No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
It is the part of sound criticism to beware of rashly assuming tendencies of any kind in dramatic poetry. The imaginative act of realising situation and character requires no end beyond itself. The faculty is satisfied with its own mere exercise; which may be as widely varied as the fables on which it works, or as human experience itself. If in single dramatists we find certain limitations, or an apparent preference for a particular class of subjects, we must not rush to hasty conclusions, but should distinguish as far as possible between accidental and essential differences, the former depending on the subject-matter which either chance or popularity threw in the artist's way, as jealousy for example in the Spanish drama, the latter resulting from the colour of his own thoughts, and his individual attitude (as an artist) towards the universe and towards mankind.
The power of Aeschylus as a mere dramatist is so great, that the neglect of such precautions is, if possible, more than usually disastrous to the study of him; while on the other hand, they are more than ever necessary in his case, because certain important tendencies, both of the man and of the age, are so apparent in him. In attempting, therefore, to characterise some of these underlying motives, it is necessary to warn the reader at the outset against expecting anything like a complete description or survey. Such motives are very far from accounting for that complex phenomenon, the Aeschylean drama. At most they do but constitute one of several factors that have worked together with the supreme dramatic instinct in the creation of it. Nor shall we be tempted by any theory into the error of supposing that the same motives are to be traced everywhere. Variety is the chief note of the highest invention, and though few chords remain to us of the Aeschylean lyre, they are suggestive of a widely ranging plectrum.—Readers of the Eumenides or of the Prometheus, however, cannot help surmising an intention of the poet standing behind his creation.
page 154 note 1 
— Ar. Ran. 1022.
page 158 note 1 Hdt. v. 78.
page 159 note 1 See a letter from the present writer to the editor of the Academy, printed July 14, 1877. The following sentences, in which the gist of the Prometheus is paraphrased, may be quoted here:—
‘There was a time when the power of Zeus, which, as all know, is now established in righteousness, was not yet finally secure. In accordance with the presage of Themis, Goddess of Eternal Right, the son of Cronos had been victorious over the Anarchs of the former time, not by brute violence, but by the help of forethought, which the Titans had despised. But, having won the heavenly throne, he was liable to the disease which all experience shows to be incident to an irresponsible ruler, and began to exercise his power without regard to the Wisdom by whose aid he had gained it, or the dictates of Primeval Right; and towards mortals in particular (as ancient legends show us), he manifested an excessive harshness. But to these courses the irrepressible spirit of Wisdom was opposed, and succeeded in obtaining gifts for men and rescuing them from the destruction which the new Sovereign of Olympus had designed for them.
‘So long as this opposition and divorce between power, or authority, and wisdom was continued, the sovereignty of Zeus was imperilled. For blind force breeds blind force, and is destined to sink beneath the violence to which itself gives birth. So the Fates were heard to whisper.
‘On the other hand, had the contrariety remained, Wisdom must have been held in lasting bonds. For Thought unseconded by Energy is ineffectual.
‘But Wisdom knew the secret word which solitary Power had failed to apprehend, and Necessity at last made Power submit to learn the Truth from Wisdom. Thus Zeus was saved from fatal error (Cf. Eum. 640—651).
‘Then the long feud was reconciled, and an indissoluble league concluded between Wisdom and Power, and they went forth conquering and to conquer. Thenceforth the reign of Zeus became identical with that growth of Justice which is destined ultimately to subdue all moral discords throughout the Universe.’—The Academy of April 14, 1877.
page 160 note 1 Hdt. ii. 129, ff.
page 160 note 2 Ib. i. 32.
page 160 note 3 See for example, Soph, . Ant. 332Google Scholar, ff. πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ, κ.τ.λ.
page 161 note 1 Prom. V. 516.
page 161 note 2 Ib. 191, 192.
page 161 note 3 See Mr.Myers, E. in Hellenica, p. 21, ff.Google Scholar
page 162 note 1 The Misfortunes of Arthur (in Hazlitt's Dodsley, vol. iv.).
page 164 note 1 Ag. 619.
page 164 note 2 Ag. 402. 427.
page 164 note 3 See also Choeph. 132, ff.