Zeus in the Persae

• Published in: The Journal of Hellenic studies 1973-11, Vol.93, p.210-219
• Main Author: Winnington-Ingram, R. P.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Deceit; Divinity; Envy; History of ideas; Hubris; Odes; Queens; Stanzas; Theater; Wordplay
• ISSN: 0075-4269; 2041-4099
• DOI: 10.2307/631466

Aeschylus was a dramatist of ideas—of religious ideas. His ideas may have been old or new, clear or confused, crude or profound, but it was in terms of religious ideas that he interpreted the story of the house of Argos; and it was in terms of religious ideas that he interpreted a great event in the history of his own time. It is, therefore, of considerable interest and importance to discover, if we can, a relationship between the way he thought in 472 and the way he thought in 458. In 458 he made a Chorus reject an old doctrine: that prosperity and good fortune in themselves give rise to disaster—the doctrine, that is to say (though the word is not used), of the jealousy of the gods (φθόνος τῶν θϵῶν). No, sings this Chorus, it is the impious deed that begets after its kind, the old hubris that gives birth to new and to a train of evil consequences. In 472, in the Persae, we seem to find both doctrines. We find the Chorus singing of the crafty deceit of a god from which no mortal can escape, and we find the Messenger speaking of the jealousy of the gods. But we also find Darius speaking of the stern punishments of Zeus and attributing the disasters of the Persians to their own acts of hubris. As though such seeming contradictions were sent to test our ingenuity, eminent scholars—I mention no names—have tied themselves in knots to demonstrate that the contradiction does not exist. I would suggest that the contradiction not only exists but is essential to the thought of the play, and that it has, to some extent, imposed upon the play its form.