Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T03:42:10.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Impiety’ and ‘Atheism’ in Euripides' Dramas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Mary R. Lefkowitz
Mary R. Lefkowitz
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the surviving plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles the gods appear to men only rarely. In the Eumenides Apollo and Athena intervene to bring acquittal to Orestes. In Sophocles' Philoctetes Heracles appears ex machina to ensure that the hero returns to Troy, and we learn from a messenger how the gods have summoned the aged Oedipus to a hero's tomb. In Sophocles' Ajax Athena drives Ajax mad and taunts him cruelly. Prometheus Bound (assuming that it is by Aeschylus) might seem to be an exception, since all but one of its characters are gods. But nonetheless the intervention of the gods in the life of the one human character, Io, brings pain and trouble as well as promise of benefit. Io has been driven mad because she has refused to obey the dreams that tell her to go to the meadow where Zeus wants to have intercourse with her. The god does not make his request in person, and it is only in the course of her wanderings that Io learns how Zeus will bring a gentle end to her sufferings. Her informant is another god, Zeus' adversary Prometheus, who answers her questions, at times grudgingly (778), and in ways that are not immediately clear to her (775).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , May 1989, pp. 70 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Gods also appeared in Aeschylus' Prometheus Lyomenos (p. 306 Radt), Psychostasia (p. 375), Oreithyia (fr. 281), Xantriai (or Semele?, fr. 168). Athena speaks angrily in Soph's Aias Lokros (fr. 10c) and Apollo points out victims to Artemis in Niobe (fr. 441a); Demeter speaks in the Triptolemus (fr. 598) and Thetis in the Syndeipnoi (fr. 562). Schmidt, W., Der Deus ex Machina bei Euripides (diss. Tübingen, 1963), pp. 69–78Google Scholarlists examples of epiphanies in myth and cult.

2 Gods ex machina in Hipp., Suppl., EL, Ion, IT, Hel., Or., Ba., Rhes., cf. Antiope; cf. Barrett, W. S., Euripides Hippolylus (Oxford, 1964), p. 395Google Scholar; Taplin, O., The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford, 1977), pp. 444–5Google Scholar. Possibly also Phaethon, Rhadamanthys (PSI 1286 = Hypothesis 14 Austin), Erechtheus, Phrixus, Archelaus (cf. test. 7, Harder, A., Euripides Kresphonles and Archelaos [Leiden, 1985], p. 174)Google Scholar.

3 Gods speak in the prologues of Ale, Hipp., Tro. Ba.

4 E.g., most recently, Segal, C. P., Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides' Bacchae (Princeton, 1982), pp. 335–6Google Scholar, ‘the monumentalizing effect of these lines [ Ba. 1325–6] again puts the truth about divinity in the form of an absence’; cf. Foley, H., Ritual Irony: Poetry and Sacrifice in Euripides (Ithaca, 1985), p. 258Google Scholar, ‘Euripides can find no order outside ritual and myth and rational speech, yet in the end the order provided by art, ritual, and speech remains in an uncertain relation to the reality of the contemporary world’; cf. Goldhill, S., Reading Greek Tragedy (Cambridge, 1986), p. 234CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michelini, A., Euripides and the Tragic Tradition (Madison, 1987), pp. 315–20Google Scholar. On the development (from Romanticism) of this modern attitude, see esp. Schlesier, R., ‘Goetterdaemmerung bei Euripides?’, in Der Untergang von Religionen, ed. Zinser, H. (Berlin, 1986), pp. 35–50Google Scholar; Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeu 2 (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 151–5Google Scholar; Michelini, p. 108.

5 For details, see my ‘Was Euripides an Atheist?', S1FC [Ser. Ill] 5 (1987), 149–66Google Scholar.

6 Cf. Winiarczyk, M., ‘Wer gait im Altertum als Atheist?’, Philol. 128 (1984) 157–83, at 182–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Aristophanes, in the first version of his Clouds, even has a character claim that Socrates composed ‘those hyper-wordy plays for Euripides, the clever ones’ (sophas, fr. 392 K–A). Other comic poets also alleged that Socrates collaborated with Euripides; Aristophanes' contemporary, Teleclides, wrote of ‘Euripideses nailed together by Socrates’ (I 219 K, cf. also Callias, fr. 15 K–A) and of Euripides' father-in-law Mnesilochus (possibly the poet's old in-law in the Thesm.) ‘cooking up a new play for Euripides, and Socrates supplying him with firewood’ (39, 40 K, cf. D.L. 2.18, and Lefkowitz (n. 5), 152.

8 This phrase is synonymous with οὐ θεούς νομίζειν cf. Fahr, W., Theous nomizein: zum Problem der Anfaenge des Atheismus bei den Griechen (Spudasmata 26: Hildesheim, 1969), pp. 164–7Google Scholar.

9 Not including the notorious fragment of the Sisyphus (Critias, fr. 1 N) sometimes attributed to Eur., cf. Winiarczyk, M., ‘Nochmals das Satyrspiel “Sisyphos”’, WS 100 (1987), 35–45Google Scholar.

10 Cf. Lefkowitz (n. 5), 154, 163–4.

11 Cf. Fraenkel, E., Aeschylus, Agamemnon (Oxford, 1962), ii. 100Google Scholar; Kannicht, R., Euripides, Helena (Heidelberg, 1969), ii. 296Google Scholar; Dodds, E. R., Euripides, Bacchae 2 (Oxford,1960) on 893–. 893–4Google Scholar.

12 But cf. how in Euripides even so traditional a question as ‘Zeus, or if you prefer to be called Hades’ (fr. 912 N), was judged to be ‘philosophical’ by a commentator on his work, who claims that ‘He has caught Anaxagoras’ world-view concisely and accurately in three words' and states that ‘elsewhere he is uncertain about the established order in heavenly affairs’ (Satyrus 37 iii).

13 Cf. esp. Aesch. fr. 70 Radt; Derveni Papyrus apud West, M. L., The Orphic Poems (Oxford, 1983), pp. 26–9Google Scholar.

14 Cf. Lee, K. H., Euripides, Troades (London, 1976), p. 224Google Scholar; on Diogenes, cf. G. Kirk, S., Raven, J. E., Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers 2 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 444Google Scholar; Barnes, J., The Presocratic Philosophers 2 (London, 1982), pp. 580, 646 n. 10Google Scholar.

15 Cf. also ‘in each of us our mind is god’, a line attributed both to Euripides (fr. 1018 N)and Menander (Monostich. 588 Jaekel), cited by schol. Tr. 884. Matthiessen, K., ‘Zur Theonoeszene in der euripideischen “Helena”’, Hermes 96 (1968), 685–704Google Scholar, at 699–700 (followed by Barlow, S., Euripides, Trojan Women (London, 1986), p. 209Google Scholar, identifies Zeus here with αἰθἠρ as in frr. 877, 941, cf. 330 N (parodied in Ar. Ran. 100, 311; Thesm. 272). But Eur. combines ‘Anaxagorean’ ideas with traditional terminology in Eur.'s Chrysippus, fr. 839 N = 59A112 D–K, about ‘great Earth and Zeus’ αἰθἠρ who is the begetter of men and of gods' (cf. frr. 944, 1023, 1004 N); Zeus inhabits the air in fr. 487 N, cf. Empedocles 31B142 D–K.

16 Cf. Scodel, R., The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides (Hypomnemata 60: Goettingen, 1980), pp. 93–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Cf. Scodel (n. 16), p. 94 n. 33 who compares the divine (Poseidon, Zeus, Artemis) epithet γαιήοχος.

18 Lee (n. 14) compares Solon's description of Dike who σιγѽσα silently takes in all that happens and eventually takes her revenge (4.15–16 W); cf. also Solon fr. 17 W where the mind of the immortals is always invisible ⋯ϕανής to men.

19 Cf. Dodds (n. 11), pp. 104–5; Lefkowitz (n. 5), 158, 164. On other ‘allusions’, see esp. O'Brien, M. J., ‘Tantalus in Euripides Orestes’, RhM 131 (1988), 30–45, 31 n. 4Google Scholar.

20 Cf. Henrichs, A., ‘The Atheism of Prodicus’, Cronache Ercolanesi 6 (1976), 15–21Google Scholar, esp. 18–21; ‘Democritus and Prodicus on Religion’, HSCP 79 (1975), 93–123Google Scholar, esp. 110 n. 64; cf. HSCP 88 (1984), 145 n. 24Google Scholar. Testimonia in Winiarczyk (n. 6), 177.

21 Burkert, W., Greek Religion, tr. Rattan, J. (Cambridge, MA, 1985), p. 317Google Scholar.

22 Cf. Eur. fr. 661 N from the beginning of the Stheneboea.

23 Cf. Dodd s (n. 11), pp. xlv–vi.

24 On Artemis' ‘indirect’ revenge, cf. Romilly, J. de, L évolution du pathétique d' Eschyle ⋯ Euripide (Paris, 1961), pp. 32 ffGoogle Scholar. Since preserving one's name, like song itself (cf. Eur. Tro. 1242–5), bestows a kind of immortality even on dead men and women, gods at the end of plays, either in person or through prophecy, frequently grant eponymous honours, either in the form of rituals or of place names; Wilson, J. R., ‘The Etymology in Euripides' Troiades’, AJP 89 (1968), 66–71Google Scholar. 70 n. 8 lists El. 1273. Or. 1646, Hel. 1670, HF 1328, IT 1453, Hec. 1275, Antiope fr. 48.80–5 ed. Kambitsis, J., L Antiope d'Euripide (Athens, 1972)Google Scholar; to which might be added the first Hipp. (fr. 446 N = fr. U, pp. 44–5 Barrett [n. 2], with n. on 1423–30), Alope's fountain (p. 390 N). and Andromeda's galaxy (p. 392 N).

25 Macleod, C. W., Iliad Book XXIV (Cambridge, 1982), p. 132Google Scholar. Cf. also Desch, W., ‘Der “Herakles” des Euripides und die Goetter’, Philologus 130 (1986), 8–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 22; Kovacs, D., The Heroic Muse (AJP Monograph 3; Baltimore, 1987), pp. 69–71Google Scholar; Stevens, P. T., Euripides, Andromache (Oxford, 1971), p. 242Google Scholar; Denniston, J. D., Euripides, Electro (Oxford, 1939), p. 210Google Scholar. Cf. fr. 177 N: ‘Dionysus, because he is a god, is never a support to mortals.’

26 The formula ‘whoever Zeus is’ as used here (and Or. 418) struck Dodd s (n. 11), on Ba. 893 4 as ‘sceptical and bitter’, perhaps because it is not accompanied by a prayer, as in Tr. 884; cf. Willink, C. W., Euripides, Orestes (Oxford, 1986), p. 155Google Scholar, ‘consistent with piety’, and West, M. L., Euripides, Orestes (London, 1987), p. 212Google Scholar, ‘a Euripidean cliché’. Cf. also Hel. 1137, with Kannicht (n. 11), ii.296. But the beginning of Melanippe the Wise was taken by ancient commentators as evidence of supposed impiety: ‘Zeus, whoever Zeus ma y be. I don't know except from stories’ (fr. 480) was said to have caused a commotion in the audience, so that Euripides changed it to ‘Zeus begot Hellen, as the story goes’ (fr. 481, but cf. fr. 591.4 N).

27 Cf. Heath, M., The Poetics of Greek Tragedy (London, 1987), p. 51Google Scholar; Matthiessen (n. 15), 703–4.

28 On the motif, see Macleod (n. 25), pp. 118, 124. Cf. 504, where Priam says that he is more pitiable than Peleus, because he has n o sons left.

29 Cf. Easterling, P. E., Sophocles, Trachiniae (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 230–1Google Scholar.

30 Cf. Easterling (n. 29), pp. 231–2.

31 Knox, B. M. W., ‘Euripides’, in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature i (Cambridge, 1985), p. 317Google Scholar.

32 Cf. Desch (n. 25), 16–17.

33 Cf. fr. 1028 N about Zeus bringing sorrow to both Trojans and Greeks, though without context.

34 Cf. Macleod (n. 25), p. 121.

35 Cf. Barrett (n. 2), p. 395, who observes that ‘the physical position of the deus ex machina may reinforce remoteness’, and Harder, (n. 2), p. 230Google Scholar, who notes that no deus ex machina, even Artemis in the Hipp., ever addresses a person on the stage with a familiar phrase like ὦ παῖ.

36 Cf. Roberts, D., ‘Parting Words: Final Lines in Sophocles and Euripides’, CQ 37 (1987), 51–64, at 59–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schlesier, R., ‘Daimon und Daimones bei Euripides’, Saeculum 34 (1983), 267–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 See esp. Roberts (n. 36), 51–4.

38 Barrett (n. 2), 417. See also Dale, A. M., Euripides, Alcestis (Oxford, 1954), p. 130Google Scholar, Page, D. L., Euripides, Medea (Oxford, 1938), p. 181Google Scholar, Stevens, P. T., Euripides, Andromache (Oxford, 1956), p. 246Google Scholar. But contrast Roberts (n. 36), 57–8.

39 Cf. Lloyd-Jones (n. 4), p. 171.

40 Cf. Dodds (n. 11) on 1388, p. 242.

41 Cf. Kirk, G. S., The Bacchae of Euripides (Cambridge, 1979), p. 140Google Scholar.

42 Cf. Dio Cassius 78 [79]. 4. 1–10.2, where the lines are seen in retrospect to have predicted the assassination of Caracalla.

43 Cf. Bond, G. W., Euripides, Heracles (Oxford, 1981), p. 400Google Scholar: Desch (n. 25), 20: fr. 292.7 N ‘if the gods do something shameful, they aren't gods’. Contrast Schlesier, R., ‘Héraclés et la critique des dieux chez Euripide”, Ann. Scuol. Normale di Pisa (Cl. litt./filos.) 15 (1985), esp. 25–6 and ‘Goetterdaemmerung’ (n. 4), p. 41Google Scholar, who, by emphasizing the positive elements of the drama, seeks to make Eur. espouse a new and more beneficent theodicy. The old notion (see bibliog. in Schlesier, , ‘Héraclès', p. 12)Google Scholar constitutes a serious critique of the gods and their traditional roles in myth is restated by Halleran, M., ‘Rhetoric, Irony, and the Ending of Euripides Heracles’, CA 5 (1986), 171–81Google Scholar, at 179–80.

44 Cf. Stinton, T. C. W., ‘Si Credere Dignum Est’, PCPS 202 (1976), 60–89, at 83 4: Kovacs (n. 25), pp. 110–11. CfGoogle Scholar. also how Iphigenia tries to attribute to men's ‘notions’ the human sacrifices Artemis desires (IT 380–91) not only in the context of the play but in other myths. The chorus of the Electra would prefer not to believe that the gods would have reversed the course of the sun because of a human crime (737–44), but the action of the play shows that the gods will go to extraordinary lengths to enforce their justice. Cf. esp. Spira, A., Untersuchungen zum Deus ex Machina bei Sophokles und Euripides (diss. Frankfurt; Kallmuenz 1960)Google Scholarpassim: but contrast Schmidt (n. 1), who regards the deus ex machina as a purely technical device.

45 Cf. also how Hera assumes the form of a priestess in Aesch. Xantriai (fr. 168, cf. n. 1); Athena imitates Aphrodite's voice in Rhes. 637–9. Changes of shape are frequent in myth but for practical reasons rare in dramatic performance; Io can wear a mask with cow's horns in PV 588 (see Griffith, M., Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound [Cambridge, 1983], pp. 198–9)Google Scholar, but the audience learns about Iolaus' rejuvenation from a messenger (Heracl 857–8).

46 Cf. Schlesier, . ‘Goetterdaemmerung’ (n. 4), 45Google Scholar.