seen in the play, not
aware of limitations and obligations under primarily from a dramatic convention, but
order.” Precisely, Prometheus suffers because Dike, justice, is never directly ’
from an “excess of pity (1. 241) and a defi- seen. It is the unseen measure. Yet it is
ciency in fear of God.” (1. 542.) nonetheless real. Its fruits are visible, as
are the consequences of its transgression,
For the excess of pity distorts the sense to those with eyes prepared to see and
of the place of man in his relation to ears disposed to hear.
God, of his conditio humana: Pro-
metheus tried to bestow honors (time) IV
on man “beyond his true portion” (1.
30), and he replaced the divine decision The Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus is a
with regard to the fate of man by “his play filled with irony and surrounded by
private opinion or decision (idia irony. It is filled with irony because its cen-
(1. 544.) tral character, Prometheus, misunderstands
Prometheus, then, suffers from “a and hence continuallymisinterprets his own
madness, a nosos, disease” (1. 977) that situation; it is surrounded by ‘irony because
“can be healed only by self-conquering the majority of modern commentators
submis~ion.”~~ (11. 999 ff.). Prometheus, share Prometheus’s misunderstanding and
though, vows never to “kneel to my similarly misinterpret his condition. What
detested enemy, with womanish hands a rich, Aeschylean irony: that the deluded
outspread in supplication for release.” (11. Prometheus has also deluded his diviners;
1001-2.) that the mistake of one infects those who
Prometheus was deluded. He thought he come after him; that Aeschylus and Zeus
was that which he was not. It would not be prove themselves to be in fact wiser than
until the final play of the trilogy, the Pro- Prometheus and his creatures.
Modern Age 39
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITEDThe Prometheus Bound indeed treats a Shelley. We have precisely reversed the
deeply religious theme: the consequences symbols of disease and order.
of the revolt against the order of Zeus, Whoever was the Alexandrian scholiast
which is the order of justice. Grief, who conceived the title of the play, Pro-
Aeschylus shows us, always follows from metheus Bound, he understood well
the revolt. The unseen measure indeed Aeschylus’s intent. Prometheus was
rules. The play affirms that Zeus is both bound - externally and internally. He
stern judge and wise teacher, that his was not free because he was deluded. The
ways are, as Hesiod taught, often in- order of Zeus was not, as he imagined, a
scrutable but always just. tyranny designed to oppress him. If
This is a strange theme to moderns, who was not designed at all. It simply WQS.
believe neither in gods nor in an order of What it was was the order of Dike, of
justice inscribed in the very being of justice of the unseen measure. Aeschylus
things. Hence the inability of the age to understood that that order was real and
fathom a pope who both embraces and ad- that reality could never be a tyranny. To
monishes. We no longer understand the imagine it so is the real tyranny. Disease,
compassion of orthodoxy. It is not then not health, is the tyranny. The unbinding
surprising that we are not sensitive to the of Prometheus would consist in not so
tragic irony in the portrayal of a god much the loosing of his chains as in the
whose name we remember but whose opening of his eyes and the realigning of
crime we hardly comprehend. We read his mind and heart with the unseen but
Aeschylus but can see only Goethe and real order of Zeus.
Friedrich Solmsen, Hesiod and Aeschylus, Aeschylus,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, 76
(Ithaca, N.Y., 1949), pp. 124-57. 2Hugh Lloyd- (1956), 56. *Nicolaus Wecklein, introduction to
Jones, Justice of Zeus (Berkeley, 1983), p. 102. his edition of Prometheus Bound (Boston,
3D.J. Conacher, Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound: 1897), p. 27. YEirik Vandvik, Prometheus of
A Literary Commentary (Toronto, 1980), pp. Hesiod and Aeschylus (Oslo, 1942); Eric
133 ff. His chapter “The Zeus Problem” is a Voegelin, World of the Polis, vol. 2 o f Order
good but incomplete summary of the various and History (Baton Rouge, 1957), pp. 243-62,
interpretations. 4Mark Griffith, Authenticity of and Science, Politics and Gnosticism: Two
Prometheus Bound (Cambridge, Eng., 1976), Essays (Chicago, 1968), pp. 34-40; Leo Strauss,
though his central objections are stylistic. “The Liberalism of Classical Political
addition to the above, see: Leon Golden, In Philosophy,” in Liberalism Ancient and Modern
Praise o f Prometheus: Humanism and Ra- (New York, 1968), pp. 41-43. ‘Osee Conacher,
tionalism in Aeschylean Thought (Chapel Hill, pp. 22-23; Lloyd-Jones, Justice of Zeus, p. 110,
N.C., 1962); David Grene’s introduction to his n. 110; Wecklein, p. 27. ”Vandvik, pp. 5,29; see
translation of the Prometheus Bound (New also Jon D. Mikalson, Athenian Popular
York, 1968); Mark Griffith’s introduction to his Religion (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1983), p. 18. Though
edition of the Prometheus Bound (Cambridge, his work draws primarily upon evidence from
Eng., 1983); E.A. Havelock, Prometheus (Seat- the late fifth and the fourth centuries (405-323
tle, 1968) [Revealingly, the title of the 1950 edi- B.C.), it seems reasonable that the Athenians
tion of this book was The Crucifixionof Intellec- were not more pious and devoted to the gods
tual Man.); Karl Kerenyi, Prometheus; Ar- than they were in the early fifth century. The
chetypal Image of Human Existence (New trend was the other way, from piety toward
York, 1963); H.D.F. Kitto, Greek Tragedy: A skepticism. See also Andre-Jean Festugikre,
Literary Study (New York, 1954); Anthony J. Personal Religion Among the Greeks (Berkeley,
Podlecki, Political Background of Aeschylean Calif., 1954), pp. 27 ff. 120n this question of the
Tragedy (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1966); Lois Spatz, position of the play within the trilogy, see M.L.
Aeschylus (Boston, 1982); George Thomson, West, “The Prometheus Trilogy,” Journal of
Aeschylus and Athens: A Study in the Social Hellenic Studies, 99 (1979), 131 ff. West, unlike
Origins of Drama (London, 1946). GPodlecki, most commentators, argues that the play was
pp. 102-3. ’Hugh Lloyd-Jones, “Zeus in not the first but the middle drama: “The plan of
40 Winter 1986
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITEDthe trilogy was then Crime-Punishment- tive analysts of the nature of Zeus’s regime.
Reconciliation. This and not Punishment- They are, after all, only soldier-servants.
Reconciliation-(?) is surely the scheme that Moreover, the peace of every state, republics as
would naturally have occurred to the poet.” well as tyrannies, is guaranteed in some
I3Wecklein, p. 19; Vandvik, pp. 5, 29. I4Arthur measure by “strength and violence.” Order in
Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals of the soul does not, this side of the parousia,
Athens (Oxford, 1968), p. 86. Regarding selec- establish order in the community. That Zeus
tion of a poet’s works for production in the City employs force in the execution of his designs
Dionysia, see p. 84. Regarding the behavior, at- does no automatic discredit to his regime; and
titudes, and tastes of the audiences, see pp. that that regime is “new” counts for nothing in
272-80. ISHesiod, Theogony. Works and Days deciding whether that guaranteeing force is
. . . (Harmondsworth, Eng., 1973), p. 74, 1 . 484. justly deployed in the case of Prometheus.
I6Hesiod, Theogony, 1 1 . 550-51, cited in Z0Recalltoo that it was this expelled tyrant, Hip-
Kerenyi, p. 47. I7See Mikalson, chap. 1: “The pias, who guided the Persians onto the plain at
Priority of the Gods.” See also pp. 30 ff. The Marathon (Herodotus VI: 102). See Podlecki, p.
Greeks believed that the gods intervened in 117. 21Lloyd-Jones,Justice ofZeus,p. 103. 22See
human affairs when their own prerogatives Golden, pp. 101-2; Conacher, p. 70; Solmsen,
were threatened: in cases of murder, treason, pp. 135, 137; Thomson, pp. 322-23. 23See
the violation of oaths, and various impieties especially Vandvik’s analysis of the lo scene,
toward sacred places and objects - such as the pp. 58-59. 24Conacher, p. 35. 25Karl Kerenyi,
theft of fire from Zeus’s hearth.18 The edition of Gods of the Greeks (London, 1951), p. 207.
the play I have used is Prometheus Bound 26Voegelin, World of the Polis, pp. 259-60.
(Baltimore, 1961). IgStrength and Violence are 271bid.,p. 260. 28Strauss, p. 42.
loyal but not necessarily very bright or percep-
Modern Age 41
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITEDYou can also read
