[101] Introd. to Eumenides, pp. xxxv-vi.
[102] Proleg. pp. 253-6.
[103] Eum. p. 173 ff.
[104] 4-7.
[106] 666 ff.
[107] 725 ff.
CHAPTER II
SOPHOCLES
‘Greek drama,’ says Jevons,[1] ‘owes its origin to religion and its development to art. It is but another way of stating this fact to say that one sign of the growth of the Greek drama was the diminution of its religious significance.’ The drama of Sophocles compared with that of Aeschylus is less theological and celestial, more human and terrestrial. From the artistic point of view it not only obeys the first alternative in the Horatian maxim[2] which we have already quoted and which prescribes adherence to traditional story; it also follows, even more closely than Aeschylean drama, the second alternative, which exalts the merit of consistency. Aristotle[3] has attributed to Sophocles a piece of self-criticism in which he asserts that he depicted his characters, ‘not as they are, but as they must be’ (οἵους δεῖ). We shall not attempt to enter into the controversy which this simple statement has evoked,[4] but we may suggest as a probable interpretation of the words that certain ideal criteria guided the characterisations of Sophocles. These criteria were, in our opinion,[5] consistency and tradition. ‘The characters of Sophocles,’ says Jevons,[6] ‘are bound up with his plots in an artistic and harmonious whole ... it is equally true that his characters depend upon his plots.’ But the plots and the characters of Sophocles were not, we think, his own invention. They were derived from pre-existing legend and tradition. If, then, Sophocles did not always represent his characters precisely as legend described them, the reason is that there were inconsistencies in the legends. To escape such inconsistencies, Sophocles sometimes had recourse to what we may term eclecticism. If, for instance, in Homer, Oedipus, after slaying his father, is said to have continued to rule over the Cadmeans,[7] Sophocles ignored this tradition because it was inconsistent with the sequel which post-Homeric legend indicated.[8] Euripides, on the contrary, often reproduced, in one and the same drama, various mutually inconsistent legends, and then introduced a deus ex machina[9] to cut the Gordian knot! Nevertheless it remains true that not only in Sophocles, but also in Aeschylus and in Euripides, the characters and the plots are to a great extent based upon pre-existing legends, and these legends are often very difficult to analyse because of the varying influences which were derived from the ages through which they passed. If religion is less prominent in Sophocles than in Aeschylus, the reason, we think, is that the personality of the dramatist selected those varieties of legends which emphasised the human element rather than the divine. But, for an Athenian of the classical period, there was one aspect of human nature which was always interesting and could never be ignored, namely the relation of man to the laws of the society in which he lived. Fear of the laws and of the penalties which they prescribed, a knowledge of the laws and their administration, a habit of legal casuistry, an almost morbid delight in legal problems, were essential elements of Athenian psychology. To say this is to imply that the Sophoclean drama, like that of Aeschylus, has an important legal interest, and cannot be made completely intelligible without an analysis of its legal aspect. Of the seven extant tragedies, six are concerned with themes of human bloodshed. These six plays we shall now briefly examine, from the standpoint of homicide law. With the Philoctetes we have not any special concern.