Ex Libris 
 C. K. OGDEN
 

 
 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT 
 
 ESSAYS 
 
 SELECTED FROM THE PAPERS 
 
 OF THE LATE 
 
 LEWIS R. PACKARD 
 
 HILLHOUSE PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN YALE COLLEGE 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY 
 1886
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1886, by 
 
 GINN & COMPANY, 
 in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 
 
 J. S. GUSHING & Co., PRINTERS, BOSTON.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 PROFESSOR LEWIS R. PACKARD died on the 26th 
 of October, 1884, in the forty-ninth year of his age, 
 having just completed his twenty-fifth year of ser- 
 vice as instructor in Yale College. He was born Aug. 
 22d, 1836, graduated in 1856, was appointed tutor 
 in 1859, Assistant Professor of Greek in 1863, 
 Hillhouse Professor of Greek in 1867, and became 
 Senior Professor of Greek after the death of Pro- 
 fessor Hadley in 1872. He was President of the 
 American Philological Association in 1881, and 
 Director of the American School of Classical 
 Studies at Athens, 1883-1884. 
 
 Mr. Packard prepared for the press but two of 
 the Essays in this volume. Doubtless he would 
 have improved the literary finish of the others if 
 he could have revised them, although he was not 
 accustomed to commit his thoughts in full to paper 
 until they were well matured in his mind. The 
 reader will surely not be disturbed by the lack of 
 a rhetorical peroration for the second Essay. 
 
 1063472
 
 IV PREFACE. 
 
 The Essays on Plato are part of a course of lec- 
 tures prepared for College classes, of which these two 
 only were fully written out, the rest having been 
 given from careful notes with only now and then 
 a finished and elaborated section. 
 
 The Summaries of the Oedipus at Kolonos and 
 Antigone of Sophokles were written at Athens dur- 
 ing Mr. Packard's last winter of feverish weakness 
 and suffering (1883-1884), on small slips of paper 
 which he carried in the pocket of his wrapper. 
 One of his few drives during this last visit to 
 Greece was to the hill of Kolonos, and he toiled 
 up the little slope to gaze with charmed eyes upon 
 the beautiful landscape of which he speaks in the 
 Summary. 
 
 The jottings which are appended to these Sum- 
 maries were probably the germs, as they lay in 
 his mind, of such discussions as are found in the 
 Essay on the Oedipus Rex.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Religion and Morality of the Greeks I 
 
 Plato's Arguments in the Phaedo for the Immor- 
 tality of the Soul 41 
 
 III. On Plato's System of Education in the Republic . 65 
 
 IV. The Oedipus Rex of Sophokles 77 
 
 V. The Oedipus at Kolonos of Sophokles 121 
 
 VI. The Antigone of Sophokles 143 
 
 VII. The Beginning of a Written Literature among the 
 
 Greeks 157
 
 I. 
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE 
 GREEKS. 1 
 
 T WISH to present to you some thoughts, in the 
 way of suggestion rather than as conclusions, on 
 the morality and religion of the Greeks. It is a topic 
 that has been often touched upon, and in some of its 
 parts treated at great length. I am not so bold as to 
 expect to clear away, at a blow, the difficulties of such 
 a subject, or to advance wholly new views upon it. 
 But it is one upon which new light is continually 
 being thrown, in one part or another, and I may hope 
 that the thoughts which have interested me may 
 interest others also. 
 
 It is natural to try to begin at the beginning and 
 see whether we can ascertain what was the basis of 
 the moral ideas of the Greeks. Can we find any pre- 
 existing institution, any simpler or more fundamental 
 series of conceptions, upon which their theories of 
 human duty and their practical rules were founded ? 
 
 1 President's address at the annual meeting of the American Philolog- 
 ical Association, at Cleveland, July 12, 1881. It was privately printed, 
 and dedicated " to Theodore D. Woolsey, D.D., LL.D., lately president 
 of Yale College, on the fiftieth anniversary of his entering upon the 
 office of Professor of Greek, with most sincere respect and affection, 
 from an old pupil."
 
 2 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 It seems plain at the outset that they were not based 
 upon the Olympian theology as set forth by the 
 earlier poets. For that theology during the period 
 of our knowledge of the Greeks was rather out of 
 harmony with the moral sense of the people, lagging 
 behind, as it were, and needing to be corrected and 
 interpreted by the more reflective minds. Thus it 
 has been noticed that the men in Homer are of purer 
 morals than the gods ; and it is well known that 
 from Xenophanes on to Plato, and even farther, men 
 are continually criticizing the Olympian theology on 
 moral grounds. And new developments are made 
 of it, reforms within the system, apparently to meet 
 the higher demands of later times. We can hardly 
 admit, then, although it seems to have been a com- 
 mon opinion among the Greeks themselves, 1 that the 
 Olympian theology was the sole or chief source of 
 Greek morality. There must have been some other 
 agency acting alongside of it, to elevate if not to 
 originate moral ideas. Nor could these ideas have 
 been originated by the ceremonial worship connected 
 with that theology, for that is probably itself an effect 
 rather than a cause, and has almost no reference to 
 the larger part of morals, the duties of man to his 
 fellow-man. The same thing is to be said of the mys- 
 teries, if anything can be confidently said of them, 
 and of the oracles with a partial exception, mainly in 
 regard to that of Delphi, to be referred to farther on. 
 I need not linger to prove that the moral ideas of 
 
 1 Isokrates, XI. 41.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 3 
 
 the people cannot have been based on the teachings 
 of philosophers. Their task is to explain and defend, 
 and enforce duties already admitted in theory. They 
 are often reformers in morals, but they certainly were 
 not the authors of morality among the Greeks. 
 
 Where, then, shall we look for an answer to our 
 question ? Was there any other form of belief or 
 practice current among the Greeks which may have 
 contained the germ of moral ideas? There was one, 
 of which the fullest exposition is given by a French 
 scholar, Coulanges. In his work, "The Ancient 
 City," he maintains that the earliest Aryan religion 
 was a worship of the dead, each family recognizing 
 its departed ancestors as divine beings, and offering 
 worship to them, and that with this was combined 
 the worship of the hearth-fire, as if its flame was in 
 some sense a representative of the deceased persons. 
 This double worship, he claims, extended through 
 the Indian, Greek, and Italian branches of the Aryan 
 family, lasted throughout the ancient history of 
 Greece and Italy, and still exists in India. He finds 
 his proof in the classical literatures in the shape of 
 references to forms of burial, anniversary rites at 
 graves, and the worship of Hestia. I observe that 
 Sellar in his book on Vergil accepts this theory as 
 well founded, 1 and it must be said that many passages 
 in Greek literature indicate the existence of some 
 such ideas, forming a sort of private family religion 
 by the side of the Olympian system. This worship, 
 
 1 Sellar's Virgil, p. 365 f.
 
 4 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 Coulanges holds, was the bond which constituted 
 and preserved the family, and out of the family rela- 
 tion came all the fundamental morality of the people. 
 Duties of kindness and mutual help grew out of 
 regard for the spirits of the dead, truth and purity 
 out of respect for the ever-present deity of the fire. 
 In this last step we cannot follow him, mainly for 
 the reason that before the members of a family could 
 have united in the worship of a deceased ancestor, 
 the family life must have been otherwise developed 
 and been recognized as a bond of mutual rights and 
 duties. If we admit that man has been produced by 
 gradual steps of elevation from animal life, it seems 
 clear that many such steps must have been taken 
 before the custom of ancestor-worship could be estab- 
 lished, and that in those steps much of what the 
 theory ascribes to that worship would be already 
 involved. The recognition of descent in a single line 
 and of kinship between collateral branches implies a 
 degree of intellectual and moral development which 
 would leave comparatively little to be done in that 
 direction by the observance of the worship of ances- 
 tors. Hence we can give to this worship only a 
 subordinate place in the building up of a moral sys- 
 tem. Furthermore, it is by no means clear that this 
 institution or custom was a real worship. It is 
 thought by some careful scholars that it was merely 
 an affectionate honoring of the dead, and it is cer- 
 tainly true that the passages in Greek literature do 
 not clearly show anything more than that, unless in
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 5 
 
 apparently exceptional cases. 1 They do, however, 
 seem to indicate a fixed and constant usage of honor 
 to the dead, which may perhaps fairly be supposed 
 to have had some of the influence which Coulanges 
 ascribes to it under the name of a religion. As to 
 the worship of fire the case is different. We have 
 in Hesiod 2 some important indications of the preva- 
 lence of a belief in the divinity of the hearth-fire and 
 the duty of purity in its presence, but in the later 
 life of the people this belief seems to have disap- 
 peared or changed its form. It is at least doubtful 
 whether for the Greeks it ever had any such influ- 
 ence or any such connection with the worship of the 
 dead as this theory assumes. 
 
 If then we do not find the source of Greek morals 
 in either of these religious systems or in the doc- 
 trines of philosophers, perhaps we ought to go back 
 to the time before they left their original seat in 
 Asia, and see if anything in the oldest remains of 
 their Indian kinsfolk can give the answer to our 
 question. We find in Earth's sketch of the religions 
 of India, which I am enabled to pronounce trust- 
 worthy on the highest authority, a brief account of 
 the morality implied in the earliest Vedic hymns. 
 Humility, sincerity, affection, in man's attitude 
 towards the gods, benevolence to the suffering, truth 
 and justice in dealings with his fellow-man, such 
 is the outline that Barth gives, and for the evidence 
 of these ideas of duty, for that which shows these 
 
 1 Such as Eur. Alk. 995-1005. 2 Works and Days, 733 f.
 
 6 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 things to have been understood to be duties, he 
 points to the conception of the gods contained in the 
 hymns. Have we here at last found what we are 
 seeking ? Not yet, for the question is only pushed 
 one step farther back. Whence came such ideas of 
 the gods ? We see in the case of the Greek mythol- 
 ogy that it is not necessary for men to have such a 
 conception of beings whom they may worship. How 
 was it then that the Aryans of the Vedic period 
 formed in any degree so pure and lofty ideas of the 
 divine character ? It may satisfy us to accept this 
 as an ultimate fact which we cannot analyze, and 
 then we should have an answer to our question: 
 The morality of the Greeks was inherited from their 
 Aryan ancestors, and theirs was founded upon their 
 religion. This answer would once have been enough, 
 but we shall surely be told at the present day that 
 we are looking into the matter at a point too far 
 down the current of history to find the origin of any- 
 thing, that we must go back beyond all literature to 
 the time of the primitive man, and study in the 
 savage life of some Pacific island or African hut- 
 village the true parallel to the beginnings of Greek 
 life. There can be no objection to such a method 
 from any idea that it would be derogatory to the 
 Greek character to suppose it to have passed through 
 such a period. The Greeks themselves, as full of 
 national pride as any people could be, imagined such 
 a prehistoric stage in the life of their ancestors. 
 Aeschylos makes Prometheus 1 describe men as liv- 
 
 1 Aesch. Prom. 447471.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. / 
 
 ing like ants in holes in the earth, destitute of all 
 the elements of civilization, until he taught them to 
 build houses, to mark the seasons, to count, and so 
 forth. Other poets and philosophers recognize a 
 similar period. But if we adopt this course, we lose 
 our special subject in the wider one of the origin of 
 moral ideas in the human race as a whole, upon 
 which Greek usages may throw light, but only as 
 one among many sources of information. And I 
 think it may fairly be said that, though this method 
 may be the right one, it has hardly yet so proved its 
 processes or led to such definite and accepted results 
 as to justify its general adoption. Unless then we 
 are satisfied with tracing the Greek morality back to 
 the ideas implied in the Vedic hymns and accounting 
 for those as based upon the religious system of the 
 same hymns, I do not see but that we must give up 
 our quest and adopt the words of Antigone 1 when 
 she says of the unwritten laws of religion and duty, 
 
 ov -yap TI vvv ye /edge's, oAA' del TTOTC 
 $ ravro, 
 
 If now we admit that the origin of Greek morality 
 is lost to our knowledge in the remote past, it is nat- 
 ural for us to look at it within the period known to us 
 and see whether it has a history in that time, whether 
 it undergoes changes either by way of improvement 
 or of deterioration. What then are the materials that 
 we have for this investigation ? If we arrange our 
 
 1 Soph. Ant. 456 f. ["They are not of to-day nor yesterday | But 
 live forever, nor can man assign | When first they sprang to being."]
 
 8 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 materials in the order of their value, we should put 
 in the first place inscriptions, vase paintings, etc., in 
 a word, all monumental records. These would yield 
 but little information, but that little would be valu- 
 able in direct ratio to its scantiness. For they are 
 contemporary witnesses and in a sense impersonal, 
 that is, not likely to be affected by the personality of 
 the author in such a way as to impair the value of 
 their testimony as to facts and usages. We should 
 put next to these, institutions and customs incident- 
 ally made known to us by statements in literature, 
 such for instance as the Orphans' Court at Athens, 
 or the practice of offering one's slaves to be tortured 
 for proof of a statement in a trial. As a third source 
 of information, and perhaps the most fruitful one, but 
 needing to be used with critical care as to authenti- 
 city and historic probability, and of course with con- 
 stant observation of dates, we have the recorded inci- 
 dents of private and public life, all actions of states 
 or individuals of which we can determine the moral 
 character. Such stories should be collected not only 
 from histories but from all the literature, including 
 especially Plutarch, with the aim of forming as com- 
 plete a picture as possible of the life of the average 
 man. This vein has been worked to advantage by 
 Mahaffy in his " Social Life in Greece," but with cer- 
 tain prejudices and an occasional misuse of authori- 
 ties which detract from the value of the book. Cer- 
 tainly a great service remains to be rendered by any 
 one who will carefully collect such evidence, without
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 9 
 
 preconceived theories, and present it well arranged 
 and digested. In the fourth and last place would 
 come the deliberate expressions of moral and relig- 
 ious feeling by the poets and philosophers. I put 
 these last partly because they are apt to be put first. 
 The usual way of expounding the religion and moral- 
 ity of the Greeks is to cull passages from the poets 
 and philosophic moralists, to classify those on the 
 same topic together, and thus to frame a scheme of 
 morals which is ascribed to the people at large. This 
 is then offset by evidence of the lewdness of the time, 
 taken generally from Aristophanes, and some glaring 
 cases of cruelty, dishonesty, etc., and we are left with 
 the impression that the Greek character was made up 
 of irreconcilable extremes. But these leading writers 
 are not safe guides as to the moral tenets and practice 
 of the common people, for two reasons, (i) They are 
 picked men, men of profound thought and rich imagi- 
 nation. They may be conscious innovators, leaders 
 in the introduction of new ideas. Some of them, 
 Aeschylos, Euripides, Plato, for example, were at 
 variance with the sentiment of their time and keenly 
 critical of the tone of character prevalent among the 
 people. Plato would have regarded it as an insult to 
 be taken as a representative of the ideas of the mass 
 of men of his day. (2) They are seen in their works 
 at their own highest moral pitch. They are writing 
 under the excitement of poetic or speculative inspira- 
 tion. They may be writing expressly to instruct and 
 elevate the men about them. They may write better
 
 10 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 than they themselves ever lived, without any decep- 
 tion, being simply lifted up to a higher plane than 
 they often reached. For these reasons the language 
 of these writers needs to be constantly modified by 
 comparison with the picture of real life to be found 
 in historical narrative or anywhere else. Indeed, an 
 incident casually mentioned by Plato, whether real or 
 fictitious, may be of more value for the purpose in 
 hand than a whole dialogue of lofty moral reasoning. 
 Of course we should not exclude the thoughts of 
 poets and philosophers from our collection of mate- 
 rial. The expression of the moral sense of a com- 
 munity takes the most varied forms, and the student 
 of it must pay heed to the extremes in both direc- 
 tions ; but yet the most valuable information will come 
 from the comparatively scanty manifestations which 
 lie between the extremes. What he wants to learn 
 are the facts of ordinary life, the actions that seemed 
 natural and so attracted no attention, which for that 
 very reason are rarely recorded and hard to find. 
 
 Looking at a part of the period in something of the 
 way now indicated, one might justly say that between 
 the Homeric and the Periklean age there was some- 
 how brought about an improvement in morals. Mr. 
 Grote l has pointed out indications of this in three 
 notable particulars, the position of orphans, the way 
 of dealing with homicide, and the treatment of slain 
 enemies in war. In these there is definite and real 
 progress. In some other respects we find perhaps 
 1 History of Greece, Am. ed., II. pp. 91 ff.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. I I 
 
 less positive traces of the same progress. The family 
 was in the Homeric age established and recognized 
 as the framework of human life. Such a conception 
 as that of Nausikaa is by itself sufficient to prove this. 
 Yet at the same time there are some things not quite 
 in keeping with so high an ideal. For instance, the 
 Greek chiefs at Troy openly keep the captive women 
 as paramours. We can hardly imagine the Athenian 
 generals at Potidaea or Samos doing this in such a 
 way. The rights of property were ill-defined, and 
 especially that of inheritance seems to be not yet 
 securely established. The absence of money and of 
 details of business transactions from the Homeric 
 poems leaves us without means of comparison as to 
 any standard of honesty in such matters. But the 
 honor given to the wily and unscrupulous Odysseus 
 seems to indicate a low morality which as soon as 
 commerce fairly began would show itself fully in that 
 sphere. Without thought of trying to defend the 
 Greeks of ancient or modern times from any deserved 
 reproach in this matter, we ought yet to recognize 
 that the system of exchange and banking which was 
 carried on at Athens in "historic times, simple as it 
 may seem in comparison with the modern develop- 
 ment, implies a great degree of confidence, which in 
 its turn necessarily presupposes a measure of honesty. 
 The cases of breach of contract or other forms of dis- 
 honesty, made known to us by the speeches prepared 
 for the fesulting trials, must have been the excep- 
 tions, or we cannot see how the system could have
 
 12 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 come into existence or lasted a week. Again, in 
 regard to courage, as shown in war, there seems to 
 be distinct indication of progress. Though the Iliad 
 is a poem of war, and its pages abound in battles, yet 
 it does not give the impression that military courage 
 in any high degree characterized the* heroes cele- 
 brated in it or the people among whom it was com- 
 posed. There is hardly a trace in it of such courage 
 as was shown at Thermopylae or at Koroneia, 1 by 
 which a man can stand at his post and wait for certain 
 death on the chance of saving some one else behind 
 him, or march steadily forward step by step in even 
 line till the enemy's spear touches your breast and 
 the deadly crush comes. Such courage marks a 
 moral advance because it arises from two moral 
 causes : first, a sense of duty, more or less distinctly 
 conceived, to the state or some power above the indi- 
 vidual ; and second, the habit of disciplined action in 
 a body, which only the influence of some such supe- 
 rior power can originate and maintain. Now it is to 
 be observed that all these indications of improvement 
 in morals are matters which show a development of 
 social relations, an increased sense of society as hav- 
 ing claims on the individual and doing work for him. 
 In the treatment of orphans and of homicides the 
 moral sense of the people has substituted for the 
 irregular and uncertain action of the individual or the 
 family a system of definite usage to be followed by 
 some representative of the community. In the treat- 
 
 1 See Grote's description, History of Greece, Am. ed., IX. p. 314 f.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 13 
 
 ment of enemies slain in war, in matters of honesty 
 and courage, in conjugal fidelity, there is a fuller con- 
 sciousness of society as standing by and looking on 
 with an opinion that must be respected. There is 
 something of this, of course, in the Homeric poems, 
 but in the later period we see its influence to be 
 decidedly stronger in the particulars mentioned. It 
 is part of the general social progress which is seen as 
 well in government, art, and commerce. On the 
 other hand, there was a decline of morals in some 
 other particulars, two of which may be noticed here. 
 The change in the position of woman in the family is 
 a familiar fact. How far it was due to a greater 
 licentiousness and an increase of luxury and extrava- 
 gance, as K. F. Hermann l suggests, and how far to a 
 change in the political importance of woman, as 
 Mahaffy 2 thinks, we may leave unnoticed here. The 
 form of slavery too shows a change in moral tone. 
 In heroic times, slaves are acquired originally by 
 capture in war, and are regarded as part of the family. 
 In later times they become more commonly articles 
 of merchandise and are used less mildly, as* mere 
 machines, in mines and factories. On these two 
 classes the progress in civilization somehow presses 
 heavily to their disadvantage. To the fact above 
 noted, that the advance in morals in the historic 
 time is seen in such matters as belong to a more 
 developed influence of society, another fact corre- 
 
 1 Culturgeschichte der Griechen und Romer, I. p. 135. 
 
 2 Social Life in Greece, p. 136 f.
 
 14 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 spends, that we find in Homer the more private and 
 personal virtues, such as generosity, loyalty to 
 friends, the sense of personal honor, apparently in a 
 better condition than in later times. How far this 
 difference is due to the difference in the sources of 
 our knowledge, may be a question. Of the Homeric 
 society we have a picture refined by the poet's touch, 
 e?ri TO tcd\\iov Keicoa-fji'rjfjievov, to adapt the words of 
 Thukydides. 1 Whereas in our knowledge of the 
 historic period we come nearer to the hard facts of 
 actual occurrence. Certainly the tendency in a work 
 of imagination is to present ideals of individual char- 
 acters. The poet will naturally make his heroes and 
 heroines attractive according to his standard, indulg- 
 ing himself in his freedom from the restraint of facts. 
 Here we see a reason to regret our hopeless igno- 
 rance of the relative date of the Hesiodic poetry. 
 If, as is supposed, it is but little later than that of 
 the Homeric, then we ought perhaps to take the 
 " Works and Days " as supplying the needed prosaic 
 complement to the heroic ideal, and to form our 
 picture* of the early Greek life by combining the two. 
 In that case we might more confidently say that the 
 later historic age shows progress in morals. 
 
 It is not difficult to perceive some of the proxi- 
 mate causes of this progress. The gnomes of the 
 wise men, the responses of oracles, the elevated 
 utterances of poets learnt by heart in boyhood and 
 often afterwards recalled to mind, these all con- 
 i I. 21.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 15 
 
 tributed to fix a higher standard. The general 
 advance of the people in the arts of life, the wider 
 distribution of wealth, the establishment of some- 
 thing like a system of law, the facilitation of inter- 
 course between different communities, all these 
 things helped to make' society more refined and to 
 guide the actions of individuals in submission to the 
 general good. Events in history, notably the Persian 
 War, did their part by exciting deep feeling and 
 bringing forth shining examples of heroism. But 
 back of all these there must have been some cause 
 or combination of causes which determined that for 
 a time the progress should be upward and not down- 
 ward. Why were they able to accumulate and dis- 
 tribute wealth ? Why did the arts flourish and law 
 prevail ? Why did poets and wise men of such char- 
 acter appear ? I do not know that any answer I 
 could give would be other than a modification or an 
 imitation of Bagehot's 1 exposition of the difference 
 between progressive and stationary nations. The 
 progressive nations, to state his view briefly, are 
 such as are able to form for themselves in their 
 infancy a framework of institutions strong enough to 
 hold them together and support their first steps, and 
 at the same time are able also to modify those insti- 
 tutions so as to adapt them to the needs of their 
 further growth. That the Greeks possessed this 
 combination of capacities in prehistoric time is suffi- 
 ciently evident from the effects and even the linger- 
 
 1 Physics and Politics.
 
 1 6 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 ing remains of it in the period of history. Applying 
 an imitation of this theory to a single part of their 
 complex life, we may say that the Greeks as a people 
 were able to build up a system of usages and of prin- 
 ciples based thereon, which supported and shaped, 
 without hampering, the character of the individual. 
 Their sense of proportion and moderation, their love 
 of freedom, their clear-headedness, their power of 
 reasoning on abstract principles, these qualities, it 
 may be, guided them between a rigid caste system, 
 of which there are some faint traces in their life, and 
 a rude barbarian license. This is only saying in 
 other words, that something in the combination of 
 stock and surroundings made possible for them the 
 attainment of a good result. Perhaps no answer 
 would amount to very much more. 
 
 How good was the result ? Can we in any degree 
 estimate the value of the Greek system of morals in 
 its best state ? Can we say what rank it takes 
 among different systems known to us ? If we under- 
 take to do that, two cautions must be borne in mind, 
 (i) We must be careful not to think of the Greeks 
 as exactly like ourselves and to be judged by the 
 same standards. It is necessary to make a real effort 
 of imagination to understand the stock of ideas, the 
 framework of conceptions and assumptions, that was 
 in the Greek mind, before we can rightly estimate 
 the actions based upon that state of mind. (2) On 
 the other hand, we must take care not to think that 
 they were wholly different from ourselves. It is not
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 1 7 
 
 only that they had the qualities which seem to be 
 wellnigh universal and may be called fundamental 
 in human nature, such as selfishness and avarice, or 
 parental affection and conscience. More than that, 
 they reached a point of civilization, that is, the 
 Athenians and a few other states did, in many 
 respects strikingly like that of modern times. In 
 this fact it is involved that their moral condition, 
 their virtues and their besetting vices, were not 
 unlike ours. It has often been noticed how very 
 modern in some things and how remote in others the 
 life of Athens appears to us when we come to know 
 it a little. For one thing they were very much like 
 us in that their theory of morals was considerably 
 better than their practice. Not only from the pro- 
 fessed moralists, but from common men, even from 
 the unblushing scamps on the stage of comedy, we 
 have the most edifying sentiments expressed and 
 immediately forgotten when they come to action. 
 Of course the only proper way to compare the moral 
 conditions of different peoples is to put theory by 
 theory and practice by practice and look at each pair 
 separately. To match the theory of one's own coun- 
 try with the practice of another is simply a cheap 
 self -glorifying. In many respects the theory of Greek 
 morals, if we look at its highest reach, was not very 
 different from our own best theory. That truth was 
 recognized as right and falsehood as wrong, we see 
 in the literature abundantly from Homer through 
 Solon, Mimnermos, Herodotos, the dramatists, down
 
 1 8 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 to Plato. So family affection, courage, patriotism, 
 temperance, justice, reverence, all such virtues are 
 praised and the correlative vices condemned. In 
 some respects, however, there is a difference. In the 
 matter of bodily purity the best standard of the 
 Greeks was low. Revenge is an admitted privilege 
 or duty, until we come to Plato, who first gives a hint 
 of a nobler conception. The passive virtues, such as 
 meekness and gentleness, are ignored. Charity in 
 the form of benevolence we know was practiced, yet 
 we hardly find it inculcated as a duty, unless it is to 
 be recognized in the sacredness of the suppliant. If 
 we look at the general principle of Greek morality, 
 as indicated by some of its best exponents, we must 
 admit that it is a somewhat self-regarding system. 
 It is built up on an idea of fitness rather than of 
 right. It has in some respects a curiously unfinished 
 look, lacking high motives and seeming like an ex- 
 periment, a tentative sketch of what might be worked 
 up into a grand scheme. As to the other question, 
 how in the practice of its moral theories the commu- 
 nity of Athens, for instance, would compare with any 
 modern community, I must confess myself unable to 
 venture an answer. It would require more extensive 
 investigation and combination than I have been able 
 yet to undertake. It seems foolish to enter upon 
 any such comparison with the idea that either of the 
 two objects compared is to be praised at the expense 
 of the other. We ought rather by this time to rec- 
 ognize that different peoples in different periods have
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. IQ 
 
 differing phases of morality, and to be content with 
 ascertaining the points of distinction without trying 
 to exalt or depress either. 
 
 Another question suggests itself at this point. 
 What was the relation of the morality of the Greeks 
 to their religion ? How far had the sanction of relig- 
 ion any force to strengthen the moral sentiment ? 
 These questions are difficult to answer. They would 
 be so in the case of any people in any age. Con- 
 sider for instance the English people in the time of 
 the great religious and political struggle called the 
 Reformation, or in the age of Queen Anne, when 
 the question of the succession was so closely involved 
 with the disputes of sects and parties in the Church. 
 How difficult it is, with all our sources of informa- 
 tion, in these recent and prominent epochs, to form 
 an opinion how far religion exerted an influence on 
 private life. The opinion is often expressed that 
 there was, certainly as late as the time of Demos- 
 thenes, a complete separation in the Greek mind 
 between the ideas of religion and of practical morals. 
 Thus Mahaffy l speaks of the Theogony of Hesiod as 
 " showing the changing attitude of the Greek relig- 
 ion by which it was ultimately dissociated from 
 ethics and gradually reduced to a mere collection of 
 dogmas and ritual." Gladstone 2 speaks of the 
 " tendency of the Pagan religion to become the chief 
 corrupter of morality, or, to speak perhaps more 
 
 1 History of Greek Literature, I. p. r 10. 
 
 2 Quoted by Merry on Od. 8 : 267.
 
 20 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 accurately, to afford the medium through which the 
 forces of evil and the downward inclination would 
 principally act for the purpose of depraving it." In 
 a different spirit and with more truth Myers l in his 
 essay on Aeschylos says, "Among the Hellenes 
 morality grew up separate from religion, and then, 
 as it were, turned to it to demand its aid." Still 
 more justly Abbott, 2 "The religious conceptions of 
 the Greeks became ethical at an early period and 
 continued to be so to the last, ever growing higher 
 and higher as the conception of life and duty became 
 more elevated." These opinions differ widely enough 
 from one another, yet no one of them can be wholly 
 denied or wholly accepted. Here as before the way 
 to reach the safest judgment is to collect and exam- 
 ine the facts so far as there are facts attainable. At 
 present I can only indicate some of the conclusions 
 which I think such an investigation would establish, 
 although this special topic has never, so far as I 
 know, been fully treated. We may see one form of 
 direct influence in the positive power of oaths. To 
 be sure, they were often violated, but we must 
 remember that it is the violations that attract atten- 
 tion and go on record. The additional sanction given 
 by an oath to a promise or assertion was universally 
 recognized, as appears from the disgrace attached to 
 the name of perjurer. Suicide was looked upon as 
 a sin against the gods ; for the effort of the philoso- 
 pher to explain the theory implies the existence of 
 1 Hellenica, p. 15. 2 Essay on Sophokles, Hellenica, p. 38.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 21 
 
 the opinion. At least Plato's l explanations look 
 altogether towards the gods, while Aristotle 2 speaks 
 only of the injury done to the state. The word 
 v/3pt<> in its general use, not as a technical term of 
 law but as a description of a quality of character, 
 includes self-confidence, recklessness, defiance of 
 decency and public opinion, as all having the com- 
 mon element of excess and overstepping due bounds. 
 The conduct thus described, though involving no 
 breach of human law, was yet condemned by com- 
 mon opinion and dreaded as rendering one liable to 
 divine displeasure. Many duties, such as those of hos- 
 pitality, pity for suppliants, family affection, were 
 enforced by appeals to the god whose titles, eVto9, 
 tKeT)j(Tios, f-'pfceios, show his direct relation to human 
 duty. In such matters as these we see, I think, 
 direct and positive influence from religious belief 
 upon conduct. And I have omitted, you will observe, 
 all those classes of actions which are made immoral 
 by the special institution of religion, such as particu- 
 lar forms of sacrilege, and all such as are condemned 
 by civil law, because I desired to mention only cases 
 wherein religion by itself gave sanction to what all 
 men regard as belonging to universal morality. How 
 should we find it if we look at other matters of daily 
 life still within the domain of universal morality ? 
 How far were simple truth without an oath, chastity, 
 courage, temperance, and the like inculcated and 
 practiced from religious motives? Here especially 
 1 Phaedo, 61 D-62 E. 2 Etb. Nicom. V. 15.
 
 22 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 we should seek the evidence of actual incidents and 
 carefully criticised expressions of sentiment. It 
 would probably indicate that the conception of relig* 
 ion as a distinct motive power available as a sanc- 
 tion of moral duty was not yet fully formed and 
 developed in the consciousness of the mass of men. 
 The two ideas, duty and religion, "We must do what 
 is right " and " Let us worship and obey the gods," 
 were both in the Greek mind. They may have come 
 from different sources. They appear to have had 
 different stages and rates of development. But they 
 approached each other, and at the climax of Greek 
 history they met, at least in some such souls as that 
 of Xenophon and probably other followers of Sokra- 
 tes. But with the mass of men these two ideas 
 perhaps remained always somewhat separate, very 
 much as they are often kept apart in modern times. 
 It does not seem that the gulf between them was 
 particularly wide in the case of the Greeks, so that 
 no modern parallel to it could be found, yet it cannot 
 be denied that there were elements in the history 
 and spirit of their religion which made such a sepa- 
 ration easy and legitimate. 
 
 After all, what was the character of the Greek 
 religion ? On this subject much has been written 
 and many unwarranted statements made. We are 
 told that it was a worship of beauty ; that it was a 
 worship of nature ; that it was a mixture of local 
 hero-worship and foreign superstition, with reminis- 
 cences of Hebrew tradition and anticipations of
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 23 
 
 Christian doctrine grotesquely intermingled ; that it 
 was a simple and enviable flowering out of human 
 nature unhampered by sense of sin or dread of a 
 future ; that it was a profound system of truth, con- 
 cealing under apparently simple stories the greatest 
 mysteries of the visible and invisible worlds. 1 For 
 each of these and other like statements, there is 
 some show of proof, yet they can hardly all be true. 
 That so many differing views may be taken is due in 
 part to the difficulty of ascertaining the truth. It is 
 difficult enough to frame a clear conception and pre- 
 cise description of any religion held by civilized men, 
 but there are reasons why it is especially so in the 
 case of the religion of the Greeks. It had no stand- 
 ards, no creed, no generally accepted head to control 
 and coordinate local varieties. It was nearly always 
 hospitable to the beliefs and rituals of other peoples, 
 and was itself as composite as the stock of the tribes 
 which made up the nation. It inherited a mythology 
 from an unknown past, some features of which it 
 always retained, modifying only the interpretation of 
 them, and others it expanded and enriched to adapt 
 them to the changes in the civilization and moral 
 sense of the people. It embraced without fatal dis- 
 cord the most widely divergent views and disposi- 
 tions towards the gods, including in one fold the 
 stern devout Puritanism of Aeschylos and the scoffing 
 obscene Puritanism (strange as this description may 
 
 1 See among others, Preller, Petersen, Gladstone, Symonds, Bunsen, 
 Raskin.
 
 24 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 seem) of Aristophanes. Even in the same mind it 
 allowed the reverent adoration of Zeus and the sub- 
 lime conception of his nature expressed in the first 
 chorus of the Agamemnon to coexist with the repre- 
 sentation of him in the Prometheus as being in the 
 early part of his reign a cruel, licentious, and short- 
 sighted tyrant. Of such a religion it seems impos- 
 sible to get at any central and governing principle, 
 to find any doctrine or spirit which runs through all 
 its manifestations and unites them all. 
 
 A religion may be studied either historically or 
 comparatively, either by tracing its own growth 
 through successive stages or by comparing it with 
 other religions. It seems clear that in the case of the 
 Greek religion the former method ought to precede 
 the latter and to control all its processes. For this 
 religion was in a remarkable degree a growing and 
 changing one. Wherever we look at two points in its 
 history, between the Iliad and the Odyssey, between 
 Hesiod and Pindar, between the Persian and the 
 Peloponnesian wars, between Plato and Polybios and 
 on to Plutarch, we still see change. What is true of 
 one period is not true, or true only with many qualifi- 
 cations, of another. A comparison which brought 
 into view only one period of the Greek religion 
 would not be very fruitful ; one which neglected the 
 succession of different periods would surely lead to 
 erroneous conclusions. As to the individual deities 
 in many cases there is a history which must be traced 
 out before we can understand the worship, the rela-
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 25 
 
 tions of one deity to another, the local connections. 
 In this field much remains to be done on the plan 
 adopted by Ernst Curtius, Kuhn, Roscher, and others. 
 If we look at the Greek religion as a whole histori- 
 cally, we are carried back at once to a time prior to 
 the existence of the separate Greek national charac- 
 ter. We find ourselves obliged to go to the Vedic 
 hymns and try to learn from their scanty evidence 
 what the Aryan religion was. In the nature of the 
 case it is impossible by any such records to reach the 
 very beginning, for the earliest period can leave no 
 record behind it, but it is as far as we can go. In the 
 hymns of the Vedas we find a religious system with a 
 mythology already established. For a brief account 
 of it I depend upon the same authority to which I 
 have already referred, that of Earth. In this Vedic 
 system all parts of nature were held to be divine and 
 were objects of worship. But this is true mainly of 
 what is on the earth and in the atmosphere, for the 
 heavenly bodies are comparatively left out of view. 
 There are numerous deities, some personifications of 
 powers or phenomena of earth and air, in which the 
 physical element has almost disappeared in the per- 
 sonal ; others, personifications less complete of ab- 
 stract ideas or of actions. Each of these in turn is 
 addressed as chief, and the same powers and gifts to 
 men are ascribed now to one, now to another. These 
 deities are represented as acting upon the same mo- 
 tives and subject to the same passions with men. The 
 distinction of sex exists among them, but there is as
 
 26 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 yet no organized government, nor are they distinctly 
 represented in human form, though the constant 
 ascription of human actions to them implies such 
 forms. They are immortal, and are regarded as lofty 
 and holy beings whom the best of men must humbly 
 worship. It is plain at first sight that this system 
 differs in many respects from what we find among 
 the Greeks at the earliest period when they become 
 known to us, yet on the other hand there are points 
 of resemblance which seem to warrant the belief that 
 the two have a common origin. For instance, certain 
 names of deities the two have in common, although 
 perhaps the only clear examples are Varuna and 
 Ovpavos, Dyaus and Zeu<?. It is remarkable in both 
 cases that the name prominent as that of a deity in 
 one country is quite subordinate in the other. Qvpavos 
 has no prominence in Greek mythology, nor Dyaus 
 in Vedic. It is supposed that the early settlers of the 
 Greek peninsula brought with them a form of this 
 worship of the powers of nature. What this form 
 was, how many deities there were, how fully they 
 were personified, by what rites they were worshiped 
 we do not seem to have any means of knowing. 
 Herodotos (2:52) tells us that the Pelasgians had no 
 names for their gods until they borrowed them from 
 the Egyptians. If we combine this guess of his with 
 the fact that in Homer there is but one obscure refer- 
 ence 1 to an image of a deity, we may infer that the 
 ancestors of the Greeks, like the singers of the Vedic 
 111.6:273.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 2/ 
 
 hymns, had no representations of their gods and even 
 a less elaborate mythology than they. As time went 
 on, the number of deities was increased, in part by 
 real additions, in part by the re-introduction of the 
 same deity under a new name. Thus Dionysos comes 
 in as a wholly new figure apparently, and even as late 
 as the time of the Homeric poems has not won full 
 recognition. And the Greeks,like the Aryans of the 
 Veda, began to personify human feelings and func- 
 tions, social principles, and even abstract qualities. 
 On the other hand, Ernst Curtius has traced 1 the 
 progress of the worship of a Semitic goddess from 
 point to point along the lines of trade, whom the 
 Greeks came to know and adopted under several dif- 
 ferent names, as Aphrodite, Hera, Artemis, and per- 
 haps Athene, with different forms of worship. This 
 multiplication of deities was not wholy due to a mys- 
 terious impulse in the Greek mind towards polythe- 
 ism, but in large measure to an early separation into 
 small communities and a subsequent combination into 
 larger aggregates. Each small community, shut in 
 by its surrounding hills, developed its own form of 
 worship, attaching its own epithet to the common 
 name of the god of sky or sea, and perhaps also deify- 
 ing its local hero. When intercourse began its work, 
 these all obtained a sort of recognition and a place in 
 the great family of gods. Thus the many wives of 
 Zeus are evidences of so many local myths, which the 
 poets perhaps were the first to gather and combine 
 
 1 Preussische Jahrbucher, 1875, p. I.
 
 28 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 into one story. To the influence of the poets, or to 
 the vivid defining imagination of the race, of which 
 they are only choice examples, is due also the anthropo- 
 morphizing tendency which is so prominent in the 
 Greek mythology. As has been already hinted, the 
 difference here between the Greeks and other peoples 
 is only one of degree. All peoples anthropomorphize 
 in some measure. The Veclic hymns ascribe human 
 motives and passions and needs to the gods, but, with 
 a lack of logical sequence, they leave the form of the 
 individual comparatively vague and mysterious. The 
 Hebrew Bible does the same, coming a little nearer 
 in some respects to the Greeks. But the Greeks, 
 obeying at once their reason and their lively fancy, 
 went on and pictured to themselves each god in dis- 
 tinct and beautiful human form. Here came in the 
 plastic and pictorial arts with powerful aid as soon 
 as they grew to perfection. Petersen 1 has remarked 
 how in the age of Perikles sculpture reached its height, 
 just before the wave of skepticism came, so as to fix 
 in the minds of the people the forms of the gods and 
 to provide beauty as a suggestion of holiness. But 
 the arts were only secondary and subsequent in this 
 work. Each deity must have been clearly conceived 
 and defined in form and attributes before the painter 
 or sculptor represented him to the eye. When this 
 was done, it was a great help to the slower minds 
 in imagining the person ; but we must not think of 
 these arts as original causes of anthropomorphism. 
 
 1 Ersch und Gruber, I. Griech. Mythologie, p. 155.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 2Q 
 
 One such original cause was perhaps the cheerful, 
 society-loving temper of the early Greek, encouraged 
 by the sunny and temperate skies above him. He 
 easily thought of his god as coming near to him in 
 life and pursuits, and was ready to welcome him if he 
 would appear at his own festival, where a part of the 
 victim was always assigned to him. Every festival, 
 and even ordinary meals, had a religious element. 
 All through the better time of the Greek religion 
 there is a tone of simple gladness, a sort of consecra- 
 tion of physical and social happiness, which may have 
 weakened its moral influence in one direction but 
 must have strengthened it in another. Thus conceiv- 
 ing their gods as individually and socially like them- 
 selves, they wrought out in imagination a complete 
 parallel above to their life below, a city in the 
 heavens. The book of Genesis tells us that man was 
 made in the image of God. Aristotle 1 supplies the 
 counterpart to this by his observation that the Greeks 
 made their gods in their own image. It would follow 
 naturally from this that as the character of the people 
 developed and improved, as their theory of an ideal 
 society, their conception of possible excellencies of 
 character, even their knowledge of the extent of the 
 world and the complications of its government, ad- 
 vanced, so would their ideas of the gods be corre- 
 spondingly elevated. Perhaps the most prominent 
 agents in this upward movement, or embodiments of 
 the spirit that caused it, were the Delphic oracle and 
 the tragic poets of Athens. The part taken by the 
 1 Pol. i, 2, p. 1252 b.
 
 3O STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 oracle in promoting civilization and elevating in many 
 ways the life of the Greeks has been most elaborately 
 set forth by Ernst Curtius, especially in his History of 
 Greece. 1 There was one special and remarkable out- 
 growth of the Greek religion, apparently connected 
 closely with the oracle, which, I think I may venture 
 to say, demands more study than it has yet received. 
 This is briefly the belief in Apollo, not simply as the 
 revealer of the hidden will of Zeus, but as the agent 
 of purification to the soul. From this seems to have 
 grown up, if not a formulated system of doctrine, yet 
 a strong faith in the power of the god to bring about 
 an atonement, a reconciliation between the sinner and 
 the divine wrath against sin ; a faith which marks 
 the highest point of practical religion reached by the 
 Greeks. It is most strikingly exhibited to us in the 
 two cases of Orestes and Oedipus. These cases show 
 us also how the tragic poets could contribute to the 
 upward movement of the Greek religion. Plato felt 
 obliged by his theory to exclude them from his ideal 
 state, but it would be hard to "find two men who 
 would more heartily have sympathized with his aspi- 
 rations, when translated from the language of his phi- 
 losophy into that of their poetry, than Aeschylos and 
 Sophokles. It would also be hard to find two who 
 exercised a wider influence to prepare man for his 
 elevated views than they. The Apolline religion 
 apparently grew out of the Dorian worship of the 
 god, but it found a welcome among the lonians, and 
 
 1 Curtius, History of Greece, Bk. II. Ch. IV.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 3! 
 
 this illustrates how the oracle at Delphi was one 
 of the main causes of whatever national union the 
 Greeks achieved. It must not be supposed, however, 
 that this prominence of Apollo superseded the Olym- 
 pian theology. It grew out of that system and came 
 to be the most vital part of it, but never ceased to be 
 a part. Apollo himself is always the son of Zeus and, 
 in this his noblest work, the agent of the will of his 
 father. Zeus remains to the end the supreme god of 
 the Greek religion, and often the expressions used in 
 regard to him, if they stood alone, might fairly be 
 regarded as evidence of monotheism. This was the 
 culmination of the Greek religion, and then of course 
 came the decline. But we must not suppose that the 
 decline began at once. The life of ancient Greece 
 often seems to us to come to an end with the death of 
 Demosthenes and Aristotle. The art, the literature, 
 the philosophy, the free political action, of all these 
 there seems to be almost nothing after 300 B. c., to 
 interest most of us, and so we are apt to think that 
 the religion too sank at once into a degraded condi- 
 tion into which we need not care to follow its history. 
 But it had a tougher life than they, and there are 
 indications that it continued during the following cen- 
 turies with undiminished pomp of observance and, if 
 costly offerings are any sign, kept still some hold 
 upon the hearts of the worshipers. Here, more than 
 anywhere, the information as to the actual working of 
 moral and religious ideas is yet to be gathered from 
 inscriptions, institutions, and incidents of daily life.
 
 32 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 But we may well believe that the religion was all this 
 time losing its vigor, since the fresh flow of poetic 
 inspiration and the hopeful energy of independent 
 political life had ceased to feed and to sustain it. 
 For this Greek religion had been so shaped by the 
 poets in its growth, and was so involved with the 
 functions and legal rights of the state governments, 
 that the decay or crippling of these two supports 
 must affect it seriously. It would be asking too much 
 of a religion with no higher source than it had, to ex- 
 pect it to do much to preserve the national life from 
 decay when external causes of such resistless power 
 were at hand to destroy it. 
 
 Now if some such meagre outline of the history of 
 the matter is in general true, it shows clearly that the 
 Greek religion was not a worship of beauty. This 
 idea seems to have for its foundation nothing but a 
 few instances of semidivine honors paid to persons 
 of striking beauty and the fact that as a people the 
 Greeks were remarkably sensitive to the influence and 
 obedient to the laws of the beautiful. But in reality 
 this quality entered no more into their religion than 
 into their literature and their architecture and all 
 their art. It was for them impossible, we may almost 
 say, to cultivate any form of intellectual or spiritual 
 activity without manifesting in it and impressing 
 upon it their delicate and correct feeling of grace and 
 proportion. Neither was the Greek religion a wor- 
 ship of nature. That was an element in it, at one 
 time, probably the chief element or rather the germ
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 33 
 
 out of which it all grew. But during all the time of 
 which we have knowledge, this original character is 
 lost out of sight entirely, surviving only in a few faint 
 traces, and the names which at the first designated 
 powers of nature have come to stand for a totally dif- 
 ferent order of conceptions. We might as well say 
 that an oak is really an acorn as that the Greek re- 
 ligion is after all a nature -worship. Nor was it, as we 
 are sometimes told, a display of human nature un- 
 clothed and unabashed, acting itself out in the joyous 
 innocent unconsciousness of infancy. From the very 
 first, in order to have a raison d'etre, it must have 
 recognized the helplessness of man, the dread of 
 an offended superior power, the need of an effort to 
 please an unseen being. And all through the litera- 
 ture of Greece is felt the sterner strain that distin- 
 guishes the man from the child, a sense of duty 
 and of responsibility for the discharge of duty ap- 
 pearing in Homer, rising to its highest expression in 
 Aeschylos, not wholly lost in Aristophanes, translated 
 into the love of the supreme idea by Plato, and for- 
 mulated with mathematical precision by Aristotle. 
 Yet once more, we do not find in the Greek myths 
 profound truths disguised as fables. It is possible, 
 no doubt, to read such truths into them and to urge in 
 defense of the practice the use of the same simple 
 stories by the tragic poets as the vehicles of their 
 noble thoughts. But that example does not justify 
 the detection in the myths of wonderful correspond- 
 encies with facts not known till centuries later and of
 
 34 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 the most ingenious selection of names and incidents 
 so as to hide deep thoughts from all but the discov- 
 erer and reveal them unerringly to him. The myth 
 of Prometheus is perhaps the most frequent victim of 
 such speculations, and shows what tortures a poor 
 myth, stretched on the rack of hypothesis and torn 
 to furnish food for many more than two fierce con- 
 structors of theories, may be made to undergo. But 
 all this interpreting is an inversion of the order of 
 time. Unless these myths were imparted by inspira- 
 tion from some superhuman wisdom, we cannot rea- 
 sonably suppose them intended to convey so much 
 profound and abstract truth. 
 
 I have been led to speak of the myths, whereas I 
 began to speak of the religion. Is it possible wholly 
 to divorce the two ? Is it possible to form an opinion 
 of a religion without looking at the conception which 
 it presents of its objects of worship, its gods, and can 
 we look at the gods of Greece without taking into 
 our view the myths ? There are three elements dis- 
 tinguishable in thought but so closely connected that 
 the discussion of one always tends to pass over into 
 that of another in the relation of any people to the 
 superhuman world as they conceive it. These are 
 the theology or mythology (that is, the description 
 and history of the divine), the morality (that is, the 
 system of duty among men), and the religion in a 
 specific sense (by which I mean the sanction which 
 the belief in the divine gives to morality). I leave 
 out of consideration the worship as foreign to my
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 35 
 
 subject. Now if we try to estimate the result of these 
 three elements in the case of the Greeks, we find it to 
 be somewhat as follows, I think. The motive cause at 
 the bottom of the whole phenomenon is the need of 
 man for an object of worship above him. That is, for 
 us, a primal need, because we cannot tell whence it 
 arises. Some say from fear, some from wonder, some 
 from sense of sin, some from material dependence. 
 Between these or other causes we have at present no 
 means of deciding, and therefore we may be justified 
 in saying that it is, so far as we can tell, primitive and 
 itself a cause. TLavres Se Oewv^areovcr' avOpwjrot,, says 
 the Homeric poet, 1 words dear to the heart of Philip 
 Melanchthon. This impulse to worship in the minds 
 of the ancestors of the Greeks produced, if we can 
 trust the best evidence we have, a threefold result, 
 a worship of the powers and forms of nature on earth 
 and in air, a worship of fire, and possibly, a worship 
 of the dead. This inheritance the migrating tribes 
 brought with them to their settlement in Europe, and 
 in course of time it seems to have become localized 
 and humanized and systematized. They expanded it 
 by adopting deities and beliefs and ceremonies from 
 foreign sources. They added also deities whose 
 names seem to indicate a native Greek origin, such 
 as Themis, Peitho, Metis, and other personifications of 
 qualities or processes. They were ready to see the 
 divine agency all about them, or, in other words, they 
 were, with some notable exceptions, in an uncritical 
 
 1 Od. 3 : 48. " All men have need of the gods."
 
 36 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 state of mind as to the authority of the prevailing 
 belief. Their conceptions of the gods, clear and 
 clean-cut as they were in some respects, were in 
 others vague, elastic, and constantly open to uncon- 
 scious modification. There was moreover a sense of 
 good-fellowship, so to call it, in much of their inter- 
 course with the gods, which it is hard for us fully to 
 understand and yet necessary to include in our view 
 if it is to be a true one. The gods were thought to 
 sympathize with men and help them in all their ex- 
 periences of joy or sorrow, in mere sensual pleasure 
 as well as in the highest intellectual or moral activi- 
 ties. But all along from the beginning, or perhaps 
 from some later point and cause now unknown to us, 
 the conception of these divine beings was just suffi- 
 ciently above the moral standard of the average man 
 to exert some control upon him and to help him and 
 through him the community up to a higher level. 
 We cannot doubt that Aeschylos believed that the 
 Zeus to whom he prayed, whatever he might have 
 been in an earlier period of his reign, was when he 
 prayed to him, a being wiser and better than himself. 
 We cannot doubt that Plato felt that " the Idea of the 
 Good " was continually lifting him up to better 
 thoughts and a nobler life. Yet each of these men 
 formed in his own mind the conception of the being 
 to whom his worship was offered. There is no mar- 
 vel or self-delusion in this. We know that an idea 
 may come to any man, with or without recognized 
 external suggestion, which may make his life and
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 37 
 
 character ever after purer and better than it was 
 before. In this way we can understand how the 
 religion of the Greeks was elevated by the improve- 
 ment of the character of the people and how at the 
 same time it was continually helping to elevate in its 
 turn the character of the people.. Certainly the ordi- 
 nary citizen of Athens did not habitually think of the 
 gods as Plato and Aeschylos did in their loftiest 
 speculations, but he must have thought of them as 
 above himself in some degree, and he must have been 
 helped to higher views by what he could hear and 
 understand of the thoughts of the great minds. 
 
 But here there occurs a difficulty. What shall we 
 think of the worship of Dionysos and that of Aphro- 
 dite ? They seem to rest upon the deification of two 
 degrading sensual passions which can only lead to the 
 indulgence of vice, so that they are in a word the 
 consecration of vice, and how could there be any- 
 thing elevating in them or in a system which tole- 
 rated them ? It would be foolish to try to defend 
 these practices or to explain them away by imagining 
 a theory of morals which would justify them. One 
 thing however can and ought to be said to qualify in 
 some measure the impression they make upon us as 
 to the character of the people among whom they pre- 
 vailed. It appears altogether probable that both 
 these forms of worship were introduced from other 
 countries and that there was originally nothing corre- 
 sponding to them in the native Greek belief. " But 
 they were adopted by the Greeks." Yes, they were
 
 38 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 adopted, at first perhaps because a divine element, 
 akin to that of other nature-powers, was recognized 
 in the myths connected with these deities. Then we 
 may suppose that the worship of Dionysos in particu- 
 lar became so prominent and popular in part because 
 it harmonized so w^ll with the festival meetings of 
 neighbors and friends which the Greeks from our 
 earliest knowledge of them were accustomed to con- 
 nect with religious observances. It has been observed 
 that there are traces and relics of a worship of Aphro- 
 dite in which bodily purity, l and a worship of 
 Dionysos in which sobriety, 2 was required of the 
 worshipers. The gross abuses which became asso- 
 ciated with the worship of these deities were simply 
 the indulgence of low passions under the pretext of 
 religious service. It is folly, as I have already said, 
 to try to construct a theory of the innocent deification 
 of everything in human nature which will hold good 
 for the Greeks at the culmination of their civilization. 
 Indulgence of such passions was not indeed con- 
 demned by them in their best estate so strongly as it 
 has been in modern times, that is, within the last hun- 
 dred years, but yet, if we can trust at all their litera- 
 ture and the evidences of character in their history, 
 we must admit that it was condemned. We cannot 
 too positively believe and affirm that such excesses 
 were not the legitimate product of a distorted idea of 
 religion, but the abuse of a natural and right idea. 
 
 1 Preller, Griech. Mythologie, I. p. 268. 
 
 2 K. F. Hermann, Culturgeschichte, I. p. 68.
 
 MORALITY AND RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 39 
 
 The history of the Christian church can show abuses 
 not less gross but only less public and more incon- 
 sistent with its general character. 
 
 So then, to conclude, if we look thus at the religion 
 of the Greeks, we see in it a natural development, a 
 close connection with the character and history of the 
 people, a steady progress towards a not unworthy 
 ideal. Compared with Christianity in its highest 
 forms, compared even with Buddhism and Mahome- 
 tan ism in some particulars, it appears wavering in its 
 conception of the divine being, feeble in direct moral 
 influence, and much too tolerant of gross vice. Still 
 I believe it was a religion, and not unworthy of the 
 name, that is, it was a system of belief as to the rela- 
 tion of man to the supernatural world, which influ- 
 enced him in his conduct and influenced him in a 
 continually increasing measure towards reverence, 
 integrity, temperance, justice, and good-will to his 
 fellow-man. It was more social and external in char- 
 acter than agrees with the highest type of religion, 
 but it must have had even to the common man a per- 
 sonal element and the effect of an inward control, or 
 I do not see how we can account in any reasonable 
 way for the existence of the civilized society of 
 Athens and for the character of Sokrates.
 
 II. 
 
 PLATO'S ARGUMENTS IN THE PHAEDO 
 
 FOR THE IMMORTALITY OF 
 
 THE SOUL. 
 
 'THE thoughts of such a mind as Plato's on such a 
 * subject as the immortality of the soul ought natu- 
 rally, it would seem, to be of interest to all students of 
 the history of mankind. They should not be expected, 
 of course, to be cast in exactly the forms of thinking 
 of our own day, but the differences which we find in 
 them are just such as to make the study of them 
 interesting and stimulating. In many respects they 
 are remarkably modern ; in others we may find that 
 though the form is different the substance is the 
 same. It is often the case that truths have to be 
 restated in a new form for each successive genera- 
 tion of thinkers. The same idea presents itself 
 differently at different times, and sometimes even 
 what may appear strange to us when said by one of 
 a former generation is really what we ourselves are 
 thinking and stating in a form of our own. In the 
 following pages the attempt is made to state with 
 the utmost exactness the several arguments that Plato 
 advances to prove what he wishes to believe, add- 
 ing a fe,w words of criticism, only so much as seems 
 needful to the understanding of his thought. There
 
 42 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 has been some difference of opinion as to the number 
 of his arguments. Some, finding the doctrine of 
 Ideas present in several of these arguments, reduce 
 the number to one, or at most, two. Others, mistak- 
 ing the answer to one of the objections for an in- 
 dependent argument, raise the number to five. We 
 have followed the plain indications in the structure 
 of the dialogue in presenting four arguments. 
 
 I. Plato's first argument is a probability based 
 upon the doctrine of procession of contraries each 
 from its opposite. There is an old doctrine, he says, 
 that the living proceed from the dead. As we know 
 that the dead proceed from the living (i.e., the living 
 pass into, become, the dead), then if the old doctrine 
 be true, this is a case of the alternation of oppo- 
 sites, a sort of cycle passing continually from one 
 extreme to the other, and so back and forth. The 
 probability of such a circular movement he proceeds 
 to prove in three ways, by analogy, by the presumed 
 symmetry of nature, and by a reductio ad absurdum. 
 
 (a) By analogy. Here he gives a number of in- 
 stances, first of opposite pairs of things, such as good 
 and bad, just and unjust, and then of evident and 
 necessary passage from one of these to the other. 
 Thus a thing cannot become larger except by passing 
 out of a previous state of being smaller, nor heavier 
 except by passing out of a previous state of being 
 lighter, etc. Here we may remark the advantage to 
 his argument from the use of comparative adjectives ; 
 but the real strength of it is in the use of the word
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 43 
 
 become. It is of course true that nothing capable of 
 growth can become large or small except from being 
 comparatively small or large previously. The fact 
 that he confines his statement to attributives is 
 justified by his regarding living and dead as attri- 
 butes of man. 
 
 (b) By the presumed symmetry of nature. Here 
 he confines himself to the case in hand, bringing in 
 no illustrations. We see that the state of being alive 
 exists, and the state of being dead ; and equally evi- 
 dent to us is the transition in one direction, from life 
 to death, that is, the act of dying. Therefore if na- 
 ture is not to be unsymmetrical (lame is his word), 
 must we not assume the existence of the opposite 
 transition, from death to life, that is, the act of com- 
 ing back to life ? This is plainly necessary in order 
 to complete the supposed cycle. 
 
 (c) By a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose that there 
 were no such return to life ; or, to take first an illustra- 
 tion, suppose that men fell asleep but there were no 
 waking up again ; plainly all men would in time be 
 asleep. So if there should be, as we see there is, the 
 transition of dying, but not the corresponding transi- 
 tion of coming back to life, everything would ulti- 
 mately be dead. But what is the absurdity in this ? 
 There is none apparent, unless we supply the thought 
 which, though not expressed, seems to be assumed in 
 the writer's mind, viz., that it is contrary to reason 
 to suppose that this world of life and activity has 
 come into being with no other end in prospect for it 
 but to fall asleep and sink away into universal death.
 
 44 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 Thus, then, the ancient traditional belief that the 
 souls of men pass from the world of the living to 
 the world of the dead, and return again thence to the 
 world of the living, is accepted. It is easy to see how 
 such a belief may have arisen ; the alternations of life 
 and death in the vegetable world during the progress 
 of the seasons, would naturally suggest it. It was 
 apparently involved in the Pythagorean and Oriental 
 doctrine of transmigration of souls. It would find 
 support, too, in the Herakleitean doctrine that being 
 is really a continual becoming, that all things are in 
 a perpetual flux. But in the form in which Plato 
 presents it, it rests in part upon another Pythagorean 
 doctrine, namely, that of a sort of polarity in the uni- 
 verse, whereby all things may be grouped in two 
 classes of opposites. 
 
 Two or three remarks may be made upon this ar- 
 gument before we speak of its general value, (i) 
 This argument implies a limited, unchanging number 
 of souls in existence. The possibility of the creation 
 of new souls or their production out of any existing 
 materials would destroy the whole argument. Indeed, 
 Plato recognizes this possibility, in order to exclude 
 it, when he says (72 D), " For if living things pro- 
 ceeded from the rest of the universe (i.e., not from 
 the dead), and then should die, the result would be 
 that everything would end in death." The belief in 
 a limited number of souls is distinctly stated by him 
 in the Republic (611 A). (2) This argument implies 
 the pre-existence of souls, a belief which appears
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 45 
 
 more prominently in the next argument, and is else- 
 where avowed by him. (3) It does not appear from any- 
 thing in this argument why it should not apply as well 
 to the animal and plant as to the man, and perhaps 
 (cf. 70 D) Plato would not have objected to such an 
 extension, as Aristotle would not. 
 
 Of the value of this argument, in the view of 
 modern thought, it is not necessary to say much. 
 We do not really know much more about the origin 
 of the human soul than Plato did ; but few men, un- 
 less a Thomas Beecher, would soberly argue that the 
 souls of the dead return again to this life in the form of 
 bees or wolves, to use Plato's illustrations, or of men. 
 But it may be observed that the argument regards 
 the soul as an independent something, of which being 
 in this life and being in the state beyond death are 
 merely two conditions. It depends wholly upon the 
 assumption that being alive and being dead are two 
 exact opposites, and that there is no third possibility 
 for the soul. If there is such a third possibility, 
 for instance, destruction, the argument breaks down. 
 This weak point is seen further on in "the discussion, 
 and an attempt is made to cover it. 
 
 II. The second argument has much more real 
 substance than the first. It is sometimes concisely 
 described as the argument from reminiscence, which 
 serves well enough for a title ; but it should not be 
 supposed that the argument is simply this, that we 
 seem to recall things from a former state of existence, 
 and therefore must have passed through such a state.
 
 46 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 That it really contains more than this, will appear 
 from the following formal statement of it. 
 
 1. Learning is really recalling or reminiscence. 
 (This is shown in 73 A, by the usual proof that a 
 skilful questioner can lead another person to state 
 a number of truths about a subject on which the 
 person questioned previously supposed himself to 
 have no knowledge.) 
 
 2. Reminiscence implies three things, viz. : 
 (a) Previous knowledge of the thing recalled ; 
 
 (&) That one thing may recall to the mind another 
 though entirely different thing ; e.g., the sight of a 
 lyre may recall the image of its owner, etc. ; 
 
 (c) When the object suggesting and the object 
 suggested are alike, judgment as to the degree of 
 likeness. 
 
 3. There exist certain absolute essences, such as 
 beauty, goodness, equality, etc. 
 
 4. We get our knowledge of them from the 
 senses, e.g., the Idea (= absolute essence) of like- 
 ness (TO ta-ov) is suggested by the sight of things 
 like to one another. 
 
 5. But we also observe at the same time that the 
 Idea of likeness is not perfectly realized in any two like 
 objects, i.e., no two like objects are precisely alike. 
 
 6. In order to be able to pass this judgment, that 
 the Idea of likeness is not perfectly realized in any 
 object of the senses, we must have had the Idea of 
 likeness in our minds before we could make the com- 
 parison between it and like objects.
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 47 
 
 7. On the other hand, the perception of the objects 
 compared with the Idea is gained only by the use of 
 the senses ; and at the first use of the senses we are 
 in possession of the Idea which we compare with 
 them. 
 
 8. But the use of the senses begins at birth ; hence 
 before birth we must have had the Idea of likeness. 
 (All this applies to all the Ideas or absolute essences, 
 that of likeness being merely taken as an example.) 
 
 9. Hence, as to all such Ideas, there are two 
 alternatives : 
 
 (a) Either we are in possession of them from birth 
 all along through life ; 
 
 (b) Or we have lost andtare obliged to recall them. 
 
 10. We are not all of us in possession of them, for 
 we cannot all of us explain them, and no man knows 
 what he cannot explain. 
 
 1 1. Hence it must be that we have lost them ; and 
 the process of learning about them is a recalling of 
 what we knew before in a state before birth. 
 
 12. Therefore our souls existed and had intelli- 
 gence to apprehend these Ideas before birth. 
 
 This doctrine of reminiscence is prominent in 
 Plato's system. It does not appear at all in Xeno- 
 phon, and hence was probably unknown to Sokrates. 
 But it is inseparably connected with Plato's doctrine 
 of Ideas. For the Ideas, being the one unchanging 
 real existence, are the link not only between the 
 seen and the unseen, but also between past and 
 present (and here in the Phaedo recognized also as
 
 48 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 the link between present and future). No one of 
 the ever-perishing objects of this visible world has 
 enough reality of existence to have belonged to that 
 past state ; it is only the Ideas that exist in and by 
 themselves, and hence are always to be apprehended 
 in any sphere by whatever being is present capable 
 of apprehending them. The doctrine of Ideas was to 
 Plato the way into the realm of truth, the only attain- 
 able theory of knowledge. It was his means of get- 
 ting a foothold of ground for thought to start from. 
 The Eleatics had denied all existence except that of 
 absolute Being, a pure abstraction having no possible 
 connection with the world of sense. Herakleitos 
 had denied any existence except the process of com- 
 ing into being and passing out of it, the unceasing 
 flux which every object of sense undergoes continually. 
 Neither of these theories is a satisfactory basis for 
 knowledge or for reasoning. To gain that basis, as 
 well as to overthrow the dogma of Protagoras, omnium 
 homo mensura, Plato conceived the perfect original 
 of all sensible objects as existing in a world remote 
 from this, beyond all sense-knowledge, of which 
 world alone real existence could be predicated. The 
 connection between these real existences and the 
 phenomenal existences about us, necessary in order 
 to be able to determine the relation of our world to 
 existence, was not established by Plato very satisfac- 
 torily. He was in doubt about the nature of it, and 
 leaves it uncertain (Phaedo 100 D) whether it should 
 be called a presence of the Idea in the sensible ob-
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 49 
 
 ject or a communion of one with the other or by 
 some other name. But however joined to sensible 
 objects, beauty and goodness and equality and trees 
 and tables, yes, even dust and filth, have real exist- 
 ence only beyond the sphere of the visible in a realm 
 apart. This was the world of Ideas, and of that 
 world, as beyond the reach of sense, the mind could 
 have knowledge only by having been in it during a 
 previous life. 
 
 In general it is true enough to say that these Ideas 
 of Plato's correspond to what we call abstract ideas, 
 though he did not use that adjective because it im- 
 plies a theory as to their origin which he had not 
 formed. We say that such conceptions as those of 
 whiteness, beauty, goodness, are formed by abstract- 
 ing the common element found in all white or beau- 
 tiful or good objects from the qualities peculiar to the 
 individual or the sub-class. This may account for 
 the existence of abstract ideas, but it leaves unac- 
 counted for the existence in our minds of the faculty 
 of abstraction. If then we seek to translate Plato's 
 thought into modern thought, we must take a differ- 
 ent class of conceptions from abstract ideas. The 
 true parallel in this respect to his Ideas would be 
 such things as the idea of cause, the idea of duty, the 
 conception of space, and others like these, which we 
 find existing in the human mind at its earliest ac- 
 tivity and do not know how to account for. With 
 this substitution we should state his argument thus : 
 " We find in our minds certain things for the presence
 
 50 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 of which we cannot account ; the objects of sense 
 around us furnish the occasion of our conscious use 
 of these things, but cannot have originated them ; 
 at no time since birth have we been put into posses- 
 sion of them ; hence we are born with them ; they 
 must be ascribed to some extra-mundane source, and 
 we must suppose that we acquired them in a previ- 
 ous state of existence." All the steps of this argu- 
 ment, except the last four, would be valid in the view 
 of all modern thought but that which denies indepen- 
 dent existence and divine origin to the human soul. 
 These last steps were the only conclusion to the ar- 
 gument which could be expected from even such a 
 mind as Plato's in the age in which he lived. 
 
 As an argument in the series, it will be noticed at 
 once (as it is in the dialogue), that it may prove prior 
 existence for the soul, but does not at all go to show 
 anything more than the possibility of existence after 
 death. This defect has to be made good by subse- 
 quent proof. As compared with the first argument, it 
 has not only the advantage of being based more directly 
 on the facts of human nature, and so of having more 
 logical substance, but also it makes an advance in 
 that it applies only to man, and not to animals or 
 plants as well ; and only to the spiritual part of man, and 
 not to his body also. That is because it rests entirely 
 upon intellectual phenomena, and the fact is recog- 
 nized by Plato in the significant addition (76 C), 
 " Our souls then existed before they came into hu- 
 man form, apart from the body, and had intelligence "
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 51 
 
 ao)/Jidro)v, KOL el%ov (^povrfcnv). At the end 
 of this argument (76 D E), Plato states the sub- 
 stance of it in a pregnant form which- is worth re- 
 peating, " The existence of our souls before we 
 came into this life is as sure as the existence of the 
 Ideas." Jowett, in his Introduction to the P/iaedo, 
 points out that this is as if we should say, " The im- 
 mortality of the soul is as sure as the existence of 
 God," or, " I believe in the existence of God, and 
 therefore in the immortality of the soul." 
 
 III. The third argument moves in a sphere more 
 familiar to the popular forms of thought concerning 
 the soul ; there is little in it which is not found in 
 ordinary writing of average minds on the subject ; 
 cycles of existence, transmigration and a pre-natal 
 life appear no more. We may remark by way of in- 
 troduction that it is apparently suggested to the mind 
 of Sokrates in the dialogue by the words ffwurraa-Qai 
 afJioQev irodev (compacted from some quarter or other) 
 in 77 B. 
 
 1. An uncompounded thing is probably incapable 
 of dispersion. 
 
 2. The always-same thing is probably uncom- 
 pounded. 
 
 3. Ideas are always-same things and invisible, 
 whereas objects about us are ever-changing and 
 visible. 
 
 4. Soul is itself invisible, and is always hampered 
 by the body in its efforts to reach by thought the 
 invisible.
 
 52 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 5. Hence soul is like and akin to the always-same 
 ideas. 
 
 6. Soul dominates body as the divine (and immor- 
 tal) does the (human and) mortal. 
 
 7. Hence soul herein is like the divine. 
 
 8. Thus the soul is like the divine, the invisible, 
 the always-same, the indissoluble. 
 
 Here the argument might well have stopped, but 
 Plato, perhaps with a view to introducing the next 
 step in the dialogue, goes on to add what rather 
 weakens the foregoing by suggesting mere compara- 
 tive durability on the part of the soul. 
 
 9. The body lasts some time after death, especi- 
 ally if it is embalmed ; and some parts of it, such as 
 the bones, seem almost imperishable. Can it be that 
 the higher, purer essence of the soul is less long- 
 lived ? 
 
 As has been said, this argument moves in a plane 
 of thought familiar in almost every respect to our 
 modern thinking. In the popular conception, death 
 is commonly regarded as a dividing of (i) soul from 
 body and (2) body into its constituents. " Divide 
 and conquer " might be its motto. Hence if it could 
 be proved that the soul, regarded for the moment as 
 in some sense material, is uncompounded, we might 
 infer that it can defy death or any known form of 
 destruction. An atom of matter we suppose cannot 
 in the course of nature be destroyed, and the soul, 
 if simple, would have at least the eternity of mat- 
 ter. Plato seems to mean to distinguish soul from
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 53 
 
 matter by calling it invisible and unchanging, but no 
 such distinction would be admitted now. We may 
 all argue that the soul is invisible and that it has 
 dominion over the body ; but when we are further told 
 that it is simple and not compounded, we are in- 
 clined to ask whether the predicate is applicable, 
 whether it would not be as proper to speak of a 
 white smell or an oblong thought as of an uncom- 
 pounded soul. At best, the argument as Plato puts it, 
 does no more than establish a presumption. The like- 
 ness of the soul to a class of invisible, unchanging, 
 supreme, immortal objects does not prove that all 
 these predicates are equally applicable to it. 
 
 Here the discussion takes a new turn by the intro- 
 duction of two objections or difficulties suggested by 
 the two Theban friends of Sokrates. The second of 
 these leads to the introduction of Plato's fourth argu- 
 ment, and so will come legitimately into this sum- 
 mary. The first objection, however, is answered by 
 criticisms which contain no new argument, and hence 
 it might be passed over here. But the objection is in 
 itself so akin to the fashionable modern view of the 
 soul, that it seems worth while to give it a little 
 space. The objection of Simmias is suggested by 
 the remark Sokrates had made, that the body as a 
 whole lasts a while, some parts of it a very long time, 
 after death, and that it can hardly be that the pure, 
 invisible essence of the soul does not last longer. 
 Simmias says : " How is it in this parallel case ? 
 A strain of melody is invisible and incorporeal
 
 54 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 and admirable and divine, while the instrument that 
 produces it is earthly and compounded, and akin 
 to the mortal. Shall we say then that, because the 
 broken strings and wood of the lyre last a long time, 
 the melody must be lasting still longer ? Now we 
 regard the soul as a melody or harmony, produced by 
 the exact tension of the body in equilibrium between 
 opposing forces. May it not perish when this nice 
 adjustment is broken down, just as the music does, 
 though the materials which were so adjusted last for 
 some time ? " The answer of Plato is as follows : 
 
 1. This objection is inconsistent with the doctrine 
 of reminiscence, and with the pre-natal existence of 
 the soul which that doctrine has been shown to im- 
 ply. For a harmony cannot exist before the material 
 causes of it exist in a state of proper adjustment ; 
 hence if the soul is a harmony, it cannot have had an 
 existence prior to this life. But the doctrine of 
 reminiscence is inseparably connected with the doc- 
 trine of Ideas, and so must be true. 
 
 2. A harmony is determined in its nature and 
 quality by the material things which produce it ; 
 hence one harmony is more a harmony than another, 
 if its material causes are better adjusted. But one 
 soul cannot be more a soul than another ; hence the 
 soul is not a harmony. 
 
 3. One soul may have more of virtue or vice than 
 another. But if those who call the soul a harmony 
 also call virtue harmony and vice discord (which prob- 
 ably, but not certainly, they would do), then, as one
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 55 
 
 soul cannot be more or less a soul, or, in other words, 
 cannot be more or less harmonized than another, all 
 souls must have an equal degree of harmony in the 
 sense of virtue ; or rather, no soul could have any dis- 
 cord, that is, vice. Hence the soul cannot be a 
 harmony. 
 
 4. (Recurring to the former principle, under 2, 
 and applying it differently.) Harmony is dependent 
 on the material things that produce it. But the soul 
 leads, opposes, disciplines, chastises the body, as is 
 illustrated by a quotation from the Odyssey. Hence 
 the soul is not a harmony. 
 
 The objection of Simmias is based upon what 
 seems to have been a current metaphor, probably of 
 Pythagorean origin. Thus it happens that the an- 
 swer to it put into the mouth of Sokrates is mainly 
 a criticism of the metaphor, and contributes no posi- 
 tive argument for immortality. But the objection 
 itself, though thus easily disposed of, is yet, as has 
 been already said, one of the most modern things in 
 the book. Who does not as he reads it recognize 
 the familiar tone, the view of the nature of the soul 
 which now meets us everywhere, the only view we 
 are told for which there is any evidence at all ? 
 There is little difference, from one point of view, be- 
 tween calling the soul a harmony, produced by the 
 action of balanced forces upon the body, and calling 
 it the product of molecular change, or rather, not a 
 product at all, but a mere series of such changes. As 
 Demokritos has been summoned from his sleep of ages
 
 56 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 to be the patron of one modern theory, so might Hera- 
 kleitos be brought up from the dead to give authority 
 to this one. For he thought that all existence was 
 but a series of changes, a perpetual flux, and on this 
 theory the mind and soul of man is a mere stream of 
 states of consciousness, like a river passing through 
 the same bed, but never for two seconds together 
 the same actual substance. We cannot certainly say 
 how Plato would have met this theory if it had been 
 formulated in his time, but the points of his criticism 
 on the metaphor of a harmony suggest a probability. 
 The first point above needs but little adaptation in 
 order to become the question, " How can a series of 
 molecular changes have a memory ? " And the last 
 point he makes (4) is as good against the modern 
 theory as against the ancient metaphor. It is an 
 appeal to consciousness and to conscience ; to con- 
 sciousness as testifying to the action of the will, to 
 conscience as sitting in judgment upon the decisions 
 of the will. 
 
 We come now to the objection of Kebes, which in- 
 troduces the last and most important of the formal 
 arguments for immortality. Kebes begins by conced- 
 ing that the soul is much more durable than the body, 
 and therefore may probably enough survive the ex- 
 perience of death. But who can tell, he argues, 
 but let us have his illustration first, for the sake of 
 its quaintness. He too, like Simmias, will present 
 his thought in a garb of imagery. " Suppose a weaver 
 dies and is buried, and some one brings us his clothes
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 57 
 
 and says, ' Here are the clothes, still in existence ; 
 must you not admit that the man himself, a much 
 more durable thing than a garment, is still in exis- 
 tence, too ? ' Not so, we should answer ; for this 
 weaver made for himself, and wore out, many a gar- 
 ment, and finally perished before the latest garment 
 was worn out. May it not be, then, that the soul 
 likewise wears out many bodies, if the man has a long 
 life, constantly renewing its bodily vesture as it con- 
 stantly wears it out, but at last finds its own life ex- 
 hausted in the process, and so dies before the last 
 form of its body does, leaving it still existing ? May 
 it not even pass through several lives, surviving several 
 successive deaths, but at last, in some one death (and 
 no man can tell when that one will come), itself also 
 perish ? " ' 
 
 By way of preliminary to the answer to this objec- 
 tion, Sokrates is represented as giving a sketch of his 
 own intellectual history, so far as it may be traced in 
 the effort to determine the true meaning of the idea 
 of cause. If this sketch could be taken as a real piece 
 of history, representing what actually occurred in the 
 case of Sokrates or of Plato, it would be of exceeding 
 value and interest. But, unfortunately, it does not 
 seem to be personal history. It begins too far back 
 for Plato, and goes too far forward for Sokrates. We 
 must rather look at it as a brief outline, in this bio- 
 graphical form, of the course of Greek philosophy in 
 the discussion of the nature of cause. He says that 
 when he was young he used to be much interested in
 
 58 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 questions as to the cause of the origin and of the de- 
 cline of this thing and that, as, for example, of thought, 
 and of the movements of heavenly bodies, and of the 
 growth of the human body. But from all such inqui- 
 ries he could get no answer which satisfied him. For 
 instance, if you say one man is taller than another by 
 a head, is it the head that makes him so ? If so, then 
 is it the head that makes the second man shorter than 
 the first ? But how can the same thing make one 
 man taller and another shorter ? Again, division 
 makes two things out of one, and the addition of one 
 to another makes two ; but how can division and addi- 
 tion cause the same result ? In the midst of these 
 puzzles he heard one day a man reading from a book, 
 said to be by Anaxagoras, that the organizer and 
 cause of all things was Mind. This phrase pleased 
 him wonderfully, suggesting a possibility of all sorts 
 of rational explanations of different phenomena, and 
 he lost no time in getting the book into his own 
 hands. But how wofully he was disappointed when 
 he found that the author of the new theory himself 
 did not make any satisfactory use of it, but went on 
 in the old way, suggesting all sorts of proximate and 
 occasional causes. It was, he says, as if some one 
 should say that he, Sokrates, did everything by (reason 
 of) his mind, and then should go on to say that the 
 reason why he was sitting there in the prison was be- 
 cause his body was made up of bones and sinews, and 
 that, by certain contractions of the latter, he was 
 held there in a sitting position ; thus ignoring the fact
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 59 
 
 that his body would long since have been away in 
 Megara or Boeotia, if he had not thought it more just 
 and honorable to stay there where he was. What he 
 ought to have said was that the possession of these 
 bones and sinews was the necessary condition of his 
 sitting there; but Sokrates's judgment of what was 
 best was the real cause. This confusion of necessary 
 condition with real cause was responsible for many of 
 the absurd theories as to natural phenomena prevalent 
 in former times. It seemed necessary, in order to 
 avoid these errors, not to look at realities directly, lest 
 the mental sight should be dazzled (just as the eyes 
 would be if one should look directly at an eclipse of 
 the sun instead of at a reflection of it), but to turn 
 the attention upon conceptions or the world of Ideas, 
 and study there the true reality. The method in this 
 sphere of thought is to determine a principle which is 
 known to be true by its application to a number of 
 cases, and to hold fast by it, and use it consistently ; 
 and if it is assailed, strive for some more general prin- 
 ciple in its stead, until you reach something which 
 will hold good. 
 
 This brings us to the fourth argument. 
 
 IV. i. The existence of Ideas is assumed as -a 
 starting-point. (This is the "principle" which is 
 now to be applied to determine the nature of cause.) 
 
 2. Objects have qualities by being connected in 
 some way with the Ideas. E.g., It is by partaking of 
 beauty, that an object is beautiful. Or, it is not the 
 addition of one to one that makes two, but the pres- 
 ence of the duad.
 
 6O STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 3. Opposite Ideas cannot be present in the same 
 object at the same time. It may appear so some- 
 times. E.g., A man midway in height between two 
 others may seem to have at once smallness and great- 
 ness, being smaller than one of the two others, and 
 larger than the other. t But these are merely compar- 
 ative greatness and smallness, not the absolute Ideas. 
 Absolute greatness and smallness cannot co-exist. 
 
 4. There are certain objects which contain one Idea 
 in such a way that they cannot admit the Idea oppo- 
 site to the one they contain, and therefore may always 
 be described by the term which describes the Idea 
 contained in them. E.g., Snow contains the Idea 
 coldness, cannot admit the Idea heat, and so may be 
 always called cold. The number three contains the 
 triad (i.e., the Idea of three), and also the Idea odd- 
 ness ; it can never admit the Idea evenness, and may 
 always be called odd. Each of these, on the approach 
 of the Idea opposed to its contained Idea, must either 
 withdraw or perish. 
 
 5. What sort of objects are the foregoing ? They 
 are such as contain an Idea which necessarily carries 
 with it another Idea, which latter is one of a pair of 
 op'posite Ideas. E.g., The number three is not oppo- 
 site to the number two, or to the Idea evenness, or to 
 anything at all. But the number three contains the 
 triad and also necessarily thereby the Idea oddness, 
 which latter is opposed to the Idea evenness. (This 
 is the reason why three can never be even.) 
 
 6. What in a number causes it to be odd ? Not
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 6 1 
 
 alone the Idea oddness, but also the monad or the 
 triad, etc., which necessarily contains the Idea odd- 
 ness. What, then, similarly in a (human) body causes 
 it to be living ? Not merely the presence of the Idea 
 life, but also the presence in the body of the soul, 
 which, besides the Idea soul, contains and carries 
 with it the Idea life. Hence, at the approach of 
 death, as three at the approach of evenness, or snow 
 at the approach of heat, soul must either withdraw or 
 perish, for it contains,the Idea life, and cannot admit 
 the Idea death ; that is, it is undying. 
 
 7. Now, if the uneven were imperishable, the num- 
 ber three, on the approach of evenness, could not 
 perish, but would withdraw and disappear. So if the 
 undying thing is imperishable, it cannot perish ; it 
 must withdraw on the approach to it of death. 
 Therefore, if the undying thing is imperishable, soul, 
 besides being undying, would also be imperishable. 
 
 8. But God and the Idea life and any other immor- 
 tal thing would be admitted to be incapable of per- 
 ishing. This indicates that the undying must be 
 imperishable. Hence the soul, because undying, 
 must be supposed to be imperishable, and to withdraw 
 in safety at the onset of death. 
 
 On this argument Jowett remarks that it is purely 
 verbal, and is but the expression of an instinctive 
 confidence put into a logical form, " The soul is im- 
 mortal because it contains a principle of imperisha- 
 bleness." Somewhat similarly another writer (Chase, 
 Bib. Sac. 1849) says that the argument reduced to
 
 62 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 syllogistic form would be, " Whatever is essentially 
 vital cannot die : the soul is essentially vital ; there- 
 fore it cannot die," where the major premise is an 
 identical proposition and the minor premise cannot be 
 proved. These opinions seem to indicate that the 
 critics did not get hold of the real point of the argu- 
 ment. That point may be stated somewhat as fol- 
 lows : |" Life and death are opposed and incompatible ; 
 where either is, the other cannot be. The soul, so 
 far as our knowledge goes, is inseparable from life; 
 it brings life with it, it never leaves it behind when it 
 leaves the body, and it never lingers behind when life 
 is gone ; we cannot therefore conceive of the soul 
 apart from life ; a dead soul is something outside of 
 human experience, as much so as hot snow or cold 
 fire. Hence we infer that the soul is incapable of 
 death, and as that is the only form of destruction 
 known to us, is immortal." We may represent to our- 
 selves the vital part of the argument by a modern 
 parallel : " Heat implies motion, is an external sign of 
 it, and is inseparable from it. Wherever we perceive 
 heat, we infer motion. Wherever we produce mo- 
 tion, we infer and expect and find heat. So soul 
 and life are uniformly connected in our experience. 
 Wherever we observe life, we infer soul. Wherever 
 we find soul, we may expect to find life, not death." 
 In thus representing the argument, we aim not to go 
 beyond Plato's reasoning, but merely to adapt it to 
 modern forms of thought. There are many criticisms 
 that might be made upon his reasoning. Thus, for
 
 PLATO ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 63 
 
 instance, he seems to juggle with the word addvaros, 
 using it now in the sense deathless, and again in the 
 sense imperishable. Again, it is to be observed that 
 the argument fails to establish personal immortality.^,/! 
 If we recur to the parallel suggested above, we reflect 
 at once that it is possible for the motion to be in 
 one centre and for the heat radiated from that centre 
 to appear in a number of bodies which have no heat 
 or motion of their own. So it might be that life 
 was radiated from a central source of life to a number 
 of souls with absolute universality ; and then when a 
 certain time came, it might be re-absorbed by the 
 original source, so that it would no longer belong to 
 the individual soul.
 
 III. 
 
 ON PLATO'S SYSTEM OF EDUCATION 
 AS PROPOSED IN THE REPUBLIC. 
 
 DLATO'S system of education as proposed in the 
 L Republic is not to be understood as presenting 
 his ideal of intellectual culture for all human minds. 
 This needs to be kept in mind when we think of 
 criticising it ; for without remembering this, we should 
 be likely to do him injustice in comparing his scheme 
 with those which have prevailed in other times. The 
 modern theory of universal education, for instance, 
 rests on totally different aims, and therefore con- 
 tains totally different principles from his. But this 
 special restriction in his case does not forbid com- 
 parison of his scheme with others ; it only compels a 
 candid critic to use greater caution. There is 
 enough of common matter in almost all systems to 
 furnish ground for comparison. 
 
 The first thing, then, to notice in his scheme is 
 that it is designed solely for his ruling class. We 
 might easily overlook this fact when we read his 
 remarks on the use of the poets which come in under 
 the head of TratSe/a (education} in music and gym- 
 nastics, II. xvn.-III. xvm. For what he says there 
 seems, as we hastily read it with our ideas, to apply
 
 66 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 with equal truth to the whole people. But we must 
 observe that it is introduced by the remark that the 
 $>v\aice<; (guardians of the state) must be </uXocro</>o4 
 rrjv (frva-iv (philosophers by nature) ; therefore, as the 
 Trai&eia is one of the means for making them so, it must 
 be intended for them alone. Certainly we cannot sup- 
 pose that he meant the whole population to deserve 
 the name <f>i\.6o-o(f)oi, with his high conception of its 
 meaning. This, then, as well as the more elaborate and 
 advanced part of the scheme in the seventh Book, is 
 designed solely for the small and carefully selected 
 ruling class. And he clearly indicates again and 
 again that it is a difference of natures that deter- 
 mines the selection of some and the rejection of 
 others. Only some specially qualified natures are 
 capable of meeting the tests of fitness for this edu- 
 cation, and of these probably some again would be 
 weeded out by the severe discipline of the education 
 itself. It is plain, then, that we must not compare 
 Plato's scheme with general theories of education, 
 which undertake simply to show how the mind can 
 best be developed and instructed. There is another 
 reason why this comparison cannot be made. This 
 scheme is not only for selected natures, but it also 
 has a definite purpose in view. It is the work of a law- 
 giver, and aims to produce men qualified to do the work 
 of government. Neither of these things is true of 
 what I have called general theories of education. 
 They aim to make scholars, it may be, or cultivated 
 gentlemen, so far as their power extends, but not 
 specially rulers.
 
 ON PLATO'S SCHEME OF EDUCATION. 67 
 
 If, then, his scheme has a specific object in view, 
 may we not fairly compare it with our systems of 
 special education, those, I mean, of the technical 
 and professional schools ? No, we cannot, for the 
 very opposite reason to the previous one. Our gen- 
 eral education is, at least in its aims, too general to 
 be compared with Plato's scheme ; and, on the other 
 hand, our special educations, for particular lines of 
 work, are too special and limited to be so compared. 
 In the modern theory they are supplementary to the 
 more general scheme, and make no pretension to 
 supply what is supposed to come from it. There is 
 no modern scheme, then, which covers the ground 
 which Plato aimed to cover. If any person attains 
 to such results, it is by favoring circumstances and 
 by work on his own part, of a kind and at times out- 
 side of all formal systems. 
 
 Can Plato's system be briefly stated ? It is set 
 forth in separate parts of his work, in an order deter- 
 mined by the time of life of the pupil. First comes 
 f^ovaiKij ("music"), including the literature and mu- 
 sic which is to form the character from the very 
 earliest youth. He aims to control the nursery 
 stories which mothers and nurses tell to children 
 (Rep. 377 C), and proposes to have them, in their 
 representations of the gods, in their heroic examples, 
 and so in their unconscious effect upon character, 
 in harmony with what the young rulers are to hear 
 and believe all their lives. The music, too, allowed 
 in his state is to be such only as will contribute to
 
 68 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 his main end, and even the metre of poetry must do 
 the same. (This, it may be observed in passing, illus- 
 trates not only the sensitiveness of the Greeks to 
 these things, but also the wide reach of Plato's plan, 
 which left no agency unused to influence the develop- 
 ment of his selected natures.) Alongside of this 
 mental training, he provides for a bodily training, 
 (yv/j,va(TTLKJ], "gymnastic ") beginning almost as early, 
 and lasting, like the other, through life. Here he does 
 not give quite so full details, but in general outline 
 prescribes a system of simple, harmonious, unremit- 
 ting exercise, prohibiting all excess, and especially 
 the use of medical treatment to keep life going in 
 spite of sins against laws of health. These two ele- 
 ments of /iofcrt/c?; and <yv/jLvao-Tiicr) form a sort of foun- 
 dation on which, in the seventh Book, he builds up 
 his advanced education which is to constitute the 
 difference, as I understand him, between the two 
 classes of the fyvXaices (guardians). They have alike 
 the former training, but this higher education is 
 designed only for those who have shown themselves 
 by his tests worthy to be the rulers. In this, math- 
 ematics come first, in the order arithmetic, plane 
 and solid geometry, astronomy, and the science of 
 harmony in sound, which are to be studied however 
 only in theory or, as he expresses it, by problems. 
 After mathematics come dialectics, by which we may 
 understand logic in a wide sense, the science of rea- 
 soning, or the laws of thought. Apparently the time 
 for the mathematical training is the ten years from
 
 ON PLATO S SCHEME OF EDUCATION. 69 
 
 twenty to thirty, and the next five years are to be 
 given to dialectics ; then fifteen years are to be spent 
 in the active duties of civil and military government ; 
 and from fifty years of age on, the man or woman is 
 to be contemplating the Idea of the Good, and con- 
 trolling the state in its highest concerns. 
 
 In looking at this scheme of education, one thing 
 that strikes us is that its two parts are, or seem to 
 be, controlled by distinct and different ideas. In 
 the first part, the leading idea is a moral one ; the 
 aim to be attained and by which the methods are de- 
 termined is a moral aim. This is plain in the treat- 
 ment of literature. Nothing is to be admitted, no 
 matter how great the name or the skill of any author, 
 which will give to the youth of this ideal state wrong 
 ideas of the character of the gods, fear of death, or 
 license in excessive indulgence of any emotion. So 
 also as to musical modes and rhythms ; such as are 
 simple and severe in their moral effect are alone tol- 
 erated. So again as to gymnastics, in the wide sense 
 of all the treatment of the body. Everything is to be 
 done which will contribute to the production in the 
 trained person of ev\o>yia, evppv0[j,ia (beauty of lan- 
 guage and of rhythm), and all the other compounds 
 of ev. Even medicine must be watched and disci- 
 plined, to see that it does not in any way pander to 
 vice and weakliness, and help men to evade their 
 penalties. In a word, as Plato says (Rep. 410 C), the 
 teachers of both ^OVO-LKYJ and yv^vaa-nKij have in view 
 the improvement of the soul. But when we come to
 
 7<D STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 the second part of the scheme, in the seventh Book, 
 a different principle controls everything. In both 
 mathematics and dialectics, the aim of every study 
 and of the way in which it is pursued throughout, is 
 to conduct the mind to the contemplation of real 
 existence, TO 6V, and especially to the highest and 
 brightest part of real existence, the Idea of the Good. 
 This conception of real existence controls, for in- 
 stance, his mathematical method, and explains why 
 he will have only pure theoretical geometry and as- 
 tronomy pursued, no surveying, no observation of the 
 heavens ; for all external objects are but images or 
 shadows of reality, and only turn the eye away from 
 the only existing thing the pure Idea. I have said 
 that these two parts of the proposed education seem 
 to be governed by two different principles ; but it 
 may more truly be said that the principle is the same 
 in the two cases and the difference is only in the 
 form. For it would be difficult not to see, in Plato's 
 " Idea of the Good," the highest conceivable existence ; 
 in other words, it is his name for God. There can be 
 nothing beyond this, as he describes it in the sixth 
 Book ; and if the principle of the second part of his 
 scheme of education is the effort to turn the mind to 
 the continual and intelligent contemplation of this 
 divine reality, must we not admit that it would tend 
 to the best possible moral results ? Many things in 
 the earlier part point forward to this, the eleva- 
 tion of the conception of the gods of mythology, by 
 requiring absolute truth in the description of them,
 
 ON PLATO'S SCHEME OF EDUCATION. 71 
 
 insisting on simplicity and reality, and excluding all 
 mimicry. The apparent inconsistence between the 
 two parts diminishes when we remember that with 
 Sokrates, and with Plato, too, virtue is explained as 
 the knowledge of what is right and best. They could 
 not always maintain and carry through its conse- 
 quences such a theory, no man can, but in 
 their reasonings they uphold it. With this as a 
 prior conception (that it is only from ignorance or 
 blindness of mind that men do wrong), it is easy to 
 see how these mathematical and logical studies, pur- 
 sued, as Plato proposes, to the end of attaining the 
 knowledge of reality, would be introduced into a 
 scheme of education having a moral aim. Thus we 
 see that he uses, in describing the effect of his pro- 
 posed education, precisely the term which religion 
 has adopted from the Bible, the " conversion of the 
 soul." How different an idea this is from that in 
 the usual Greek word Tra&eia, or the Latin word 
 educatio ! 
 
 When we look at Plato's scheme in comparison 
 with our modern schemes, we notice several points 
 of difference in matters where they may fairly be 
 compared. Plato's scheme extends to body as well 
 as mind. This has never, I believe, been a part of 
 the educational system of any nation, unless it has 
 become so of late years here ; that is, though the 
 European universities have teachers of riding, fen- 
 cing, etc., connected with them, the attendance of 
 pupils is entirely voluntary, and the connection
 
 72 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 merely nominal. But the state, in a rude way, does 
 what Plato suggests when it requires of every man a 
 term of service in the militia. Plato's scheme covers 
 the whole life of the man, keeping him, as it were, in 
 college from twenty to thirty ; in a higher professional 
 school five years longer; then again, after fifteen 
 years of discipline in places of responsibility, calling 
 him back to pursue still further the study which was 
 the climax of his earlier education. This may re- 
 mind us that we have here the work not of one 
 charged with the organization of a system of educa- 
 tion, nor yet of a legislator in an actual state. 
 Neither of these men could venture on such absolute 
 control of the lives of men from beginning to end. 
 This is merely an ideal, and the ideal character of it 
 appears perhaps as clearly in this feature as any- 
 where else. We notice again what seems to us a 
 notable want, in the entire absence of the historical 
 and natural sciences. There is nothing said of lan- 
 guages, history, political science, or, on the other 
 hand, of mechanics, optics, or zoology. The general 
 reason for this omission is plain : these sciences were 
 hardly in existence, we should say; but more pre- 
 cisely, they were not yet so developed as to become 
 part of the common property of educated men. Back 
 of this, of course, is another reason, which may be 
 most concisely stated in this form the comparative 
 absence of books. Books were not easily and rapidly 
 multiplied ; the reading class was very small ; the con- 
 ception of book education on a wide variety of sub-
 
 ON PLATO S SCHEME OF EDUCATION. 73 
 
 jects for any but the few was not formed. Thus, 
 although, in some of the subjects named, certain 
 individuals had in Plato's day made great progress, 
 particularly in political science and in some branches 
 of natural science, yet the idea that some degree of 
 theoretical knowledge of them, a mere smattering if 
 you will, belonged to the education of youth, had not 
 occurred to anybody. Plato's idea goes far beyond 
 the usual education of an Athenian boy of his time, 
 but does not include this side of the modern idea. It 
 might be added that Plato, though himself a wide 
 student, had a bent towards metaphysics, which would 
 keep him from recognizing fully the claims of the 
 physical sciences. The linguistic science, if it de- 
 serves the name of science, of his day is the object 
 of his ridicule in another dialogue; and history, though 
 the type of writing it had been fixed for all time by 
 Herodotus and Thukydides, had not reached a form 
 in which it could be taught. It has sometimes been 
 asked how the average of Athenian education would 
 compare with the modern average, or how the culti- 
 vated Athenian gentleman would compare with one 
 who would deserve such a description in our time ; 
 and in answering, it is properly said that the works 
 of art in constant sight, the dramatic exhibitions and 
 public recitations, the speeches in the assembly and 
 in courts, must have made up an education which 
 would not suffer greatly in the comparison. This is 
 true, but we must remember that the educational 
 influence of these things was not their prime object,
 
 74 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 but an incidental result. It may be, however, that 
 the fact of such an effect was one reason why no more 
 elaborate system of intentional education was orga- 
 nized. The men who would have been the ones to 
 see the need of it, and plan it, and keep it going, were 
 also the very ones who appreciated the effect of the 
 influences above mentioned on their countrymen. 
 Perikles's funeral oration in the second book of Thu- 
 kydides shows this clearly. Demosthenes, a century 
 later, makes a similar remark. 
 
 How far does Plato, in constructing this scheme, 
 draw upon his own experience, or how far does it cor- 
 respond with what we know of his own education ? 
 There seems no reason to doubt that the early part 
 of his life was passed like that of other young Atheni- 
 ans of good family. The story that he was inclined 
 to make of himself a poet has no improbability about 
 it, and is indeed confirmed in a measure by the strong 
 evidence in his writings of poetic taste and genius. 
 His writings, too, show very clearly that he was well 
 acquainted with, and sensitive to, the influence of the 
 poetical literature of his people. Nor was there any- 
 thing in the circumstances of the state during his 
 youth, in the first two-thirds of the Peloponnesian war, 
 to prevent his growing up under quiet influences, as 
 at other times. We are told by a tradition that when 
 he was twenty years old he first met Sokrates, and 
 was drawn away, by the fascination of his society, 
 from every thought of other pursuits. He attached 
 himself to his new master, undoubtedly for the re-
 
 ON PLATO'S SCHEME OF EDUCATION. 75 
 
 maining seven or eight years of the life of Sokrates, 
 and after his death was for several years absent from 
 Athens, studying the philosophic ideas of others, and 
 developing his own system. There is special note in 
 tradition of his meeting Archytas, the noted Pytha- 
 gorean mathematician, in Tarentum. It appears cer- 
 tain that he was strongly influenced by the doctrines 
 of the school of Pythagoras, and particularly by the 
 mathematical element in them. On his return to 
 Athens, he became head of a company of students of 
 philosophy, and remained there for most of his re- 
 maining years, elaborating his system and writing his 
 later dialogues. Now, it seems natural to see in this 
 outline of his life something of a resemblance to the 
 plan for his ideal rulers. First, the usual study of 
 literature and of the arts of poetry and music, with a 
 gymnastic training of the body, which latter no one 
 can doubt that he himself had in youth. Then the 
 taking up of severer studies, wholly in the line of 
 mathematics ; then the final devotion to metaphysics. 
 May we not reasonably account, in this way, for his 
 choice of these two subjects, mathematics and meta- 
 physics, for the food and exercise of his selected 
 minds, from the fact that he had found his own path 
 of mental growth to lie through them, and in this 
 order ? I should think we might venture to say that 
 another thinker, who had followed a different course 
 himself, would probably have marked out a different 
 one for his ideal state. And it may be added that 
 Aristotle, whose course of education, in part with
 
 76 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 Plato, was different from Plato's, has left a scheme 
 of education which, so far as it goes, is very unlike the 
 one in the Republic.
 
 IV. 
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 1 
 
 A WORD of apology may be allowed me at the 
 outset. I am quite aware of the apparent au- 
 dacity of coming to speak upon the subject I have 
 chosen, in this city and in this room. For you have 
 made this play in some sense your own, and there 
 are scholars here far better qualified than I to ex- 
 pound its meaning. Besides, in this room, if these 
 walls could speak, they might reproduce the thrilling 
 tones of the actors and the chorus of last May, and 
 you can hardly look upon this stage without having 
 brought back vividly to memory those striking com- 
 binations, the beautiful group of suppliants, the dig- 
 nified chorus, the impassioned Oedipus, the graceful 
 form of lokasta, and all the other elements of the 
 admirable reproduction, a memory which will make 
 any words of mine seem tame and feeble. But I 
 remember that a certain one also of your own poets, 
 in prose not less graceful than his verse, likened him- 
 self in the opening of an address before the Phi Beta 
 Kappa in 1870, to the humble mechanic who goes 
 round, when a train stops at a station, with lantern 
 and hammer, to test the soundness of the wheels. In 
 
 1 Lecture given in the Sanders Theatre, at Cambridge, before the 
 Harvard Philological Society, April 26, i8$2.
 
 78 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 distant imitation of his example, I would compare 
 what I hope to do to-night to the work of a much 
 humbler ministrant, the ignorant boy, perhaps, who 
 lights the street-lamps, or the brakeman who tells 
 you the name of the next station. If, by often going 
 over this road, I am able to name the things that will 
 attract your attention, or if, after the cunning toil of 
 others is done, I can by a mere unskilful touch throw 
 a little light on your path, it will be as much as I 
 ought to aim at. 
 
 The Oedipus Rex of Sophocles is one of the most 
 interesting and most distinctly characterized of the 
 extant Greek tragedies. Though it does not contain, 
 like the Prometheus, any profound intellectual con- 
 ception of permanent significance and value, nor any 
 character of terrible majesty in crime, like the Aga- 
 memnon, nor yet any pure and noble heroine, like the 
 Antigone and the Electra, it still deserves to rank 
 with these great poems, as of kindred though differ- 
 ent excellence. In elaboration of plot, in the com- 
 plete and sustained presentment of a natural story, it 
 has no superior among the Greek plays preserved to 
 our time. If we accept Aristotle's definition, or 
 rather description, of tragedy, that it excites fear and 
 pity, and thereby purifies the soul in the sphere of 
 such emotions, we can hardly find a better illustration 
 than this play furnishes, to help us understand the 
 description clearly. For here the pity and the fear 
 which a sensitive reader feels are centred on the
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 79 
 
 same person ; their causes are no conscious relations 
 or intelligent actions of his ; and the character which 
 made him liable to such suffering is, by the very 
 same elements, such as to attract our sympathy. A 
 sketch of the course of the action will perhaps make 
 this manifest, and will serve as an introduction to 
 some comments upon it. 
 
 The play opens with the visit of a company of the 
 priests and people of Thebes to the palace of their 
 king, Oedipus, to entreat him to find them some 
 relief from the pestilence which is desolating the 
 city. He has been in peaceful and prosperous pos- 
 session of the throne for perhaps ten or twelve years, 
 although he did not come to it in ordinary succes- 
 sion. His predecessor, Laios, was killed by some 
 person or persons unknown while on a journey away 
 from home, and at nearly the same time Oedipus, 
 coming as a stranger to Thebes and guessing the rid- 
 dle of the Sphinx, was rewarded with the throne and 
 the wife (lokasta) of the missing king. Four children 
 had been born to them, and their life had been one 
 of undisturbed happiness until the coming of this 
 pestilence. Gratitude for that former deliverance, 
 and affection to him as a loved and trusted ruler, 
 naturally bring the suppliants to Oedipus in this new 
 trouble. They describe the sufferings of the people, 
 and appeal to him, alrffost as to a god, by his previous 
 succor, to help them now again. Oedipus in his 
 answer declares, as would be expected, that the woes 
 of the people were known and keenly felt by him,
 
 80 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 and tells them that he has already sent Kreon, 
 lokasta's brother, to inquire of the oracle at Delphi 
 how the plague could be checked, and that he was 
 then looking for his return. As he utters these 
 words, the priest who had been the spokesman of 
 the rest sees Kreon approaching with his head 
 crowned with laurel, which is interpreted as a sign of 
 good news. Kreon comes upon the stage, and an- 
 nounces in answer to the questions of Oedipus that 
 the oracle declares the plague to be due to a pollu- 
 tion of the land by the presence in it of the mur- 
 derer of Laios, and that it could be checked only by 
 his banishment or death. This leads to a series of 
 questions from Oedipus in regard to the murder, of 
 which he knows nothing ; and Kreon in his answer 
 states that one of the companions of Laios who had 
 escaped reported that he was killed by robbers who 
 met the party in the highway and slew all but him- 
 self, and adds that the investigation of the matter at 
 the time had been prevented by the all-absorbing 
 distress occasioned by the presence of the Sphinx. 
 Oedipus, forming at once the theory that the mur- 
 derer had been some one bribed by a party in Thebes 
 hostile to Laios, declares that he will do all in his 
 power to discover and punish the criminal as a mere 
 measure of self-defence, lest a similar plot should be 
 formed against him. Thereupon, at his suggestion, 
 the suppliants retire, having accomplished their pur- 
 pose, and willing to leave the matter now with the 
 king and the god who sent the oracle. Here ends 
 the prologue or opening act.
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOCLES. 8 1 
 
 The chorus, consisting of elderly men, citizens of 
 Thebes and representatives of its people, now comes 
 forward, apparently summoned by a messenger from 
 Oedipus. In his presence, but before he has spoken 
 to them, they break out in a prayer to the gods for 
 help in the city's trouble. They describe the dis- 
 tress arising from the plague in similar terms to 
 those already used by the priest, and found upon it 
 a yet more urgent appeal to Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, 
 and Bacchus. They know that an oracle has come, 
 but what it is they know not ; hence they can only 
 pray in vague terms for relief. 
 
 Oedipus, in response to their prayer, states to them 
 the proclamation which he proposes to make, and on 
 which he seems to rely for the discovery of the crimi- 
 nal more than upon prayer. It calls upon whoever has 
 any knowledge in regard to the murderer to commu- 
 nicate it at once to him, and threatens a sort of banish- 
 ment, or rather excommunication, upon him who hides 
 his knowledge. The chorus, accepting his adjuration, 
 deny all knowledge of the matter, and suggest that 
 the prophet Teiresias should be consulted. Oedipus 
 has already sent for him, and, as he now comes in, 
 proceeds to inform him of the oracle, and asks his help 
 to discover at whom it points. To his surprise and 
 indignation, Teiresias refuses to give any information, 
 saying he would not have come if he had fully under- 
 stood the purpose for which he was summoned. Oedi- 
 pus urges him, but he persistently refuses, asserting 
 that he, Oedipus, knows not what he is asking, and
 
 82 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 that for his sake it cannot be told. In the excitement 
 of dispute, Oedipus at last charges the prophet with 
 having been himself privy to the killing of Laios. Then 
 Teiresias is roused to charge upon him, at first very 
 vaguely, but with growing clearness, that he, the king } 
 is involved in the pollution and guilt which has brought 
 such disaster on the country. In the violent alterca- 
 tion which follows, Teiresias refers for confirmation of 
 his words to Apollo, whose minister he is, the god of 
 prophets and oracles. This instantly reminds Oedipus 
 that Kreon had just come from the Delphic oracle of 
 Apollo, and suggests to him that Kreon and Teiresias 
 were in conspiracy to eject him from the throne. 
 This idea, in harmony with his previous theory of a 
 former plot against Laios, takes firm possession of his 
 mind, and he expands it in terms of bitter reproach. 
 Teiresias is stung by this attack into more express 
 revelations of the condition in which Oedipus is now 
 ignorantly placed, and the terrible future that awaits 
 him ; but Oedipus, blinded by anger, and misled by 
 his fixed theory of the motive of the prophet, cannot 
 understand him. A chance allusion on the part of 
 Teiresias to the parents of Oedipus arrests his atten- 
 tion, and makes him ask a question, which, if plainly 
 answered, would bring out the whole truth ; but Tei- 
 resias is too angry, and only tells him he will soon 
 learn what he asks. Then, with another enigmatical 
 threat, he leaves the stage, and the second act ends. 
 
 The chorus, having now learnt the answer of the 
 oracle, wonders who the guilty man can be, yet feel
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 83 
 
 sure that it is hopeless for him to try to escape the 
 punishment which the gods are preparing for him. 
 The altercation between the king and the prophet 
 plunges them into perplexity and distress, for they 
 regard both men with confidence and respect, and 
 cannot tell which is in the right. Yet they decide, 
 for the present, not to give up their faith in Oedipus, 
 who has shown himself, on thorough trial, such a 
 benefactor to Thebes. 
 
 Kreon now appears, having heard the rumor of 
 charges made against him by Oedipus, and eager to 
 clear himself from them. Oedipus presently comes 
 out from the palace and states plainly the accusation 
 of conspiracy to get possession of the throne. Kreon, 
 of course, denies the charge, and proves the entire 
 absence of any reasonable foundation for it. But 
 Oedipus is not convinced, for he has conceived his 
 own theory of the matter, and will not readily give it 
 up. He declares his purpose to put Kreon to death 
 as a necessary measure of defence for the state and 
 for himself. At this point, lokasta, attracted by the 
 sound of their voices in high dispute, comes out and 
 remonstrates with them for thus wrangling in public. 
 Both men address themselves to her, Kreon with an 
 appeal to the gods asserting his innocence. She 
 calls upon Oedipus to respect that oath, and is sup- 
 ported by the chorus to the same effect. Oedipus 
 yields to their urging, so far as to let Kreon go safely 
 away, but does not yet lay aside his anger. When 
 Kreon is gone, lokasta asks the cause of the quarrel,
 
 84 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 and learns from Oedipus his theory, that Kreon had 
 instigated the prophet to denounce him as the mur- 
 derer of Laios. To relieve him from any anxiety 
 arising from prophets or oracles, she tells him then of 
 a previous prophecy, in regard to the death of Laios, 
 which had been falsified by the result. It had been 
 foretold that he should die by the hand of a son of 
 himself and lokasta : but they exposed their only 
 child to die on a mountain, and Laios was long after- 
 wards killed by robbers, at a place where three ways 
 met. So, she reasons, there is no use in paying any 
 heed to prophecies, if they are not sure to be fulfilled ; 
 the will of the gods is better declared by the results 
 they bring to pass. Her story was meant to comfort 
 Oedipus, but one phrase in it disturbs him rather. 
 He asks more particularly about the place " where 
 three ways met," and learns that it was in Phokis, not 
 far from Delphi. Then he asks about the time of the 
 killing, and is told that it was just before he himself 
 came to Thebes. His interest increases, and he in- 
 quires what sort of a man Laios was in appearance, 
 and in what company he was travelling when he was 
 killed. The answers make him still more agitated, 
 and he insists that the man who had escaped to tell 
 the story, and who was now a herdsman at a pasture 
 far from the city, be at once sent for. lokasta prom- 
 ises this, but naturally asks, in her turn, why he is so 
 much excited by her answers. He then tells her, 
 what strangely, perhaps, he seems never to have 
 told her before, the story of his life up to his appear-
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 8$ 
 
 ance at Thebes, how his father was ruler of 
 Korinth, and he had grown up respected there until 
 one day a man at a feast insulted him with the 
 charge that he was not really born of his supposed 
 parents. When he appealed to them, they resented 
 the intimation, but, as it still rankled in his mind, he 
 finally went off secretly to consult the oracle at 
 Delphi. There he got no information as to the past, 
 but a terrible statement as to the future, that it 
 was his destiny to slay his own father and to be 
 joined in incestuous marriage with his mother. In 
 dread of such a complication, he wandered off, care- 
 less whither he went provided it was not back to 
 Korinth, where were the only father and mother he 
 knew. As he walked along the road, he met a party 
 with a chariot, and, becoming involved in a quarrel 
 with them, killed, as he supposed, all of them. The 
 place, " where three ways met," the time, the ap- 
 pearance of the leader of the party, the number of per- 
 sons in it, all correspond with what lokasta has told 
 him of the circumstances of the killing of Laios, so 
 that he greatly fears lest he may be himself the man 
 guilty of that crime and under the curse of excom- 
 munication that he has himself pronounced. Must 
 he be an outcast again, still unable to return to 
 Korinth lest he may unwittingly fulfill that terrible 
 oracle given him at Delphi ? He only waits, to see 
 the man who had escaped and brought news of the 
 murder, to learn whether he will say that Laios was 
 killed in conflict with a single robber or with several ;
 
 86 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 for, if the latter, he is certainly clear. lokasta still 
 encourages him, for the earlier oracle had said Laios 
 was to die by the hand of his own son, and that cer- 
 tainly had not proved true, so that he need not be so 
 afraid of oracles. " True enough," says he ; " but 
 still send for the herdsman." Here ends the third 
 act. 
 
 Now comes in, to interrupt the course of action, the 
 second song of the chorus. They are even more dis- 
 tressed and perplexed about the matter now, and do 
 not seem so sure as before that justice will speedily be 
 done. The coincidences which disturbed Oedipus in his 
 confidence do not seem to have fallen upon their loyal 
 minds with so much force ; but the impious contempt 
 for oracles expressed by lokasta shocks them ; their 
 song is a prayer and a protest against such sinful 
 daring. They will not cease to make the god their 
 defence. There is some dreadful mystery in this 
 violation of the eternal laws of heaven, a fearful out- 
 growth of pride and excess. If such deeds are to go 
 unpunished, where is religion and the honor of the 
 gods ? 
 
 As if in answer to their prayer, lokasta comes out 
 from the palace in a very different frame of mind 
 from that with which she had gone in. Oedipus has 
 been aroused and excited by what she had told him, 
 beyond her power to understand or control him, and 
 in a kind of panic she comes to supplicate the very 
 god whose oracles she had spurned, to help her now. 
 To her in this temper comes a messenger, who seems
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 8/ 
 
 to bring just what she was wishing for. He comes 
 from Korinth to say that the people there desire 
 Oedipus to be their ruler, since Polybos has just died 
 from old age. She sees at once how much this 
 means, forgets all about her prayer to Apollo, utters 
 in a word her regained scorn of the oracles, and 
 eagerly sends for Oedipus to tell him of the death, 
 from natural cause, of the man whom it had been 
 foretold that he should kill. It seems too clear a 
 case for him to doubt any more, and so he joins in 
 and even outdoes her contempt for the falsified ora- 
 cle. Yet there is one thing that makes him hesitate 
 to go at once to Korinth and accept the throne, 
 the wife of Polybos is still living, and there was some- 
 thing in the oracle about his marrying his mother, 
 which may somehow come true so long as she lives. 
 When he gives this explanation to the messenger, he 
 laughs at such a fear, and, with the single purpose of 
 clearing it away, tells him that he is not the true son 
 of Polybos, but that he himself, the messenger, had 
 once, when a messenger on Mt. Kithaeron, received 
 him as an infant from one of the shepherds of Laios, 
 and had given him to the king of Korinth to bring 
 up. So if Oedipus cares to trace his real descent, he 
 must find that Theban shepherd; and he turns to 
 lokasta to inquire about him, whom the chorus 
 think to have been also the attendant of Laios on his 
 last journey. But she has heard too much already. 
 She tries to turn off the question carelessly, as of no 
 importance. When he persists, she implores him by
 
 88 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 the gods, by his love of life, by his love for her, to 
 forget all that has been said and abandon the whole 
 inquiry. He mistakes her motive, thinking she fears 
 he may find himself to have sprung from a low family, 
 and, now thoroughly aroused to solve the old long-for- 
 gotten doubt as to his parentage, determines to follow 
 up this clue and find out, at any cost, who his parents 
 were. She leaves the stage, in silent agony of de- 
 spair, foreseeing the terrible revelation. He remains, 
 despising her woman's pride, and trusting that the 
 good luck which has given him this throne, and 
 whose child he jestingly calls himself, will still be- 
 friend him. So the fourth act ends. 
 
 The chorus, taking his tone, rejoice in the thought 
 that soon his mysterious parents, perhaps some moun- 
 tain nymph and wandering god, will be made known, 
 and all the trouble ended ; but their song is short. 
 The old Theban shepherd comes in, sent for by 
 lokasta, we must remember, as the only man who 
 had witnessed the killing of Laios ; but there is no 
 thought now of asking him about that. He is con- 
 fronted with the Korinthian messenger and recog- 
 nized by him at once. His own memory is feebler, 
 but with a reminder from him he recalls their old 
 acquaintance. Then he is asked about the infant, 
 and told that Oedipus, king of Thebes, is the same 
 person. At once he suspects what is coming, and 
 refuses to answer any questions. By threats from 
 the king he is compelled to tell what he knows, and 
 so the dreadful truth comes out that Oedipus himself
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 89 
 
 is the son of Laios and lokasta, and already the mur- 
 derer of his father and husband of his own mother. 
 Oedipus curses himself and rushes into the palace. 
 
 In bitter contrast to their last hymn of joy and 
 hope, the chorus now bewail the lot of man, so brief 
 in its enjoyment of prosperity, as this example teaches 
 with terrible plainness. They are still loyal to their 
 former regard for Oedipus, and have no feeling to- 
 wards him but pity. 
 
 Then comes a messenger from within the palace, 
 and narrates, according to the custom of the Greek 
 stage, the dreadful events that had occurred within. 
 He tells how lokasta had come in, tearing her hair 
 and lamenting bitterly, and had entered her chamber, 
 when suddenly his attention was drawn away by the 
 entrance of Oedipus, raving and calling for a sword, 
 and demanding to be told where lokasta was. No 
 one would tell him ; but he suspecting, burst open 
 the doors of the chamber and there found her hanging 
 lifeless. Then, with most furious curses, he snatched 
 the golden buckles from her dress, and with them 
 tore out his own eyes, that they might nevermore, 
 even in Hades, see the persons involved in his unwit- 
 ting crimes. While the chorus is lamenting his 
 madness, he comes forth in his wretched blindness, 
 carrying the buckles still in his hand, and after inco- 
 herent exclamations to himself, recognizes the voices 
 of his friends, and joins them in bewailing his misery. 
 Then, in a long passage of somewhat calmer tone, he 
 justifies his self-mutilation, and reviews his life in the
 
 Cp STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 light of the shocking discovery of his real relations 
 to those about him. While he is thus speaking Kreon 
 comes in, whom he knows not how to address, re- 
 membering those unfounded suspicions which he had 
 held when he was mentally blind. But Kreon re-as- 
 sures him in kind words of pity, and presently has his 
 two daughters brought out to him, whom Oedipus 
 entrusts to his care, bidding them a tender farewell. 
 Kreon then leads him away, with some last words 
 which hint that he may not continue to be so gentle 
 and friendly in his treatment of the helpless sufferer; 
 and the play ends with the reflection from the chorus 
 that no man can be pronounced happy until his life 
 is seen through to its last day. 
 
 This outline, inadequate as it must seem to one 
 who knows the original, may yet be of use in recall- 
 ing the distinguishing peculiarity of this play, viz., 
 the degree to which its interest depends upon the 
 plot. It is the only one of the Greek tragedies, 
 with perhaps a single exception, in which a secret 
 is kept from most of the persons concerned until 
 near the end, upon which secret the whole story 
 hangs. In the nature of the material used by the 
 Greek tragic poets, it was almost impossible that this 
 should often be the case. For they used old myths 
 which were familiar to the audience in their whole 
 structure, and in which, therefore, it was not easy to 
 succeed with a surprise. It should be said, however, 
 in justice to their art, that this was not always a 
 hampering restriction. They constructed their plays
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 9 1 
 
 in free recognition of it, making the interest and the 
 exercise of poetic and dramatic power depend upon 
 other elements than intricacy of plot. They allowed 
 themselves, too, some measure of freedom in the 
 treatment of the traditional myths, in minor points, 
 a freedom which was abused by the last of the three 
 whose works we have, whether from lack of invention 
 or from some defect in his principles of art. It is a 
 signal triumph of the strong and disciplined genius 
 of Sophokles, that he constructs this play with a 
 catastrophe perfectly familiar to his audience, yet so 
 skilfully that one might hear it often and still be as 
 much absorbed in the unfolding action as if he were 
 as ignorant of the end as the characters are supposed 
 to be. Let us analyze this delicate work a little. 
 
 The poet has two objects to accomplish in laying 
 out his plan. One is to bring about the revelation 
 of the secret of the birth of Oedipus in a perfectly 
 natural way, without the voluntary intervention of 
 any human agent. This absence of voluntary hu- 
 man agency is emphasized by the poet, and seems to 
 have been necessary, in his view ; perhaps for the 
 reason that he wished to show how the gods work 
 out their plans without the conscious help of man, 
 and even against his will. The means which the poet 
 uses to bring about the revelation are the plague, 
 the quick temper of Oedipus, the death of Polybos 
 from old age, the hope of gain on the part of the 
 Korinthian shepherd, and the love of the Theban 
 shepherd for Laios. The plague lies at the founda-
 
 92 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 tion of the whole action, so far as it is contained in 
 this play, furnishing not only a natural opening 
 scene (the point in dramatic art which was such a 
 stumbling-block to Euripides), but also the condition 
 without which the succeeding events could not, in 
 their present shape, be explained. It is the first 
 shock to the prosperity of Oedipus since he came to 
 Thebes, and, of course, it soon brings a strain upon 
 the weak point in his present position. It is a blow 
 from the gods, aimed directly at him, in such form 
 that, while it reveals nothing to him, it compels him 
 to act, and, by his action, to bring out at last the 
 whole secret. He acts promptly in the way which 
 seems to him best at the time, and which yet recoils 
 upon him later. The moment his proposed course of 
 action receives a check from Teiresias, his temper is 
 roused, and he becomes committed to a theory which 
 he holds obstinately. This theory makes him quar- 
 rel violently with Kreon, all without suspicion that 
 he is preparing repentance and woe for himself. 
 The quarrel with Kreon brings lokasta on the scene, 
 and she, merely to relieve him from anxiety regard- 
 ing the alleged oracle, tells the story of the death of 
 Laios, in which one incidental phrase, "the place 
 where three ways met," gives the first serious shock 
 to his conviction of innocence of the murder. This 
 leads to a review of his life, and so brings back to 
 his thought the never-solved question as to his 
 parentage. All this grows naturally, and without 
 intention, out of his quickness of temper. Then
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 93 
 
 comes in the shepherd from Korinth, whose hope of a 
 reward (as is stated in lines 1005 f.) had made him 
 eager to be the first to bring the news to Oedipus of 
 the throne awaiting him. It seems strange that he 
 should be the very man who had received him when 
 an outcast in infancy ; but, apparently, the poet sup- 
 posed that he was stimulated by that hope of gain 
 to keep himself informed as to the life of Oedipus 
 after he left Korinth. His revelation that Oedipus 
 was not the son of Polybos comes out in simple, 
 ignorant desire to deliver him from anxiety about 
 returning to Korinth, not from any purpose to con- 
 tribute to the exposure of his hidden calamity. 
 Finally, the Theban shepherd, the one person in the 
 country, unless we except Teiresias, who knew the 
 murderer of Laios, and the only one who knew that 
 the son of Laios and lokasta might still be living 
 (though, of course, even he had never connected the 
 two things), comes in to do his part. At his own 
 request, and apparently from a love to-Laios that 
 made the sight of his murderer on his throne in- 
 tolerable, he had been sent out of the way of telling 
 his knowledge since Oedipus came to Thebes, and had 
 heard nothing of the new oracle about the plague. 
 He is now brought in to testify as to the murder, 
 and, against his will, is compelled to testify as to the 
 parentage. Thus it appears that every incident, ex- 
 cept the plague and the oracle, comes into the series 
 by human action, from some motive entirely apart 
 from the discovery of the guilt of Oedipus.
 
 94 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 The other object of the poet is to put Oedipus in 
 the wrong in his attitude towards the gods in this 
 part of his life, so that his terrible fate may not 
 seem wholly undeserved. This is a matter which it 
 is important to have fully recognized, if it is true, 
 because it is not apt to be recognized at all in mod- 
 ern estimates of the play. Most of the current pop- 
 ular references to this story speak of it as one in 
 which a perfectly innocent person is dragged by a 
 cruel fate, determined for him before he was born, 
 into horrible deeds, and then into dreadful, unmerited 
 ruin. The representation of the play here a year ago 
 furnished the occasion for a vigorous article in a Bos- 
 ton periodical, based wholly on this false idea. It 
 so happens that, besides the evidence in the play 
 itself, we can bring an independent, ancient au- 
 thority of no little weight to prove the falseness of 
 that idea. It is well known that Aristotle, in his 
 treatise on poetics, uses this particular play perhaps 
 more than any other, to furnish illustrations or proofs 
 of the rules he lays down. One of these rules is, 
 that the hero of a tragedy must be a noble character, 
 but not without a^apria, that is, not without some 
 fault or defect ; on the ground that, if he is a per- 
 fectly innocent person, his suffering would not ex- 
 cite the spectator's pity or terror, but rather, his 
 indignation and horror ; and if, on the other hand, 
 he is made too great a villain, the spectator would 
 merely think he was getting his deserts. Then he 
 goes on to mention two examples of such noble
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 95 
 
 heroes with the requisite faults, and one of them is 
 Oedipus. Now the mere dictum of Aristotle is not 
 one to which every head must bow, and it may be 
 that some wholly admirable tragedy has been writ- 
 ten with a faultless hero. But the thing for which I 
 quote him is his opinion that, in fact, Oedipus is not 
 made by Sophokles such a faultless hero, and on that 
 point, surely, his judgment ought to be respected. 
 Let us then see, if we can, in what the fault of 
 Oedipus consists. We find that the course of the 
 action brings him, by virtue of his own character 
 and conduct, into such a relation to the gods as can- 
 not help suggesting to a Greek audience some pain- 
 ful result. His first words to the chorus, after their 
 prayer for divine relief, convey a hint that he is dis- 
 posed to trust more to his own proclamation and the 
 authority of the government than to the help of the 
 gods. Then his sudden anger and wanton suspicion 
 in regard to the prophet, and contempt for his sacred 
 character, would seem the very thing to draw down 
 upon him some punishment. When lokasta first 
 expresses her disregard of the oracle, he does not 
 interrupt her with rebuke. When she gives reasons, 
 and speaks yet more scornfully, he assents. When, 
 finally, the messenger comes with news of the death 
 of Polybos from old a*ge, which seems to put beyond 
 all possibility the fulfilment of the oracle that he 
 should kill his father, he rivals her in triumphing 
 over the baffled prophecy. These things are not for- 
 gotten. When, at the end, he comes out blinded
 
 96 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 and bleeding, and the chorus ask him what god has 
 impelled him to such a deed, he answers, " Apollo ! 
 Apollo it was who brought to pass this bitter, bitter 
 woe of mine!" But Apollo was the god of the 
 Delphic oracle. Though, indeed, the ultimate cause 
 of his misery was his involuntary parricide and in- 
 cest, yet the shock with which the discovery came, 
 and its fearful consequences, are to be ascribed to 
 the sin of contempt of the gods, into which too great 
 confidence in his prosperity had betrayed him. No 
 one can study the tragedies of Aeschylus and Sopho- 
 kles without recognizing the prominence in their 
 view of this particular kind of sin, as provoking the 
 wrath of the gods. In this play it takes a form cor- 
 responding to the rest of the plot, and seems to 
 be brought on inevitably by the action of such inci- 
 dents upon such a character. 
 
 One or two minor features of the plot also deserve 
 passing notice. The fact that it was Kreon, the 
 natural successor to the throne as regent, in the 
 minority of the sons of Oedipus, who was sent to 
 Delphi for information as to the plague, prepares the 
 way for the suspicion that he was in league with the 
 prophet to put Oedipus out of the way. The quar- 
 rel with Kreon subsequently not only furnishes an 
 occasion for lokasta, his sister, as well as the wife of 
 Oedipus, to come out and remonstrate with them, 
 thereby bringing her with her story of the murder 
 into the action, but also adds greatly to the impres- 
 sion of the closing dialogue between the two men in
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 97 
 
 relations so changed, Oedipus repentant, and Kreon 
 forgiving. This last scene would have been just as 
 possible, though not nearly so effective, if, in the 
 previous scene, Oedipus had merely expressed to 
 others, in Kreon's absence, his suspicions of him. 
 The introduction of Teiresias likewise effects a two- 
 fold purpose. On the one hand, his refusal to an- 
 swer the question put to him starts Oedipus on his 
 course of opposition to the gods, and, on the other, 
 it is his relation to Apollo, the god of Delphi, that 
 suggests collusion on his part with Kreon, and thus 
 introduces the train of events that follow upon the 
 quarrel with the latter. 
 
 The whole play, like many others, is marked by, 
 or rather consists of, a series of alternate movements 
 in opposite directions, and with opposite effects on 
 the feelings of the audience. First, the deputation 
 of priests describe the sufferings of the city under 
 the plague ; and then Oedipus, comforting them with 
 sympathy, is presently enabled, b^y Kreon's arrival, 
 to point out a definite cause of the calamity, and to 
 promise that every means shall be taken to remove 
 it. Next, the chorus, on its entrance, fills the mind 
 again with the dismal scenes of the general misery ; 
 and Oedipus again, by his strong, confident declara- 
 tions of what he is going to do, seems to clear away 
 half the trouble at once. The strange conduct and 
 incredible statements of Teiresias cannot fail to 
 make the hearer dread something, though he hardly 
 knows what, before which Oedipus seems helpless as
 
 98 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 a child ; but when he has to deal with Kreon, though 
 we may think him hasty and overbearing, yet he 
 seems strong enough to crush mere human opposi- 
 tion, and to make a way for the State into peace. In 
 his conversation with lokasta, however, he is plainly 
 overpowered by the close coincidences of her ac- 
 count of the murder with his own recollections, and 
 feels again the presence of some mystery which may 
 be too much for him. The coming of the news from 
 Korinth naturally lifts him into freedom from fear, 
 but it is only for a moment ; and the determination 
 which the other fact, learnt from the same man, ex- 
 cites in him to discover at any cost his real parents, 
 presently plunges him, in spite of the gleam of hope 
 seen in the song of the chorus, into the depth of misery. 
 After the first rush of horror and self-condemnation, 
 there comes again a reaction, and the play leaves the 
 audience at last somewhat soothed by the compara- 
 tively quiet final scene. It is manifest how these 
 changes add to the life and interest of the action, 
 and also how they serve to retard the movement of 
 events, and postpone the coming of the fatal dis- 
 covery. Some one has said of the Odyssey that the 
 whole plot would be broken down by the existence 
 of a post-office system, so that Penelope might have 
 heard from Odysseus occasionally. Surely, in this play, 
 if Teiresias had come to Oedipus in a calm hour, and 
 told him what he knew as a prophet about his life, 
 or if, by any other natural means, he might have 
 learned it earlier, the whole structure would break
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 99 
 
 down. However, it is plain that the poet, with artis- 
 tic design, makes a gradual approach to his climax, 
 letting the anger of Oedipus prevent his believing, 
 or even listening to, the significant words of the 
 prophet ; making lokasta 6k> all she can to dissuade 
 him from pursuing the investigation after she sees 
 whither it tends ; bringing in the news from Korinth 
 to give him a moment's delusive comfort before his 
 fall. A notable instance of this designed delay has 
 been already mentioned, that when Teiresias says, 
 " Your parents, however, thought me inspired," Oedi- 
 pus suddenly asks him, " Who ? Stop ! Who were 
 my parents ? " An answer to this question would have 
 ended the play there, but Teiresias has been angered 
 beyond such compliance, and puts him off with the 
 riddle, " This day shall bring you parents and ruin." 
 It is in some sense a consequence of this character 
 of the plot that the play exhibits in especial frequency 
 what has been called the irony of Sophokles. The 
 word irony, though perhaps the best that our language 
 affords, does not strictly in its English use express 
 the idea that is here intended. If I understand its 
 modern usage, it implies generally some measure 
 of contempt, good-natured contempt sometimes, when 
 a man feels perfectly sure of his own position or 
 powers and plays with an adversary, but still a real 
 looking down upon one who might claim to be an 
 equal. The Greek word, as defined and illustrated 
 originally, does not seem to have implied this. The 
 quality is defined by Aristotle as the pretence or as-
 
 IOO STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 sumed appearance of being worse in some respect 
 than one really is. He speaks of irony as lying on 
 one side of the truth, and of boasting or arrogance as 
 lying on the opposite side. And he acutely adds, 
 that the pretence of the worse or humbler condition 
 may proceed from something very like arrogance ; 
 which recalls the story that Diogenes, in his squalor, 
 walked in over the rich rugs in Plato's house, saying, 
 "Thus I trample on the pride of Plato." "Yes," 
 answered Plato, " and with a no less pride of your 
 own." The prime illustration of irony in this Greek 
 sense is Sokrates in the dialogues of Plato, where he 
 assumes the tone of ignorance and desire for informa- 
 tion, and through his questions exposes the ignorance 
 of another. 
 
 Now the word irony as used of the dramatic poet 
 means something different from either of these senses. 
 For the poet has no adversary, and cannot properly 
 manifest contempt for his characters. He is the 
 creator of his mimic world, and so acts a part toward 
 it like that of the divine governor of the real world. 
 Hence, in this use of the word, it means the same as 
 when we speak of the irony of fate. The tragic poet, 
 deeply feeling the pathetic contrasts that arise in the 
 development of his story, and knowing that the audi- 
 ence will feel them too, chooses to set them forth 
 most forcibly by showing the hero in his glory just 
 before his utter ruin, or in his apparent humiliation 
 just before his triumph, and by making the character 
 say in his unconsciousness what has a different mean-
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. IOI 
 
 ing or a deeper meaning than he can yet suspect. I 
 have been thus minute in speaking of the different 
 senses of the word irony, because a recent editor of 
 Sophokles, Professor Campbell of St. Andrews, has 
 objected to the use of the word to describe a quality 
 of the Sophoklean tragedy, oh the ground that the 
 offensive sense of superiority, the sneer of contempt, 
 which belongs to the word in its ordinary use, is out 
 of place in the relation of the poet to his characters. 
 That is quite true. No such thing as a comparison 
 between the poet and the character on the stage, to 
 the disparagement of the latter, can be imagined. 
 But Professor Campbell does not sufficiently recog- 
 nize the other use of the word, as in the phrase, the 
 irony of fate. That phrase justifies the application 
 of the word to the work of the dramatic poet, for he 
 is in a sense the Fate of his characters, the author of 
 all that they say and do. From him proceeds the 
 practical irony, the conflict in the dramatic situation 
 between the reality and appearance, and the verbal 
 irony, that is, the putting into the mouth of a char- 
 acter words that would seem to a person so situated 
 to be true, which yet have a pathetic force of contrast 
 from the knowledge on the part of the audience that, 
 as the speaker means them, they are terribly far from 
 the truth. The practical irony of this play has been 
 admirably expounded by the late Bishop Thirlwall, 
 in his essay on the Irony of Sophokles, and I will pass 
 it over. The examples of verbal irony are of course 
 mainly to be found in words put into the mouth of
 
 IO2 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 Oedipus. In the very opening of the play he 
 describes himself as "renowned in universal fame." 
 In declaring his purpose to obey the oracle with zeal- 
 ous effort to detect and punish the murderer of Laios, 
 he says, having in mind his theory that it had been 
 prompted by hostility to the government, that self- 
 interest prompts him to " put such villany far off from 
 himself," for a similar attack might be made upon 
 him. In his proclamation calling for information, and 
 denouncing any one who shall withhold it, he adds 
 at the end, "And if he be any inmate of my house, the 
 curse applies to him as well." When lokasta urges 
 him not to try to discover his parentage, he ascribes 
 her entreaties to a fear that he may turn out to be of 
 a low family, and says to her (his real mother), " Not 
 even if my mother was a slave, and her family in slavery 
 for three generations back, will you be degraded by 
 it." A similar conflict between reality and appear- 
 ance is seen in the language of the chorus, especially 
 in that brief ode just before the revelation of the 
 secret, when, like children playing on the edge of a 
 precipice, they amuse themselves with conjecture as 
 to what god and nymph it may have been, who in 
 some wanton hour begat him who had come to be 
 their king. These are but a few examples of an ele- 
 ment which pervades the whole play. 
 
 It has been said that the main interest of this play 
 lies in the skilful treatment of the plot, but the re- 
 mark should not be understood as implying that the 
 characters are in themselves feeble or uninteresting.
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. IO3 
 
 Oedipus ranks high among the figures of Greek 
 fiction, and he owes his position wholly to Sopho- 
 kles, and largely to this play. He is himself his 
 only enemy. Every other character in the play is 
 friendly to him, and strives to help him. His very 
 strength becomes a cause of weakness and calamity 
 to him, under the circumstances in which the gods 
 place him, because it betrays him into self-confi- 
 dence, and blinds him for so long a time to the 
 truth. From the first it is evident that he is a 
 man of strong will and clear head. The people of 
 Thebes, after long experience, reverence him as their 
 ruler. The people of Korinth, who had not seen 
 him since his youth, send for him at once, on the 
 death of Polybos, to take the throne. There is no 
 feebleness or indecision, either in his action when he 
 is taunted with being a foundling, when he hears 
 that threatening oracle at Delphi, and when he meets 
 the party of Laios on the highway, or in his words 
 at the beginning of this play. He has already sent 
 Kreon to Delphi, and as soon as the response comes 
 back, after a few pointed questions in regard to the 
 crime, just such as a modern police magistrate might 
 ask, he has his plan formed, and makes his procla- 
 mation. He is full of self-reliance and energy. The 
 opposition of Teiresias only fixes his purpose more 
 firmly, and he makes up his mind at once to deal 
 with Kreon as the offense he imputes to him de- 
 mands, without thought of fear or favor. When his 
 attention is again drawn to the unsolved question of
 
 104 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 his birth, he pushes the inquiry in that direction with 
 the same energy, in spite of all the entreaties of 
 lokasta. And when he learns the bitter truth, his 
 vengeance upon himself is no less sudden, severe, 
 and appropriate. After the blow, how clear is his 
 inward vision over his past life, how complete his 
 self-subjection ! It is thus evident that his very 
 clear-sightedness for what lies just before him, and 
 his promptness of action, are what bring upon him, 
 so far as his deeds affect his fate, his faults and mis- 
 fortunes. They make him act too quickly and con- 
 fide too much in his own judgments. Yet, on the 
 other hand, he is conceived as a man who made his 
 way everywhere, and attracted to himself the love 
 and respect of those around him. The language of 
 the chorus, as well after as before his fall, shows this 
 plainly. We might liken him to Achilles, the ideal 
 warrior of the Iliad, impetuous, truth-loving, self- 
 impelled rather than self-controlled, capable of feel- 
 ing and arousing in others intense affection, and 
 hardly less intense hatred, keenly sensitive to the 
 judgments of others upon his conduct, yet, under 
 the influence of excited passion, adopting a course 
 for himself in defiance of all around him, and per- 
 sisting in it in defiance of reason, at terrible cost to 
 himself. Or, to take an example more widely known, 
 from a period of history not very unlike the fabulous 
 heroic age of Greece, he was such a man as David, 
 the partisan chief, the hero of outcasts, the king of 
 Israel, the poet, the sinner, the penitent.
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 10$ 
 
 The character of lokasta, too, though subordinate 
 and less fully drawn out, is worthy of study. The idea 
 of the poet embodied in it, to be inferred from the 
 words he puts into her mouth, seems to have been 
 often misunderstood. Nearly all who have referred 
 especially to her, regard her chiefly as an impersona- 
 tion of impious disbelief in the gods. Thus Camp- 
 bell calls her "the arch-horror of the piece." Capell- 
 man, in his essay on the Women of Sophokles, finds 
 something admirable in all the others, but has hardly 
 a word to say in her favor. Schneidewin, a most 
 judicious critic generally, judging a poet's work with 
 a delicate and cultivated tact, describes her as selfish 
 and heartless, unconcerned at the death of Laios, 
 careless what became of the child maimed by him 
 and exposed by her, indifferent to gods and oracles 
 alike, until she finds herself driven to heed them by 
 terror and distress. Now, if Sophokles had imag- 
 ined her such a person, would he not have drawn the 
 picture so clearly and strongly that there would have 
 been no room for doubt or difficulty in receiving the 
 impression ? Yet, if one reads the scenes in which 
 she appears, and the references to her, with this 
 question in mind, In what light did the poet himself 
 look upon her character ? he will hardly come to 
 such a conclusion. Her first appearance certainly 
 impresses one in her favor. When she comes out to 
 Oedipus and Kreon, at the height of their wrangling, 
 both men defer to her at once, with great respect, 
 and state their cases to her. She then, with the aid
 
 106 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 of the chorus, brings them to a settlement, or at 
 least a postponement of their quarrel. This shows 
 that she was not a weak character, and creates a pre- 
 sumption that she was not a wicked one. As to her 
 attitude towards the oracles, it ought not to be over- 
 looked that she repeatedly distinguishes between the 
 direct manifestations of the divine will, and the pos- 
 sibly mistaken or falsified declaration of it through 
 human channels. Such a distinction, we may be 
 sure, was made by many not undevout people in the 
 poet's time. The Delphic oracle itself was accused 
 of having Medized in the terrible trial of the Persian 
 invasion. Other instances of suspected tampering 
 with its utterances are mentioned. And so the 
 questioning of the genuineness or supposed appli- 
 cation or suggested fulfilment of an oracle was prob- 
 ably no uncommon thing. In other plays of Sopho- 
 kles the possible defeat of a prediction of evil is part 
 of the plot. That the chorus here is shocked at the 
 apparent impiety of such distrust does not prove 
 that every one, even the poet himself, if he had been 
 treating a different myth, must feel so. Moreover, 
 in this case, she had seen, as she fairly argues, one 
 such instance in her own experience, Laios, as 
 she thought, had not been killed by his own son, but 
 by robbers on the highway. And it is to be ob- 
 served that there is no hint of her having shown any 
 distrust of oracles, until she finds that her husband 
 is angry with the prophet Teiresias for charging him 
 with a murder which he is sure he did not commit.
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. IO/ 
 
 This leads us to what seems to be the central and 
 ruling quality of the character, as here drawn. There 
 is in the lokasta of Sophokles no more prominent 
 trait than her love as wife for her husband. We 
 may indeed guess for we are told nothing about it 
 that it was love to Laios that led her to consent to 
 the exposing of the child, because that seemed the 
 only way to save the father from death by his son's 
 hand. When, after the death of Laios, she is given 
 by the State to its deliverer from the Sphinx, she 
 comes under the influence of his character, and after 
 a time so loves him as to cast contempt on the 
 oracle for his sake. When she finds that she cannot 
 thus allay his anxiety about the killing of Laios, her 
 conscience distresses her, and she appeals for help to 
 the very god whose Delphic oracle she had scorned. 
 And at the last, when the secret of the birth of 
 Oedipus becomes known to her, while yet unrevealed 
 to him, her first thought is to save him from the 
 dreadful discovery. She is willing to try to keep it 
 to herself, to live on with that fearful secret tortur- 
 ing her soul, if only she can secure for him the bliss 
 of ignorance. It is the blind impulse of unreason- 
 ing love precisely such a one as the same poet 
 represents in the case of Ismene, when she urges 
 Antigone to accept her as a partner in death, by 
 falsely admitting that she had been a partner in the 
 burying of their brother it is, I say, a blind im- 
 pulse of unreasoning love, for such a secret could 
 not long be kept by her or hidden from him ; but
 
 IO8 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 she is carried away by it, without stopping to think 
 what it means and involves. When he persists, she 
 has nothing left to her but suicide. Now I appeal 
 to you who are familiar with the play, whether such 
 an interpretation of her words and deeds is not more 
 natural and true than one which makes her out a 
 cold, heartless, skeptical fiend ? 
 
 This play suggests a question which is worth ask- 
 ing, for the sake of the view it opens into the work of 
 the poet in such a case : Could Oedipus have avoided 
 his fate by any wisdom or effort of virtue ? Certainly 
 he need not have killed Laios. The story of the col- 
 lision on the highway, as he tells it, does not imply 
 any attack upon him by the other party which justi- 
 fied his violence as an act of self-defense. If he had 
 yielded the way to the larger party, he a mere foot- 
 passenger, and their wagon, perhaps, running in the 
 deep-worn grooves in the rock-bed of the road, such 
 as are to be seen now in parts of Greece, there 
 would have been no such fatal result. Again, he 
 might have refused marriage under any and all cir- 
 cumstances, to ensure the failure of the other part of 
 the oracle given him at Delphi. It appears thus that 
 forewarned as he was by that oracle, it lay within 
 his power, by such careful self-restraint, to pre- 
 vent its fulfilment. It was only a mistake of judg- 
 ment in supposing that he knew whom the oracle 
 meant as his father and mother, that betrayed him 
 into realizing its prediction. Had his idea been 
 right, his precaution of not returning to Korinth
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 109 
 
 q 
 
 would have saved him. And so it is simply a con- 
 firmation of the conception of his character already 
 suggested ; for his ruin came from over-confidence 
 in this opinion of his own. In many ancient stories 
 it is such a problem on which all the interest hangs : 
 Will a man, forewarned of an impending calamity, 
 be able by foresight, caution, wit, or daring, to defeat 
 the purpose of the gods and avert or evade ' the 
 calamity ? And always, in the story, there is some 
 point where his knowledge, or self-control, or watch- 
 fulness fails, and the will of the gods is done. We 
 must bear in mind that it is just such a story that 
 Sophokles has here dramatized, and that he must 
 take the main incidents as he finds them, without 
 material change. It would, in fact, destroy the story 
 to give it a different issue. The original myth may 
 have had a very different meaning. Indeed, there is 
 not a little probability in the theory that the germ of 
 it is one statement that the day destroys the night 
 from which it sprang ; and another, that the sun, after 
 much wandering, returns at evening to the beautiful 
 twilight, from which at morning he came forth. 
 When the meaning of the terms for the daylight 
 and the sun was lost from memory, so that they 
 became proper names to the ear, as Zeus and Se- 
 lene and Aurora and many others did, as Grace and 
 George and Augustus and all the others have done 
 more recently, the old statements became narratives 
 of supposed human action instead of descriptions of 
 natural phenomena, and so a story grew out of them.
 
 IIO STUDIES IX GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 All the rest, the oracles, the collision in the high- 
 way, the guessing of the Sphinx's riddle, the children, 
 the suicide, and the self-mutilation, were engrafted 
 upon the original stock to supply motives, or natural 
 consequences, for the human action. But, however 
 that may be, the fact remains that Sophokles took 
 the story as he found it, for the basis of his dramatic 
 treatment ; and the question as to his work, the test 
 of his skill, is this : Is the story, in his version of it, 
 in all respects "such a story as might be believed to 
 occur in the heroic age of Greece ? It is not possi- 
 ble to prove an affirmative or negative answer by 
 comparison of actual events, for we have no record 
 of facts from that time. The only special material 
 available for an opinion is the picture presented 
 in the Homeric poems and in the other tragedies, 
 which aim to represent in the main the same social 
 state. If we judge this play in the light of these 
 works, and on such general principles of human 
 nature as are true in all ages, we find it a natural, 
 self-consistent story. Given a man born under such 
 a fate, led by an unseen control through such an 
 early life, and the rest of the life, as here developed, 
 presents nothing unnatural, nothing out of the range 
 of human experience. It is a marvelous story, and 
 the supernatural element in it is essential to the 
 structure ; but such an element is recognized in the 
 belief of all ages, and here it nowhere interferes with 
 the action of ordinary human motives and emotions. 
 It simply avails itself of these springs of human
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOCLES. I I I 
 
 action, and brings the persons into such relations to 
 one another that their natural conduct in these 
 circumstances produces these momentous results. 
 Oedipus may act in this or that particular as one or 
 another of us would not act, but all we can ask of 
 the poet is that Oedipus should not ever act other- 
 wise than as the conception of his character would re- 
 quire ; in other words, that he should be consistent with 
 himself. The mysterious Sphinx (who also is perhaps 
 a personification of a natural phenomenon) and the 
 plague with which the play opens are, besides the 
 oracles, the only elements which connect the story 
 with fairy-land or the supernatural world. The 
 special development which our poet gives to the 
 bare outline of the myth, the incidents which were 
 necessarily introduced to fill up a story of human 
 action on the basis of the phrases describing phenom- 
 ena of external nature, will be found to lie entirely 
 within ordinary human life in the social state here 
 depicted. 
 
 In what has been already said of the dramatic skill 
 displayed in the plot of this play, it may seem that 
 too much has been claimed for the Greek poet. It 
 might easily be that a reader familiar with Shak- 
 speare, or with almost any dramatic poet of the modern 
 era, would think in going through this play that 
 nothing was done in it, that there was no action, but 
 rather, an excessive amount of talk. This difference 
 we need not try to deny or to apologize for ; but it 
 may be in part explained by considering certain re-
 
 112 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 strictions under which the ancient poet did his work. 
 One was in regard to the number of actors. In Greek 
 tragedy (not in comedy) the highest number allowed 
 by rules of usage was four, and most of the plays 
 preserved to us could be acted by two or three persons. 
 Another was the restriction of unity of time and 
 place, that the whole action should be confined to a 
 single day and to one locality. These unities were 
 not, it is true, strictly regarded by the Greek poets, 
 for the first is violated in the Agamemnon of Aes- 
 chylus, and both in the Eumenides. Yet there was 
 some force in them, and Sophokles has observed 
 them in all of his plays that are preserved to us. 
 Once more, there is the rule stated thus by Horace in 
 the Ars Poetica : 
 
 Ne pueros cor am populo Medea trucidet, 
 Aut humana palatn coquat exta nefarius Atreus, 
 Aut in avem Procne vertatur, Cadmus in angitem ; 
 Quodcumque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi. 
 
 This explains the comparative absence from the 
 stage of conflicts, suicides, transformations, etc., and 
 the introduction of long narratives of messengers 
 which constitute in part the epic element of Greek 
 tragedy. These, and other restrictions, are little 
 matters in themselves, but they would greatly ham- 
 per a modern playwright. They all belong indeed to 
 a higher cause, arising from the essentially different 
 conceptions of ancient and modern tragedy. The 
 Greek tragedy was in origin, and in theory always, a 
 chorus interrupted by dialogue. The chorus was at
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 113 
 
 first the whole performance, and the dialogue pas- 
 sages, called epeisodia from the entrance of the actors 
 to take part in them, were truly episodes in the sense 
 which the word has to our minds. Hence it was 
 only by one at a time, in the course of years, that the 
 number of allowed actors was raised to three or four. 
 This explains the comparative absence of scenery 
 and action from the stage. And hence, too, perhaps, 
 from the relative subordination of the actor's part 
 in the play came its limitation to the single place 
 and time. The whole tragedy was a poem in illus- 
 tration and explanation of a series of tableaux vivants. 
 It may fairly be said in view of these restrictions, and 
 of this theory of tragedy, that Sophokles has in this 
 play shown wonderful power in developing a com- 
 plete and absorbing plot. In comparison with other 
 plays it seems as if he here strained the Greek con- 
 ception of tragedy to its utmost limits in a direction 
 approaching the modern conception. And yet how 
 differently a modern writer would treat the theme ! 
 He would have three or four times as many charac- 
 ters. He would have a second or third subordinate 
 plot ; and it would go hard with him if he could not 
 work in a love-story with reasonable obstacles to its 
 running smoothly. He would omit the heaven- 
 inflicted plague, and transform the blind old prophet 
 into a prime minister or a ghost. He would bring 
 about the discovery of the fatal secret by some chain 
 of half-accidental occurrences, like the dropping of 
 Desdemona's handkerchief, such as might occur in
 
 I 14 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 every-day life. He would change the scene a dozen 
 times, and lengthen the time of the action indefinitely. 
 In saying this, of course one does not mean that the 
 modern dramatic form is necessarily inferior on ac- 
 count of these differences. It is merely that we have 
 here two distinct conceptions of this form of art, 
 the ancient and the modern, or, if you please, the 
 statuesque and picturesque, though this latter word 
 has been in bad company and lost some of its native 
 simplicity. Each form is the best in its own age and 
 surroundings. Each in comparison with the other 
 appears to have weak points, but has, not less truly, 
 strong points peculiar to itself. The remarkable 
 thing in this play is, that the poet without being 
 false to the classical conception, has been able to in- 
 troduce so much of what characterizes more especially 
 the modern form of dramatic art, an interest in the 
 mere series of incidents, and a probable secret natur- 
 ally brought to light. 
 
 It may be worth while here to point out certain 
 improbabilities which appear to a modern judgment 
 in the story, as presented in this play. One is, that 
 it should be so long before the plague, or whatever 
 declared the divine displeasure on account of the 
 killing of Laios, came upon Thebes. Oedipus must 
 have been in undisturbed possession of the throne 
 for years, since he has four children born to him by 
 lokasta, the age of whom at the time of the action 
 vis not, to be sure, expressly stated ; but from the last 
 scene in which the two girls are brought upon the
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. I 1 5 
 
 stage, one gets the impression that they were at 
 least no longer infants. And there are expressions 
 here and there in the play (vs. 109, 561, 1212) which 
 contribute to suggest a long interval since the com- 
 ing of Oedipus to Thebes. The murder of Aga- 
 memnon, it is true, remained unavenged for seven 
 years, but that interval was necessary to the story, 
 in order that Orestes, who was but a child when his 
 father went to the ten-years' siege of Troy, might 
 grow to sufficient age to be able to avenge him. 
 Here there appears no need in the story for a longer 
 time than that these children should be begotten, 
 and it is worth notice that, in the brief Homeric 
 version of the myth, no such interval before the dis- 
 covery appears. Another strange thing is, that the 
 death of Laios, known to be a murder on the high- 
 way, should have been , passed over with so little 
 notice. The poet himself felt this difficulty, and 
 suggests, as an explanation of it, that the distress 
 occasioned by the Sphinx had interrupted a search for 
 the murderer, which was not afterwards resumed. 
 Of course, in an unsettled state of civilization, and 
 among a group of small, independent states, such 
 acts of violence were more likely to occur and to 
 defy punishment, and generally, in the primitive 
 societies, homicide was a less serious offense, as ap- 
 pears from recognized tariffs of payment in money 
 for it to the outraged family. But still it remains a 
 strange thing that the king should be so taken off 
 with no more serious and prolonged investigation of
 
 Il6 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 the matter. This, it may be observed, is an insepa- 
 rable part of the original story, and does not belong 
 only to the dramatic working up of it. Again, one 
 cannot help asking how it happened that the same 
 man should have been a shepherd on Mt. Kithaeron 
 at the time of the birth of Oedipus, then an atten- 
 dant of Laios on his fatal journey towards Delphi, 
 and afterwards a shepherd again. This last change is 
 expressly accounted for by the poet, as caused by the 
 man's desire to get away from the sight of his master's 
 murderer on his master's throne. It has been suggested 
 above that the poet's own reason for thus removing 
 this man from Thebes was to exclude the possibility 
 of his revealing, during the reign of Oedipus, his 
 knowledge that he was the murderer of the former 
 king ; and besides, the delay in the plot occasioned 
 by the necessity of sending to some distance for 
 him contributes to the suspense and interest of the 
 spectator. But there is no hint of an explanation 
 how it came about that the same man was a witness 
 of. the exposure of the child and of the killing of 
 the father. It is easy to see how necessary it was to 
 the plot, as Sophokles conceived it, to have the same 
 man cognizant of both events, though ignorant that 
 the infant and the homicide were the same person. 
 The whole identification depends upon his testi- 
 mony. 
 
 Finally, can we say, after all this, what was the 
 poet's motive or aim in this play? There can be no 
 doubt that he had some conception in his mind, some
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. 1 1/ 
 
 definite motive, which controlled the shaping of this 
 creation. Without such conception, the work would 
 have little meaning or value. How distinctly it was 
 present to his mind and formulated in expression, we 
 cannot guess, but we may be sure that such an artist 
 as Sophokles did no work at random. In the selec- 
 tion of a myth for dramatic use, and of the precise 
 version and part of the myth, we may suppose that 
 he would be guided almost entirely by his percep- 
 tion of dramatic possibilities ; at that earlier stage of 
 the process, the creative faculty of the poet is not 
 yet at work, or is at work only tentatively and 
 fitfully ; his mind is rather passive, receiving propo- 
 sitions, as it were, considering and comparing, but 
 not yet acting upon any. In this stage, the artistic 
 element predominates over the true poetic (making) 
 element, and the mind, with comparative coolness, 
 selects for artistic reasons without determining the 
 moral and drift of its future work. But when the 
 work of composition begins, and the fire burns 
 within, then the whole man gives shape to the prod- 
 uct ; his long-cherished thoughts, his beliefs about 
 the highest and the deepest questions, his principles 
 of action, his noblest theories, for into such work 
 the true poet will put the best of everything, all 
 these will be poured into the crucible, and will give 
 something of form or color to the final result. And 
 it is not presumption for any one to attempt to dis- 
 cover from the finished work what is the ruling idea, 
 the main thought, in it. The poet speaks to his
 
 Il8 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 hearers and readers. He is not a juggler, aiming to 
 distract our attention with by-play, and to hide his 
 real design, but a teacher, whose object is to convey, 
 in such form as shall suit him best, his mind's 
 thought to other minds. We may fail from our own 
 weakness to read his thought rightly, but our honest 
 effort to discover it is the proper tribute to his effort 
 to convey it. And if we fail, our failure may lead 
 another to the truth. 
 
 The story of Thebes seems to have been particu- 
 larly attractive to the mind of Sophokles. It is com- 
 monly supposed, on various grounds, that he wrote 
 first the Antigone, taking up that part of the myth 
 which comes last in the order of events, perhaps from 
 the desire to depict, as in the parallel case of the 
 Elektra, a heroic woman in a moment of extreme 
 trial. Next probably in order of writing came the 
 present play. We are not wrong, I think, in suppos- 
 ing that this play interested him so deeply in the 
 character and fate of Oedipus that it did not wholly 
 satisfy him, that his mind recurred to it and dwelt 
 upon it until he felt an impulse to treat it once more ; 
 and then, in his old age, as tradition tells us, he wrote 
 the Oedipus at Kolonos. Now if this semi-traditional 
 order of the three plays is correct, it seems to lead us 
 towards the answer to our question, What was his 
 main idea in this play ? He was not drawn to the 
 myth at first by the desire to tell the story of Oedi- 
 pus in dramatic form. It was not the intricacy of 
 the plot, the exercise of dramatic skill in the natural
 
 THE OEDIPUS REX OF SOPHOKLES. I IQ 
 
 unforced bringing to light of a secret that first at- 
 tracted him to the Theban myth, but the strong and 
 pure character of Antigone. The power of her char- 
 acter over his mind led him then to go back and take 
 up the dark story over which her self-sacrifice sheds 
 its gracious light. Perhaps in later years, and in ful- 
 ler mastery of the resources of his art, he really had 
 more pleasure in the construction of such a plot as 
 this ; but that alone does not seem to explain the 
 vigor and passion of the play. If he was led to select 
 the theme by the plot alone, he was soon carried be- 
 yond the source of interest by the deeper questions it 
 aroused in him. Let us turn now towards the other 
 Oedipus-play. What was it that he was dissatisfied 
 with in the Oedipus Rex? What were the deeper 
 questions started there, and not fully or not rightly 
 answered, to which the Oedipus at Kolonos was meant 
 to give the. best answer the poet could find? Here 
 is a noble character, strong, sagacious, religious, 
 forced to pass through the deepest misery and dis- 
 grace. How did it come about ? And beyond that, 
 how can we believe in a divine government of the 
 world if such things come to pass under it ? To 
 answer these two questions was the poet's object, 
 the same which Milton proposed to himself in the 
 beginning of Paradise Lost, to 
 
 " assert eternal Providence, 
 And justify the ways of God to men." 
 
 The Oedipus Rex has for its object to "assert 
 eternal Providence." As clearly as the poet can, he
 
 120 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 shows in it how certainly the gods govern in the life 
 of this world, how not even the strongest and wisest 
 and best of men can put his own life outside of the 
 chain of cause and effect, and nullify the decrees 
 made known to men in divine oracles. Far-seeing 
 and firm and devout as Oedipus is, in an unguarded 
 moment he does commit the very sin that is needed 
 to bring him into the fatal sequence, and all the 
 rest follows without any violent intervention, by the 
 working of ordinary laws. But the poet could not 
 bear to leave the matter finally here. With all his care 
 to show Oedipus to be in the wrong, the impression 
 of undeserved suffering remains. He must go on, as 
 Milton must, and "justify the ways of God to men" ; 
 and this he does in the Oedipiis at Kolonos, in a way 
 which makes us wonder at the depth and tenderness 
 and truth of Greek theology in his hands. In a word, 
 then, we may truly say that the main idea of the 
 Oedipus at Kolonos is to show, by an extreme and 
 striking example, how, again in spite of all appear- 
 ances to the contrary, the same divine will and law 
 is able, as soon as man submits to it, to lead him 
 even through bitter suffering into joy and peace.
 
 V. 
 
 SUMMARY OF' THE OEDIPUS AT 
 KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. 
 
 'THE scene of the play is laid at Kolonos, one of 
 the rural demes of Attika, about four miles north 
 or north-west from the Acropolis. When the stage 
 is disclosed to view, we see two persons walking on 
 the public road, an old man, blind, and in beggar's 
 rags, and a young woman guiding and half-support- 
 ing his steps. In the first few words of their con- 
 versation they announce themselves to be Oedipus 
 and Antigone. They have been long journeying 
 thus, in search of the place of his final rest and 
 release from the burden of life. They do not know 
 just where they are, though Antigone sees, in the 
 distance, the walls of a city which she knows, 
 from directions given them along their way, to be 
 Athens. The old man sits down at the roadside, 
 on the low wall of an enclosed grove, while she pro- 
 poses to go and find out where they are. But before 
 she can do this it is made unnecessary by the ap- 
 proach of a man, a wayfarer like themselves, not 
 a native, apparently, nor resident of Kolonos, to 
 whom they apply for the information they want. 
 He is horrified at seeing Oedipus on consecrated 
 ground where it is forbidden to go, the sacred pre-
 
 122 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 cinct of the Eumenides. Yet he does not venture 
 to compel him to move, and while thus in doubt 
 describes to him the region to which he has come. 
 The whole region, the stranger says, is holy ground. 
 It belongs, in general, to Poseidon, but Prometheus, 
 the giver of fire, has in it a place sacred to him ; the 
 grove is a sanctuary of the Eumenides, called the 
 corner-stone of Athens, and the surrounding land is 
 under the protection of its eponymous hero, the 
 equestrian Kolonos. Politically, the whole territory 
 is under the government of Theseus, king of Athens. 
 Having said thus much, the stranger advises Oedi- 
 pus to remain where he is, while he goes to inform 
 the men of the deme of his presence there, that they 
 may decide what he shall do. 
 
 This passage gives us a glimpse of the character 
 of an Attic deme. It is a distinct community, gath- 
 ered in one locality, like a village in a New England 
 town. It has its own gods and sanctuaries, gods 
 who may also be worshipped elsewhere, or may be 
 peculiar to that spot. Several deities of different 
 characters may divide among them the reverence 
 and worship of the little community, each having his 
 own enclosure and temple. It has a measure of self- 
 government, as to its own affairs, so that it might 
 expel Oedipus from its limits ; but, at the same 
 time, it belongs to a larger body, and recognizes the 
 authority of Athens over all Attic territory. 
 
 After the stranger is gone, Oedipus utters a prayer 
 to the dread Eumenides, imploring them to fulfil the
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. 123 
 
 oracle of Apollo, which had promised him that he 
 should find rest at the sanctuary of some dread dei- 
 ties, though where it did not tell. Now, since, with- 
 out intention or knowledge, he had stopped first at 
 their threshold, on coming into Attica, he, a sober 
 man, at the door of deities who abhorred all use of 
 wine, it seemed as if he must have been guided 
 thither in the divine plan, and this must be the place 
 meant by the oracle. So he fearlessly throws him- 
 self on their pity. At the close of his prayer, Antig- 
 one warns him of the approach of some elderly 
 men ; whereupon he withdraws into the wood, that 
 he may learn in what temper they come before he 
 shows himself. 
 
 The chorus announced by Antigone comes for- 
 ward in great excitement, eager to find the wan- 
 derer who has profaned the sacred enclosure. While 
 they are urging each other to look everywhere about 
 the grove for him, Oedipus calls out and discovers 
 himself. Something in their words may have encour- 
 aged him to this, but rather, perhaps, he sees that 
 he cannot long evade their search, and thinks it 
 wiser to give himself up. They are filled with awe 
 and pity at the sight of him, but, nevertheless, they 
 insist upon his coming out at once from the sacred 
 grove before they will talk with him. Then follows 
 a passage in which the poet strikingly depicts the 
 'icsitation, timidity, and physical weakness of the 
 old man. " Daughter, what shall I decide to do ? " 
 " Father, we must do as the citizens here do."
 
 124 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 "Give me then your hand." "Here it is." "Friends, 
 let me not be wronged if I trust you, and leave the 
 protection of this sanctuary." " No one shall force 
 you away from this place." " Further still must I 
 go ? " " Come on." " Further yet ? " " Lead him 
 forward, maiden, for you can see." And so it goes 
 on, while he groans over the trouble he has in get- 
 ting to the spot they indicate. The hesitation and 
 helplessness of Oedipus here, in this trifling matter 
 of walking a few steps, is in strong contrast with 
 the courage and resolution he shows later in the 
 play, when upon his decision rests the fate of two 
 of the chief states of Greece. Here it is bodily 
 action that is required of him ; there it is an act of the 
 mind, a decision to be made and maintained. Here 
 he is still uncertain of his position, whether he will 
 be suffered to remain in Attika, or must wander 
 further; there he had learnt from the king that he 
 may stay. 
 
 When he has reached the spot designated for him 
 by the chorus, they proceed to ascertain by urgent 
 questions who he is. He resists as long as he can, 
 but at last, by the advice of Antigone, tells them his 
 name. Knowing something of his terrible story, they 
 are horrified at learning that it is Oedipus who is 
 before them, and instantly bid him quit their terri- 
 tory. He reminds them of their pledge, but in vain. 
 They insist that he deceived them (by not telling his 
 name, apparently), and therefore they are not bound 
 by their promise to him. Thereupon Antigone appeals
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. 12$ 
 
 to them to have pity upon her, as they might upon 
 one of their own daughters, and not to drive her and 
 her father away. They remain unmoved ; the fear, 
 so general among primitive peoples and in ethnical 
 religions, lest the whole community may suffer from 
 the sin of one of its members, or for harboring an 
 offender against the gods, ,is too strong to give way 
 readily. Then Oedipus himself addresses them, 
 taking a higher tone than before, and not only ask- 
 ing as a favor, but claiming almost as a right, shelter 
 in Attika : What will become of the reputation of 
 Athens as a most religious city if she casts off this 
 suppliant, a man more sinned against than sinning, 
 whose evil deeds as men regard them were wrought 
 in ignorance, who comes now to Athens as a man 
 consecrated and bringing a blessing with him? What 
 he means by this blessing he will explain when the 
 ruler of the land appears. The chorus is awed by 
 his words, and consents to his remaining until the 
 king comes, adding that the same man who sum- 
 moned them, the stranger who first came upon Oedi- 
 pus, had gone on to carry the news to Theseus, and 
 they feel sure that he will soon be there. 
 
 Their conversation is interrupted by an exclama- 
 tion of surprise from Antigone. In answer to an 
 anxious question from her father, she tells him that she 
 sees approaching a woman mounted on an Aitnaian 
 steed, with a Thessalian hat to protect her head from 
 the sun. (Those who have seen the Tanagra figu- 
 rines will recall the shade-hats which appear on some
 
 126 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 of them.) Can it be ? Yes, as she comes nearer, she 
 sees her smile, and recognizes beyond a doubt her 
 sister Ismene. 'The description of the comforts with 
 which Ismene travels is evidently designed to mark 
 by contrast the hardships which Antigone cheerfully 
 undergoes, to which her father presently alludes.' 
 After they have exchanged affectionate greetings, 
 Ismene says she has come with news for her father. 
 " But where are my sons ? " he naturally asks. "They 
 are where they are, and there is trouble between 
 them." This gives occasion to Oedipus to denounce 
 the conduct of his sons in staying at home regardless 
 of his fate, and to contrast it with the love of his daugh- 
 ters, one of whom has borne all the hardships of his 
 wandering and want with him, and the other has 
 come now this second time to bring him informa- 
 tion. What, then, is her news this time ? It is that 
 the two brothers have quarrelled about the throne of 
 Thebes ; that Polyneikes, the elder, has been driven 
 into exile, and that, according to the prevalent rumor, 
 he has found friends in Argos, and will presently 
 come with an army to regain his rights. Then, in 
 answer to questions from Oedipus, it comes out by de- 
 grees that the oracle at Delphi has lately made known 
 to the people of Thebes that the possession or con- 
 trol of Oedipus's grave was essential to the welfare 
 of Thebes, although, as a parricide, he could not be 
 buried in Theban soil. It appears from what he has 
 previously said, that substantially the same thing had 
 before been told by the oracle to Oedipus himself,
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. I2/ 
 
 only in the somewhat different form that his grave 
 should be a blessing to whatever land should contain 
 it. In consequence of this oracle, she further tells 
 him, Kreon is coming soon to get possession of his 
 person, in order that they may keep him close to 
 the borders of Theban territory so long as he lives, 
 and bury him there when he dies. He asks whether 
 his sons knew of this oracle, and when told that they 
 did, and yet set the possession of the throne before 
 any care for him, breaks out into curses upon them, 
 enumerating their misdeeds towards him, and praying 
 that their strife with each other may never end. 
 
 The more the chorus sees of Oedipus, the more 
 favorably inclined towards him they become, and now, 
 as if regarding his remaining in Attika as a settled 
 thing, they call his attention to the ceremony of puri- 
 fication necessary to propitiate the Eumenides, upon 
 whose sacred soil he has unwittingly intruded. They 
 describe with minute detail the process, of which he 
 is evidently entirely ignorant. The suppliant must 
 take fresh water from a flowing source in vessels 
 wreathed with wool from a young sheep, and stand- 
 ing with his face to the East, pour three libations of 
 water and honey, without wine ; then he must take 
 thrice nine twigs of the olive in his hands, and 
 utter the formula of prayer, including a reference to 
 the name Eumenides (this in a low tone), and then 
 withdraw without looking behind him. This minute 
 account of the ceremony, more minute than we find 
 elsewhere, illustrates the difference of religious usage
 
 128 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 in different communities, to which reference has 
 already been made. Oedipus, brought up at Korinth, 
 and having lived afterwards at Thebes, both within a 
 day's journey of Athens, has no knowledge of this 
 ceremony, though the deities to be propitiated seem 
 from his earlier words (vs. 99-106) to have been knowd 
 by him. For there, having been told only their 
 name, he speaks of them as averse to wine, and calls 
 them daughters of Skotos. The preciseness of the 
 directions given, and the eager attention which he 
 pays to each detail, illustrate the importance of such 
 formalities in a religion like that of the Greeks. The 
 use of any other material than lamb's wool for the fil- 
 lets, or of water from a still pool, or of twenty-four 
 twigs instead of twenty-seven, might vitiate the whole 
 process. Oedipus himself cannot go to perform this 
 rite, nor is he willing to be left alone in his blindness ; 
 so he says one of his daughters must go in his stead, 
 and Ismene volunteers to do it. We see then here 
 one of the reasons why she was introduced into the 
 action of the play. But why the poet introduced here 
 this mention of the purification, and so made it neces- 
 sary to have some one go to perform it, we cannot 
 perhaps be so sure, though we may conjecture. 
 
 After Ismene is gone, the chorus extracts from 
 Oedipus by close and persistent questioning, a con- 
 fession of the dreadful facts in his past, which he 
 cannot mention or hear mentioned without great dis- 
 tress, the murder of his father, and the union with 
 his own mother. But he insists that both deeds were
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLOXOS OF SOPHOKLES. 129 
 
 done in utter ignorance, and without thought of evil 
 on his part. This brief passage seems to be intro- 
 duced here in order to bring before us yet again his 
 freedom from guilt in the matter, and the horror with 
 which he looks back upon it all. These things are 
 impressed upon us by frequent repetition through the 
 play, and it seems necessary that they should be, that 
 we may understand the favor with which the gods at 
 last regard him. 
 
 At this point Theseus, king of Athens, comes in, 
 and the action of the play takes a new turn, the 
 second main incident beginning here. The first main 
 incident is the application of Oedipus for shelter in 
 Attika ; the second is his actual reception by the 
 highest authority of the state. The king greets 
 Oedipus by name, after briefly explaining how he 
 has made up his mind that the mysterious wanderer 
 must be he, and asks what request he has to make. 
 Oedipus tells him that he brings his own body as a 
 gift to Athens, and that if the gift is accepted, it will 
 prove a great benefit to the state. When Theseus 
 asks how, Oedipus at first puts him off by saying 
 that time will show ; but presently in answer to fur- 
 ther questions it comes out that, if Theseus will give 
 his body burial, and resist all attempts of the Thebans 
 to get him away before or after his death, then in a 
 war which shall arise between Athens and Thebes, 
 the Thebans shall be defeated at his grave. Theseus 
 now formally consents to his remaining in Attika, 
 and gives him the choice whether he will remain
 
 I3O STUDIES IX GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 where he is or go with him to Athens. He, of course, 
 remembering the oracle, decides to remain at the 
 grove of the Eumenides, and Theseus, after pledging 
 to him protection against any attack, goes away. 
 
 As if to ratify this promise of the king, and to show 
 what joys are implied in it, the chorus breaks out into 
 a well-known and exquisite song in praise of Ko- 
 lonos and of Attika. A rough version will give the 
 run of thought. First strophe : " Thou hast come, 
 wanderer, to the choicest region of this land, the white 
 hill of Kolonos, which above all others the nightingale 
 frequents, warbling plaintively among green thickets, 
 honoring the dark ivy and the deity's sacred grove, 
 rich in fruits, which never the sun nor blast of 
 any storm penetrates ; where the reveller Dionysos 
 strays with his divine attendants." Antistrophe : 
 " And by the rain from heaven is ever fostered the 
 narcissus, time-honored garland of the two great god- 
 desses, and the yellow shining crocus. Nor do the 
 sleepless rills from the Kephissos ever fail, but con- 
 tinually they flow over and fertilize with pure water 
 the hollows of the hilly land ; which land the Muses 
 do not scorn, nor does Aphrodite with golden reins." 
 Second strophe : "And there is (here) what I do not 
 hear of as belonging to Asia, nor ever growing in the 
 great Dorian peninsula the native self-propagating 
 tree, that no enemy has dared to visit, which here 
 most abounds, the gray-green wholesome olive, which 
 no warrior young or old shall ever destroy, for the all- 
 seeing eye of Zeus and the keen glance of Athena
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. 13! 
 
 watch over it." Second antistrophe : "And another 
 most choice glory have I to mention for my native 
 land, the gift of a mighty god, the glory of the horse 
 and of the sea. It is thou, O son of Kronos, lord 
 Poseidon, who hast given her this glory, in that it was 
 here that thou didst first bring the horse under the 
 restraining bit. And the oar, framed for the hand of 
 man, flies and leaps over the water of the sea, keep- 
 ing pace with the thronging Nereids." You see how 
 the poet passes from praise of the special locality, the 
 place of his own birth, to praise which includes the 
 whole land of Attika. The luxuriant growth of the 
 vines and trees mentioned may have been peculiar to 
 Kolonos, but the culture of the olive, the use of the 
 horse and of the oar, we know were not. No version 
 that I have seen gives any idea of the careful structure 
 of the ode, its balanced clauses, its chosen epithets, 
 its harmony of sound and sense. Each of the first 
 pair of stanzas ends with a brief mention of deities, 
 with whose attributes the earlier part of the verse has 
 some connection. Of the second pair, one is devoted 
 to the praise of the olive and of Athena, the other 
 speaks of the horse and the oar, and of Poseidon who 
 gave them for the use of man, thus recalling the myth 
 of the strife between these two divinities for the pos- 
 session of Attika. It is one of the most charming 
 choruses in Sophokles, and one of the few passages 
 in classical literature that show a pleasure in the 
 beauties of nature. But a modern reader notices at 
 once that there is no reference in it to what strikes
 
 132 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 us as a chief part of landscape beauty. Nothing is 
 said of the view of Kolonos, or of the view from it, 
 although the latter is one of the most delightful that 
 the modern traveller can find in the neighborhood of 
 Athens, embracing the whole plain with its olive 
 groves and houses, the Akropolis, and the other hills 
 around it, the more distant encircling mountains, and 
 at one point a broad stretch of the blue sea. There is 
 no recognition of the beauty that appeals to the eye, 
 and through it to the imagination, the beauty of dis- 
 tant outline, of ever-varying color, of combination and 
 suggestion. Instead of this we have an enumeration 
 of the several features that make the place delightful 
 or serve the uses of man and of the divinities that 
 honor it. 
 
 After this comes the third main incident of the 
 play, the efforts to remove Oedipus from his sanc- 
 tuary, and to make him take one side or the other in 
 the impending conflict at Thebes. It takes up some 
 seven hundred lines of the play, but we may pass over 
 most of it briefly ; indeed, it seems as if some of the 
 proverbial garrulousness of old age had got control of 
 the poet here. After the splendid chorus, Kreon 
 comes in, and, as Antigone says, speedily puts the 
 brave boasts of its words to the test of action. He 
 begins with a smooth speech, professing to be sent 
 from Thebes to persuade Oedipus to come home 
 and hide away among his kindred the scandal of his 
 life. But Oedipus answers him with so much in- 
 dignation and contempt, that in the wrangling that
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. 133 
 
 follows between the two, Kreon presently throws off 
 his mask, and, after boasting that he has already cap- 
 tured Ismene, directs his attendants to seize and 
 drag off Antigone. This they do in spite of the pro- 
 tests of the chorus. Then encouraged by his success 
 so far, he proceeds to attempt to drag off Oedipus 
 himself, which of course was his real aim from the 
 beginning. But now the chorus shouts so loudly for 
 help that Theseus, who is sacrificing at the altar of 
 Poseidon not far off, hears them, and comes to learn 
 what the matter is. His coming quickly changes the 
 state of things. As soon as he learns what has been 
 done, he sends off from those gathered at the sacri- 
 fice soldiers to guard the road by which the girls will 
 naturally be taken on the way to Thebes, and then, 
 after listening to Kreon's defense of his conduct, and 
 a long reply from Oedipus, requires the former to 
 guide him to the place where the girls are. 
 
 While they are gone, the chorus, unable on account 
 of their age to join in the pursuit, utter a song hav- 
 ing reference to the battle which they suppose will 
 occur. They wish they could be present at one place 
 or another where they imagine it to be going on ; 
 they predict victory for their countrymen ; they pray 
 to Zeus, Athena, and Apollo to fulfil that prediction. 
 This choral song seems designed merely to fill the 
 gap between the departure and the return of Theseus. 
 Some time must be allowed for the rescue, since it is 
 implied by line 1 148 that there was something of a 
 struggle between the two parties. But we see from
 
 134 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 the brevity of the chorus, only fifty lines, that the 
 poet was not careful to make the interval seem long 
 enough for the pursuit, the conflict, and the return ; 
 no such realism was required by anything in the 
 Greek artistic sense. 
 
 At the end of the chorus, Theseus comes in with 
 the two maidens. They are warmly welcomed by 
 their father, who also pours out his gratitude to their 
 deliverer. And here it is interesting to notice how 
 the poet avoids giving an account of the battle, which 
 he seems to have known the audience would expect, 
 and yet to have preferred for some reason not to give. 
 He makes Oedipus ask Antigone for an account of 
 what had occurred. She refers him to Theseus as 
 the proper person to tell of his own achievements. 
 So he turns to him, and, though he does not in so 
 many words ask for the story, yet he evidently ex- 
 pects it, and Theseus recognizes the unuttered wish, 
 but only to decline gratifying it on the ground that 
 he does not wish to boast of what he has himself 
 done, and what Oedipus can learn about from his 
 daughters. " Besides," says he, " another matter was 
 brought to my notice as I was coming here which 
 needs immediate attention." This announcement 
 diverts the thoughts of all parties from the battle, 
 and Oedipus himself starts and keeps up the inquiry 
 about this new matter. "They tell me," says Theseus, 
 " that a man, not a townsman of yours, but yet a kins- 
 man, has sat down as a suppliant at the altar of Po- 
 seidon where I was just now sacrificing." "Who is
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. 135 
 
 he?" asks Oedipus. "I do not know. I only know 
 he wants to speak with you, and to have safe conduct 
 away by the way he came." " But who can it be who 
 comes thus ? " " Consider whether you have any 
 relative in Argos who might have come with such a 
 request." This is enough for Oedipus, who has 
 heard from Ismene that Polyneikes had found friends 
 in Argos ; he will hear no more, and refuses at once to 
 see the man, who must of course be Polyneikes. The- 
 seus remonstrates with him, and Antigone pleads, until 
 at last he yields, and consents to his son's coming. 
 
 Again, the interval necessary to allow time for 
 summoning the suppliant is filled up with a choral 
 song, but this time it is a more interesting song than 
 before. The thought of it is suggested by the sight 
 of Oedipus as he sits there, old, blind, and poor, and 
 assailed first by the violence of Kreon, and then by 
 the hardly less hateful petition of Polyneikes. " He 
 who desires length of days nurses folly in his heart. 
 For many days bring one into sorrow and there is no 
 joy in them ; and at the end, gloomy death stands 
 waiting for all. Best of all is it never to be born ; and 
 next best to die as soon as possible and go whence 
 one came. For after the follies of youth come the 
 woes of life, jealousy, strife, conflicts, slayings ; and 
 after all these comes friendless, gloomy old age. In 
 such an old age must live not I alone but also this poor 
 man here, on whose head as on some exposed cliff beat 
 waves of calamity from all sides, from west and east 
 and south and north." This passage is one of the
 
 136 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 famous expressions in ancient literature of the sense 
 of the weariness and emptiness of human life. "All 
 is vanity and vexation of spirit." It is the more re- 
 markable as coming from a poet who was notably of 
 serene and cheerful temper, and whose life was a long 
 scene of success and happiness until perhaps its very 
 latest years. It has been used, with other passages of 
 similar purport, to show that the Greek religion had 
 nothing in it to satisfy the needs of a thoughtful spirit, 
 or again to prove that old age was necessarily a gloomy 
 and cheerless part of life to the Greeks. It does not, 
 I think, prove either of these things, though they 
 may both be true. I am not sure that we can get at 
 the true explanation of such a tone in Greek litera- 
 ture, but it seems to me to be due merely to natural 
 reaction in the midst of a life of activity and pleasure. 
 We may express the idea under various forms ; we 
 may say that the full blaze of light requires some 
 qualification of shadow, or that it was the same feel- 
 ing that prompted the proverbial presence of the 
 skeleton at the Egyptian banquets ; or we may recog- 
 nize in it the feeling that most of us have at some 
 times in youth, a perfectly natural and genuine feel- 
 ing, I think, but crude and transient, that life is hard- 
 ly worth going on with, and the world is a poor place 
 after all. I should suppose that the very brightness 
 and gayety of Greek life in general would make such 
 a contrast to be keenly felt and strongly expressed 
 by a sensitive spirit, wherever its eye was caught by 
 any of the inevitable calamities of human destiny
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. 1 37 
 
 which cannot be -wholly ignored. If such things 
 were possible in the midst of all this joy and rev- 
 elry, what is it all worth ? 
 
 After this chorus, Polyneikes appears and makes 
 the second attempt to move Oedipus from his chosen 
 resting-place. He comes in hesitatingly, evidently 
 in doubt as to his reception, and addresses first his 
 sisters, speaking of his father in the third person. 
 Presently he gets up courage to address his father 
 directly, but failing to get any answer he turns again 
 to his sisters and asks them to help him move his 
 father's will. Antigone encourages him to go on 
 with his appeal, and to expect an answer at the end. 
 So he tells the story of his quarrel with his brother, 
 his exile, and his alliance with Argos ; he enumerates 
 the heroes who are engaged with him in the attack 
 upon Thebes, and urges his father to give him the help 
 of his presence. For the oracle, as he understands it, 
 promises victory to the party in that struggle (not in 
 a struggle between Thebes and Athens, as Oedipus 
 has heretofore represented it) which shall have with 
 it the person of the old hero. Oedipus hears him 
 through and then calmly proceeds not only to decline 
 his request, but to curse both of his sons in solemn 
 form, praying that they may die by each other's hand. 
 The solemnity and elaborate fulness with which this 
 curse is uttered and repeated show how prominent 
 and important an element of the story it was. Upon 
 it depends apparently the necessity of that insepara- 
 ble part of the legend, the meeting of the two
 
 138 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 brothers in battle and their killing- each other. Yet 
 the poet seems plainly to show us in the lines which 
 follow that there was no such necessity of sequence 
 as to hamper the free will of either brother. For in 
 these next lines Antigone pleads with Polyneikes to 
 give up the expedition against Thebes, and thus frus- 
 trate that part of the terrible curse. Just so in the 
 Seven against Thebes of Aeschylos, the chorus pleads 
 with Eteokles not to put himself in the defense of the 
 city just where he will be sure to meet his brother. 
 In both cases we see that the brothers might have 
 avoided their sad fate, but in both the pride of mili- 
 tary honor is too strong. Thus we see that in this 
 case, as I believe in all other cases in Greek tragedy, 
 the calamity of an individual is due, not to a resistless 
 fate, but to some error or sin of his own doing. 
 
 Scarcely has Polyneikes withdrawn in dejection 
 and disgrace, when the fourth and last main incident 
 of the play, the passing of Oedipus, begins. It is 
 ushered in by a peal of thunder, the meaning of which 
 Oedipus instantly recognizes. He asks that The- 
 seus be sent for at once. The dialogue between him 
 and Antigone is repeatedly interrupted by short stan- 
 zas from the chorus, which describe the repeated 
 thunderings, reveal the excitement into which the 
 chorus is thrown, and must have produced in the 
 audience, by breaking in thus with quick exclama- 
 tions in impassioned metre, a similar effect of excite- 
 ment and confusion. Oedipus repeats and urges 
 his desire that Theseus should come, and, at the end
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. 139 
 
 of the last choral stanza which calls loudly for him, 
 the king appears. Oedipus at once becomes calm, and 
 with great dignity assumes the direction of matters. 
 He tells Theseus that these peals of thunder are a 
 summons to him to go into the other world. He 
 tells him that he, Theseus, alone must go with him 
 to the appointed spot which, in order to ensure the 
 safety of Athens in conflict with the neighboring 
 States, he must keep secret from every one, only 
 imparting the knowledge to his successor when his 
 own life draws near its end. (Thus the poet ingeni- 
 ously accounts for the fact that in his day no one 
 knew the spot where Oedipus had died.) Then the 
 old man rises in his blindness and becomes in his 
 turn the leader of the others, his daughters being 
 allowed to accompany him for part of the way. As 
 they go off the stage, the chorus begins its last choral 
 song, which is a prayer to the deities of the lower 
 world to give to Oedipus an easy death and a kindly 
 welcome into their domain. 
 
 At the end of this choral song, a messenger appears 
 and gives the chorus an account of the last that was 
 seen of Oedipus. He tells how he led them along 
 to a place which he describes, but by landmarks which 
 no longer exist ; a place where apparently there was 
 thought to be an entrance to the lower world. Here 
 he sat down, and stripping off his old rags bade his 
 daughters bring him water for a bath and a libation. 
 When this was done and he had put on other clothes, 
 there was heard a peal of thunder from below the
 
 I4O STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 ground, whereupon he began to bid an affectionate 
 farewell to his daughters. At a pause in their weep- 
 ing over each other, there came an awful voice, call- 
 ing, " You there, Oedipus ! Why delay we so ? It is 
 a long time that we are waiting for you." At this he 
 must go; he only lingers to commit the maidens 
 solemnly under an oath to the care of Theseus, and 
 then bids them go away that they may not see what 
 becomes of him. When they have withdrawn and 
 waited a little while, they look back and see Theseus 
 standing there alone, shading his eyes with his hand 
 as if some supernatural sight was before him. They 
 look again presently and see him doing reverence to 
 the earth beneath and at the same time to the heavenly 
 Olympus. And no man to-day, except Theseus, 
 knows any more what became of Oedipus. 
 
 After this the rest of the party who had gone with the 
 old man return, and the two maidens utter their sor- 
 row in a long kommos, in which the chorus join. At 
 last Theseus bids them stop lest they offend the gods 
 by too protracted lamentation. Antigone, in her 
 blind sorrow, begs him to let them see their father's 
 grave, but he refuses because Oedipus had required 
 him not to show it to any one. She acquiesces then 
 and asks him to send them back to Thebes that, if 
 possible, they may prevent the threatened fatal con- 
 flict between their brothers. This he promises to do, 
 and so the play ends.
 
 THE OEDIPUS AT KOLONOS OF SOPHOKLES. 14! 
 
 NOTE. As to the plot : Really no dramatic element. Skill of poet 
 in working in incidents so as to give as much action as possible to the 
 play. In this like the Prometheus. There, after the prologue, we have 
 a motionless figure, approached in various ways with attempts to sway 
 his will. So here, after the reception of Oedipus, two unavailing 
 efforts are made to change his purpose. In fact, he, the central figure, 
 sits still in one place for thirteen hundred lines, from 202 to 1540. 
 Variety of incidents to make up for this: Theseus comes in four times; 
 the purification, the violent proceedings of Kreon, the conflict brought 
 almost before our eyes by the choral song about it, the mysterious sum- 
 mons by the thunder peals. 
 
 Natural sequence of incidents, especially at the beginning; acci- 
 dental meeting with wayfarer; motive of introducing chorus; device 
 for keeping Theseus in the neighborhood (cf. 888 with 54 f., 1494 f.). 
 
 Reasons for introducing Ismene. She brings the news of Kreon's 
 coming, so that Oedipus is prepared for that. Also, she makes known 
 to him the quarrel between the two brothers, and their knowledge of 
 the oracle. This prepares him to receive Polyneikes as he would wish 
 to do. She also supplies somebody to go and perform the rite of puri- 
 fication at the proper place, and her being there, or on the way, enables 
 Kreon to boast of having already captured her. 
 
 It may be noted that there is no subsequent reference to this rite of 
 purification which Ismene was sent to perform. We do not know 
 whether it was done or not before Kreon seized her. Furthermore, it 
 does not appear why he should have seized her as a captive except as a 
 mere wanton outrage to the feelings of Oedipus. For nothing is said 
 that implies any intention on her part to abandon Thebes and join her 
 father in his wandering. Why should she not go back with her steed 
 and attendant to Thebes to live, as she had done once before? The 
 seizure of Antigone took away the sole companion and the eyes of 
 Oedipus, but not so that of Ismene. 
 
 Other difficulties of plot that have been noted are of little or no 
 real importance. 
 
 Relations of Athens to Thebes implied cannot be satisfactorily 
 explained. Much friendly language, yet a conflict anticipated; per- 
 haps the sheltering of Oedipus ought to be regarded as an unfriendly 
 act. But the myth required it, and perhaps the poet did not concern 
 himself with either political relations or contradictions.
 
 VI. 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE ANTIGONE OF 
 SOPHOKLES. 
 
 THE prologue is a conversation between Antigone 
 and her sister Ismene. It is accounted for in the 
 most natural way : Antigone the freer, more active 
 and wide-awake character, has heard some important 
 news which the quieter Ismene has not heard, and it 
 is news the first hearing of which may probably lead 
 to her committing herself to some action in view of 
 it. So Antigone, having made up her own mind, 
 contrives an interview with her sister alone, early in 
 the morning, and tells her that Kreon has decreed 
 that Polyneikes must be left unburied as a penalty 
 for making war on his native city. Antigone, how- 
 ever, has resolved to bury her brother in spite of this 
 decree, and urges her sister to join her in discharging 
 this religious duty. Ismene is too timid or too pru- 
 dent to venture such defiance of authority, and strives 
 to persuade Antigone by every argument she can 
 think of not to persist ; but it is all in vain, and they 
 part without cither's having affected the other's 
 purpose. This prologue gives us in brief the theme 
 of the play, the conflict which constitutes the tragic 
 situation. Ismene represents the general attitude, 
 that of everybody except Antigone, she disapproves
 
 144 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 the decree, but feels that she must obey it ; she ad- 
 mires Antigone's purpose, but cannot bring herself 
 to make it her own. Thus we see the same event 
 acting differently on two different characters, and so 
 developing them in opposite directions. 
 
 When the sisters have withdrawn, the chorus comes 
 in, singing the parados. This is one of the finest 
 choral songs in Sophokles. It is a song of triumph 
 over the deliverance of the city and the repulse of 
 the enemy. It is made up of alternate lyric and 
 anapaestic stanzas. The first and fourth lyric stanzas 
 express the joy of the delivered city, the second and 
 third describe the repulse of the foe. The first and 
 third anapaestic passages allude to the unpatriotic 
 action of Polyneikes and the mutual slaughter of the 
 two brothers, thus mingling thoughts of evil with 
 the general strain of joy ; the second celebrates the 
 special intervention of Zeus to punish the pride of 
 the assailants, and the last merely announces the 
 coming in of Kreon. The variation of thought ac- 
 companies the change of metre, and the choice of 
 words is such as to express the thought most clearly 
 and precisely, and at the same time with richness of 
 suggestion and ornament. The whole is full of bright- 
 ness and vigor, in harmony with the sunrise with 
 which it opens. 
 
 Kreon comes in as announced, and addresses a 
 speech to the assembled elders, complimenting them 
 for their past loyalty, declaring his purpose to rule 
 with firmness and patriotism, and formally publishing
 
 THE ANTIGONE OF SOPHOKLES. 145 
 
 his decree in regard to Polyneikes. The chorus bows 
 to the will of the king, and seems to agree to give its 
 support to the new decree. It asserts its belief, 
 however, that no action will be needed, for no one 
 will be so foolish as to disobey, with the penalty of 
 death before him. Scarcely are the words uttered, 
 when one of the guards appointed by the king to 
 watch the body of Polyneikes and see that no one 
 buries it, comes hurriedly in to tell him that in spite 
 of their watching the deed has been done. Here we 
 have one of the best examples of character-talk in 
 the Greek drama. The man tells everything else 
 before he gets to his real message, describes his 
 own reluctance to come with it, in the dramatic form 
 peculiar to common people, evades the king's ques- 
 tions, and lets his own concern in the matter intrude 
 itself, until the reader is in full sympathy with the 
 king's impatience. Then at last he tells how at sun- 
 rise they found the body strown over with dust, and 
 how he was chosen by lot to bring the news. The 
 king is very angry, and utters at once his belief that 
 a party among the people hostile to his rule have 
 bribed some of the guards to do this thing. Then he 
 dismisses the guard with heavy threats of punishment 
 for him and his comrades if they do not detect the 
 criminal. 
 
 After this comes a choral song of very different 
 character from the previous one. This belongs to 
 the reflective, philosophic type, and is an excellent 
 example of it. Ignorant who has done this deed just
 
 146 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 reported, and shocked at the daring shown in it, the 
 chorus breaks out thus : " Many are the things that 
 excite my awe and wonder, but none more so than 
 the nature of man ! " Then it enumerates the 
 achievements of man which show the boldness, rest- 
 lessness, and ingenuity of his spirit ; how he has 
 made the stormy sea his pathway, how he makes the 
 earth yield him food, how he ensnares birds, wild 
 beasts, and fishes, and has tamed the horse and the 
 bull ; the invention of speech, of laws, of house- 
 building, the cure of diseases ; how for everything he 
 has some device, except that he cannot escape death. 
 Now all this wisdom, if guided to right ends, is a 
 blessing, but if a man seeks wrong ends by it, it is a 
 curse, and here evidently they have in mind him 
 who has set at defiance Kreon's decree. To this 
 choral song there is a number of parallels, as to the 
 type; and there are similar passages not in choral 
 form, in which is given a brief history, as it were, of 
 civilization, notably one in the Prometheus, where 
 all the arts of civilized life are ascribed to his gift. 
 It is noteworthy that Sophokles here ascribes to 
 man's daring and inventiveness the very things which 
 elsewhere are regarded as taught by gods or heroes 
 to men. This simply illustrates the absence of fixed 
 systematic doctrine in the Greek religion. Each 
 poet might represent things on each occasion as the 
 occasion demanded ; or as his own tradition said, even 
 if it conflicted with other tradition. 
 At the end of the choral song is an anapaestic stanza
 
 THE ANTIGONE OF SOPHOKLES. 147 
 
 in which the entrance of Antigone under guard as a 
 criminal is announced. Kreon opportunely comes 
 out from the palace at the same moment (why, we are 
 not told), and to him the guard, the same man who 
 had come before, reports with something of the same 
 style as before (unable to leave out of view his own 
 feelings and opinions) that they had caught Antigone 
 in the act of performing burial rites over the body 
 of Polyneikes. In answer to Kreon's question she 
 confesses the deed ; thereupon, he dismisses the guard 
 and asks Antigone how she has dared to defy his 
 command. In reply she utters the famous lines 
 avowing a belief in divine law as superior to any 
 human enactment whatever. Thus she justifies her 
 action and declares herself ready to meet the conse- 
 quences of it. But this plea is of no avail in the eyes 
 of Kreon. His mind is filled, to the exclusion of 
 everything else, with the idea that his decree has 
 been set at naught, and that all opposition to it must 
 be put down by force. He is not at all embarrassed 
 by the proved falseness of his previous theory that 
 the guards had been bribed by disaffected citizens to 
 bury Polyneikes ; but he rages against Antigone as if 
 he had all along known that she was the criminal. 
 He includes Ismene, too, in his fury, and, without any 
 reasonable ground of suspicion, sends for her to 
 answer the charge of complicity. Meanwhile the argu- 
 ment between him and Antigone goes on until it is 
 interrupted by an isolated anapaestic stanza from the 
 chorus, announcing the approach of Ismene. She
 
 148 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 comes in weeping, and is rudely asked by Kreon 
 whether she had a share in the burying of her 
 brother. To our surprise she answers that she had, 
 if Antigone says so. This is one of the delicate 
 touches of the poet in illustrating character. The 
 timid girl, who has urged her bolder sister not to 
 venture such a deed, is now so ^influenced by the 
 heroic act and critical position of Antigone that she 
 wants to be with her in everything. She could not 
 share her daring before, but she can share her death 
 now. But Antigone, of course, will not consent to 
 this. In the dialogue that follows she seems to us 
 needlessly harsh and cruel to Ismene. Perhaps all 
 we can say about it is that the poet so conceived her 
 character, that in this trying situation, with every 
 nerve held tense in the purpose to meet death in any 
 form without flinching, she would naturally be unable 
 to make allowance for feebler spirits, or to allow her- 
 self any moment of tender feeling. Such seems to 
 be her attitude here, and we must admit that the 
 impression her words make is a painful one. Yet 
 they do not chill the affection of Ismene, for, when 
 Kreon interrupts the dialogue of the sisters, she 
 turns to him and pleads, but in vain, for the life of 
 Antigone. She is the first to mention Haemon, the 
 son of Kreon, betrothed to Antigone, and thus the 
 way is prepared for his appearance, in the next scene. 
 Kreon orders both the sisters to be led into the 
 house, the proper place, he says, for women. 
 
 Then comes the third choral song, of similar type
 
 THE ANTIGONE OF SOPHOKLES. 149 
 
 with the one immediately preceding, yet not quite the 
 same. That was entirely abstract and general in its 
 thought, with no explicit reference to the special 
 occasion ; this begins and ends with general reflec- 
 tions, but between them comes a verse applying them 
 to the case in hand. It opens with a text, as it were : 
 " O, blest are they whose lives are free from touch of 
 woe ! " Then comes a magnificent simile, in which 
 the successive calamities that befall some doomed 
 families are likened to the billows that sweep on the 
 Aegean sea, driven by a north-east gale from Thrace, 
 and dashed on the shores of Greece, full of sand and 
 sea-weed. The antistrophe sees in the Labdakidae, 
 the royal family of Thebes, a case like this ; Labda- 
 kos, Laios, lokasta, Oedipus and his two sons, have 
 all perished miserably, and now Antigone, the last of 
 the race (the existence of Ismene being ignored for 
 the moment), is to be cut off. The second strophe 
 magnifies in noble language the sleepless, immortal, 
 irresistible power of Zeus whose offended law brings 
 on these calamities. Yet not without the sin of 
 man, the antistrophe adds, for it is by his vain hopes 
 and foolish desires that he is led into trouble, accord- 
 ing to the old saying that evil seems good to him 
 whose mind is set on wickedness. Here we see that 
 the feeling of dread of evil, which has been an under- 
 tone in previous choruses, a single thread interwoven 
 with a different texture, comes to be the dominant 
 tone; and so it remains, with but a single partial 
 exception, through the rest of the play.
 
 150 STUDIES IX GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 At the end of this choral song is an anapaestic 
 stanza introducing Haemon. Kreon at once asks him 
 on which side of the controversy he stands, to which 
 Haemon gives an ingeniously ambiguous answer. 
 Kreon construes it as positively in his favor, yet 
 shows his inward doubt by going on to give his son 
 a long lecture on his duty, proving by a variety of 
 arguments the importance of pleasing one's father, 
 and of maintaining the government under which one 
 lives. Haemon then, in a speech of equal length, 
 utters his views plainly, claiming for himself a right 
 of independent judgment, telling his father how the 
 citizens condemn the threatened punishment of An- 
 tigone, and urging him not to persist to the extreme 
 of obstinacy in seeing only one side of the matter, 
 and sticking to his own opinion. They go on from 
 this, disputing in single verses, until both get thor- 
 oughly angry. Finally Kreon orders Antigone to be 
 brought and put to death in presence of Haemon, 
 upon which the latter rushes away, vowing never to 
 see his father again. Kreon in his passion says that 
 both the sisters shall die, but at the suggestion of the 
 chorus admits that Ismene cannot be included in the 
 penalty. But, instead of the death by stoning, which 
 Antigone had heard was to be inflicted, he now sub- 
 stitutes death by starvation in an underground cham- 
 ber, apparently as the more cruel form. 
 
 Here comes in a short choral song of two stanzas 
 celebrating the resistless power of love, suggested 
 apparently by the boldness which that passion had
 
 THE ANTIGONE OF SOPHOKLES. 151 
 
 imparted to Haemon in standing up against his 
 father's will. At its close an anapaestic stanza again 
 announces the coming of Antigone on her way to 
 death. It makes also the transition to the ensuing 
 kommos, in which Antigone laments her fate, in lyric 
 stanzas, and the chorus responds, comforting or 
 rebuking her, first in anapaestic and then in iambic 
 dimeters. It has seemed to some that these lamen- 
 tations of Antigone's were tedious and protracted 
 beyond the limits of good taste ; to others, that they 
 were out of character in the heroic girl who had 
 dared to do the forbidden deed and then to defend it 
 so bravely. The first of these criticisms I think has 
 been sufficiently answered in the preface to President 
 Woolsey's edition of the play. As to the other, it 
 should be said that such laments seem natural to any 
 human being in the immediate prospect of such a 
 death, and that it would be unnatural for a young and 
 tenderly reared woman to suppress them. Further- 
 more, there is nothing in them that implies the least 
 repentance for her act. If Kreon had offered her 
 pardon on condition of any form of recantation, we 
 can have no doubt with what scorn she would have 
 treated the offer. Her latest words show that she 
 still thinks that what she did was right, and these 
 laments are simply the natural utterances of grief at 
 being cut off from life in all the freshness of her 
 youth. It does not imply any failure of her courage, 
 that she recognizes the horrors of the fate before her, 
 and pours out her grief about it.
 
 152 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 As might be expected, these laments are not 
 very gratifying to Kreon's ear, and presently he 
 comes out to stop them and hurry her on her way. 
 But the poet allows her time for another long address 
 in iambics. She greets the tomb which is to be her 
 bridal chamber, and the members of her family who 
 have died before her. She justifies her conduct in dar- 
 ing so much for her brother's sake. She appeals to the 
 gods to convince her of error in what she has done, 
 or to avenge the wrong she suffers. Finally Kreon 
 threatens those in charge of her with punishment if 
 they let her linger any more, and then at length she 
 really goes. Her last words are, " See what I am 
 suffering for having fulfilled a religious duty ! " As 
 she goes off, the chorus addresses to her the fifth 
 stasimon. This belongs to the mythological type, so 
 to call it, consisting wholly of an enumeration of 
 mythical characters whose fate was in one point or 
 another parallel to the one a propos of which they 
 are mentioned. Here we have first Danae, who was 
 shut up in a tomb-like box, then Lykurgos, king of 
 the Edones, who was imprisoned in a rock-cut cham- 
 ber, and last, Kleopatra, wife of Phineus, and her two 
 sons, who were likewise put in confinement, although 
 she was of divine parentage. 
 
 At the end of this chorus, without the anapaestic 
 announcement usual in this play, a new person 
 appears. It is Teiresias, the blind seer, who comes 
 unbidden to tell Kreon what his prophetic art has just 
 been making known to him. By both methods of
 
 THE ANTIGONE OF SOPHOKLES. 153 
 
 divination, the actions of birds and the condition of 
 victims on the altar, he has learned that something 
 is wrong, and he is convinced that the gods are 
 offended by the fact that pieces of the unburied body 
 of Polyneikes are brought near their altars by dogs 
 and unclean birds. Therefore he advises Kreon, in 
 much the same terms that Haemon had used, to lay 
 aside his wrath and let the body be buried. But 
 Kreon is in no mood for this. Forgetting how mis- 
 taken his former assumption had proved to be, that 
 some one had bribed the guards to defeat his pur- 
 pose, he at once makes the same assumption quite 
 as confidently about the prophet, that he has 
 been bribed, and declares violently that nothing 
 shall make him swerve from his purpose, not even if 
 the throne itself of Zeus be polluted by pieces of the 
 corpse. They wrangle together for a few lines, and 
 then Teiresias exercises the other function of his 
 office, that of foretelling the future, and solemnly 
 warns Kreon that within a short time he must give 
 up a life out of his own family in exchange for the life 
 of Antigone, and to atone for his offense against the 
 powers of the world below in denying burial to the 
 corpse. He then withdraws, leaving Kreon dis- 
 tressed and terrified by his prophecy. The more 
 stubborn he has been, the more completely he now 
 breaks down, as soon as he is really frightened. He 
 turns to the chorus for advice, which it eagerly 
 gives him, and in obedience to it he hurries away to 
 release Antigone and to have the corpse duly buried.
 
 154 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 While he is gone the chorus breaks out in a prayer 
 to Bacchus to come and purify the city from its pol- 
 lution. It is in the form of a hyporchema, or a song 
 accompanied by a rapid dance movement. It refers 
 to the titles of the god, enumerates the places which 
 he most frequents and from some one of which they 
 pray him to come, urges the claims of Thebes to his 
 special favor, and closes with honorific descriptions 
 of his glories. It is one of the best examples we have 
 of such a combination of hymn and prayer, and gives 
 a clear idea of the Greek mind in the attitude of devo- 
 tion. Now the play hastens to its close. A mes- 
 senger comes in and after some moralizing tells the 
 fact of the death of Haemon. Haemon's mother Eury- 
 dike appears on her way to pray at the temple of Pal- 
 las, and overhearing the messenger's words requires of 
 him a full account of what has happened. So he tells 
 her how he went in attendance on her husband, and 
 how they performed duly the funeral rites over the 
 corpse. Thence they went to the prison of Antigone, 
 but here they were too late. Antigone had hung 
 herself, and Haemon was there mourning over her 
 dead body. At sight of his father he drew his 
 sword and rushed upon him, but when Kreon escaped 
 by flight, he turned and threw himself upon his sword 
 and so perished with his intended bride. At the end 
 of his story, Eurydike, giving up her own useless visit 
 to the temple, goes back into the palace without a 
 word, in a way which seems ominous of evil. 
 
 Again, a detached anapaestic stanza announces a
 
 THE ANTIGONE OF SOPHOKLES. 155 
 
 new comer, and Kreon enters, bearing the body of his 
 son, and bitterly lamenting his death, which he con- 
 fesses that he himself has caused. In the midst of 
 his self-reproachings, a messenger comes out from 
 the palace and informs him that his wife Eurydike 
 has just committed suicide on hearing of the death 
 of her son. This of course redoubles his grief, and 
 the play closes, leaving him in this deserved misery, 
 with a reflection by the chorus on the folly of such 
 sinful and obstinate self-will. 
 
 JOTTINGS. 
 
 CHARACTER OF ANTIGONE. Not an ideal woman, nor drawn 
 directly from any Greek woman of the poet's time or in history; a fig- 
 ure of heroic stature, embodying and possessed by one principle or 
 idea. Suppose a modern poet to try to give such a picture of Jael, or 
 Judith; it would not be a pleasing picture. It is remarkable how the poet 
 here seems to strive to soften by hints what in direct depicting he must 
 make hard and severe; note her relation to Haemon, her apparent popu- 
 larity as shown by what he says of public sentiment about her death, 
 her occasional expressions of affection to her family, especially verses 
 897 ff. For it must be borne in mind that she is not an embodiment of 
 sisterly love, though it is often said that she is. It is not primarily love 
 to her brother that made her do her bold deed, but another sentiment, 
 strange to us but very familiar and powerful in the Greek mind, that of 
 the religious obligation of members of a family to the dead of the family. 
 This is shown by her defense, vv. 45 ff. This fulfilment of duty natu- 
 rally endears her to the dead members of the family, especially Poly- 
 neikes (vv. 81, 899 f.), and it also naturally implies love to them, but 
 does not proceed wholly from that feeling. The common view that it 
 does, belittles the heroic figure of Antigone by as much as a sentiment, 
 even a natural and pure one, such as family affection, is in itself a less 
 noble thing than a keen and strong sense of duty. 
 
 Antigone or Kreon right? A question much discussed at one time. 
 Of possible combinations only three probable Antigone all right and
 
 156 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 Kreon all wrong; Antigone all right and Kreon partly so; each partly 
 right and partly wrong. Last seems most probable. That a tragic 
 conflict should interest us, it seems almost necessary that there should 
 be some measure or, at least, appearance of right on each side. That 
 a tragic hero should be the best possible, he or she ought to be a noble 
 character with some fault or defect shown in play. 
 
 Is Antigone's deed a failure? see Hellenica. 
 
 The Antigone in many respects a typical Greek tragedy. Almost 
 no plot. (The Oedipus Rex a notable exception to this rule) . One 
 leading character with no development; others as foils or opponents, 
 
 here three, as in Prometheus, Oedipus Coloneus, Electra. Chorus 
 in neutral position, advising moderation to both parties. Chorus of 
 elders, as in Persae, Agamemnon, Oedipus Rex, Oediptis Coloneus. 
 In disposition of parts, prologos, parados, etc., quite regular. Epic 
 element in narrative. 
 
 Why is Ismene in prologos? No other fit confidant. First coming 
 of guard is natural in the story, it serves to show Kreon's character 
 in treatment of him. The arrest of Ismene by bringing her again upon 
 the stage enables the poet to show in a new light the character of An- 
 tigone. Kreon sins against a law of family, and is punished in family. 
 
 Introduction of Haemon an invention of Sophokles. 
 
 Faults of play : Argumentation between Kreon and Haemon too 
 much like wrangling in court. Something of it in all Sophokles's 
 plays, but in Philoktetes it is not offensive. None of it in Aeschylus, 
 unless in Eumenides, but that is a court scene. 
 
 No motive for Kreon's going away at v. 326, or coming back at v. 
 386.
 
 VII. 
 
 THE BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITER- 
 ATURE IN GREECE. 1 
 
 A N article on the above subject by Professor F. A. 
 Paley in Fraser's Magazine for March, 1880, fur- 
 nishes an occasion for some criticism and for a state- 
 ment of the grounds of an opinion differing somewhat 
 from the one there maintained. I will first state as 
 briefly as possible the arguments and conclusions of 
 Paley's article, with comments, and then present what 
 evidence I can in favor of a different view. 
 
 Mr. Paley's general proposition is, that there is no 
 evidence of the use of writing to multiply copies of 
 books until a much later date than is ordinarily sup- 
 posed. It is difficult to determine precisely to what 
 date he would bring it down, for his statements do not 
 agree with one another. In one place he speaks of 
 "the times of the Alexandrine school of learning, 
 when, for the first time (the italics are his), the use 
 of papyrus and the practice of transcription became 
 common." But a page or two later he says, "Books 
 were no sooner introduced than they became both 
 popular and cheap. Treatises on eloquence, as those 
 
 1 Reprinted from Transactions of American Philological Association, 
 1880.
 
 158 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 by Tisias and Corax, mentioned in the Phaedrus, 
 the stories of Aesop, and the philosophical dogmas of 
 Anaxagoras, could be bought at Athens, in the time 
 of Plato, for a very small sum." It is not easy to see 
 how books could be " popular and cheap in the time 
 of Plato," a hundred years before the time when first 
 " the use of papyrus and the practice of transcription 
 became common." But we will take the alternative 
 which involves least divergence from the common 
 opinion, and suppose Mr. Paley to mean, as indeed 
 the whole drift of the article indicates, that the use 
 of writing for books did not become common in 
 Greece until after 400 B.C., and in fact was hardly 
 known at all before that date. I may say here at the 
 outset that my own belief is, that it was introduced 
 as much as fifty years earlier, and was fully estab- 
 lished and familiar for some years before 400 B.C. 
 
 The first argument for Mr. Paley's view is drawn, 
 he says, from " the singular, significant, and most im- 
 portant fact which, so far as I am aware, has never 
 been noticed, that the Greek language, so copious, so 
 expressive, not only has no proper verbs equivalent 
 to the Roman legere and scribere, but has no terms at 
 all for any one of the implements or materials so 
 familiar to us in connection with writing (pen, ink, 
 paper, book, library, copy, transcript, etc.), till a com- 
 paratively late period of the language." Then in a 
 note he explains that " the Greek equivalent to legere 
 means, to speak, and that to scribere means properly, 
 to draw or paint." The latter "came to be used of
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. 159 
 
 writing because it (i.e., writing) was at first an adjunct 
 to descriptive painting." " The Greek had two verbs 
 which indirectly express reading, but they are clumsy 
 shifts, unworthy of so complete a language, the one 
 meaning recognoscere, the other sibi colligere." I have 
 quoted this in full because it seems so strange a pro- 
 cess of reasoning that I could hardly trust myself to 
 summarize it correctly. If it proves anything, it 
 proves that the Romans began to read and write earlier, 
 or at least earlier relatively to the development of their 
 language, than the Greeks. No language, of course, 
 can have a word for either of these ideas (or any 
 other) before the thing expressed by the word is 
 known to the speakers of the language, but it does 
 not appear that the use of the compound form (eVt- 
 Xeyoyu-at) proves any less frequency or familiarity with 
 the thing than the use of the simple form (legere). 
 Further, legere has other senses besides to read, and 
 apparently does not mean to read before the time of 
 Cicero. On the other hand, as was suggested to me 
 by Mr. F. B. Tarbell, Xeyw, at least once in Plato 
 (Thcaet. 143 C.), and repeatedly in the orators, has 
 the sense to read aloud, to recite from a manuscript. 
 No such inference as is drawn by Mr. Paley from the 
 use of different stems or simple and compound forms 
 in kindred languages has any validity. One might as 
 well argue from the fact that the same stem in mod- 
 ern German means to speak (reden) and in modern 
 English to read, that the Germans talked more than 
 the English, and the English read more than the Ger-
 
 I6O STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 mans. As to scribere and ypdfatv, Mr. Paley arbi- 
 trarily assumes, without any reason, I think, that all 
 the uses of ^pdfyeiv and its derivatives, before the 
 Periklean age, refer to painting or to scratching on a 
 hard surface. The truth is rather that ypdfaiv means 
 both of these, and after writing with ink is introduced, 
 means that too, and the special meaning in each case 
 must be determined by other considerations. That 
 scribere means only to write, indicates merely that the 
 literature from which we learn its meaning belongs 
 to a period when writing was a familiar art. The 
 alleged absence of the words for pen, ink, paper, etc., 
 will be referred to below. 
 
 How, then, it will be asked, is the existence of the 
 earlier Greek literature, or rather the preservation of 
 it to later times, to be explained ? How is it that we 
 have any fragments of the early historians, and the 
 whole work of Herodotos and Thukydides ? Mr. 
 Paley anticipates this question, and answers that in 
 his opinion, " authors of works laboriously wrote 
 them on strips of wood, probably on a surface pre- 
 pared with wax." These autograph copies were the 
 only ones in existence, and the only way of publish- 
 ing a book was by public readings from these copies. 
 He doubts whether it would have been possible to pro- 
 cure for money a copy of the histories of Herodotos or 
 Thukydides in the lifetime of the authors. His reason 
 for this view is that he finds no proof that the earlier 
 Greeks had any writing-material equivalent to our pa- 
 per or parchment. There are, to be sure, several pas-
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. l6l 
 
 sages, to be cited presently, where the words for papy- 
 rus, paper, and parchment occur, but because they are 
 brief passages, or the only instances, he seems to think 
 they have no weight. Yet it would seem as if a single 
 occurrence of the word kerosene in a book printed 
 before 1 846, or of wigwam in a book earlier than the 
 discovery of America, would be enough to show 
 knowledge of the existence of the thing denoted by 
 the word. 
 
 Mr. Paley's next argument is the absence of refer- 
 ence in the writers of the Periklean age, particularly 
 Herodotos, Thukydides, and Plato, to the works of 
 their predecessors. Such reference, he thinks, would 
 certainly have been made if the later writers had had 
 access to copies of the earlier works, and the compar- 
 ative absence of it proves that no such copies were 
 within their reach. 
 
 There are, it is true, remarkably few references by 
 name to previous writers in the early Greek litera- 
 ture, but Mr. Paley seems to have overlooked several 
 passages in Herodotos, where it is clearly implied 
 that he consulted some kind of records or accounts of 
 the events he narrates, or descriptions of states whose 
 form of government he speaks of. They are as fol- 
 lows : 6 : 5 5 real ravra fiev vvv irepl rovrcov 
 ort, Be eovres AiyvTrriot, KCU ore aTroSegdpev 
 ra? A&)pte<wy ySacrtX^/a?, aXXotcri yap Trepl avrwv eipr)- 
 rai, edo-opev avrd- ra Be a\\oi ov Karekd/SovTO, rov- 
 rwv /jbvrifjiTrjv Trot^cro/zat, and then he goes on to speak 
 of the privileges and functions of the Spartan kings.
 
 1 62 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 9:81 6(ra /J,ev vvv e^atpera rotai apKTTevo-acrc avrwv 
 ev TI\aTaifj(ri eSodr), ou Xeyerat vrpo? ov8afj,a)v, 8o/ce&> &' 
 ejcaje KOI TOVTOKTI Sodrjvat. A similar expression 
 occurs in 8 : 133 o n p,ev /JoyXo/xeyo? . . . ravra eVere'X- 
 Xero, OVK e^co fypdaai ov yap \ejerat 8oe&) S' eywye 
 KT\. These passages plainly indicate that he had ac- 
 cess, not merely to inscriptions and formal public 
 records, but to writings prepared for the information 
 of inquirers, and discussing the motives of actions 
 as well as describing the early history of states. (The 
 use of authorities by Herodotos is treated by Rawlin- 
 son in his Introduction, chapter II.) But it remains 
 true, as Mr. Paley says, that there are exceedingly 
 few quotations by name of these earlier writers. 
 
 Plato quotes Akusilaos once, Thukydides quotes 
 Hellanikos once, Herodotos refers to Hekataeos three 
 or four times but beyond these few instances there 
 is no recognition by these writers of the many per- 
 sons who are said to have written prose before their 
 time. Here Mr. Paley touches upon a singular fact 
 which certainly is not easy of explanation. The most 
 striking instance of it, perhaps, is the case of Thuky- 
 dides, who is not mentioned, I believe, by any writer 
 whose works we have, earlier than Dionysios of Hali- 
 karnassos, in the last century before the Christian era. 
 But this fact will not bear the interpretation Mr. 
 Paley puts upon it. It is true also in the next cen- 
 tury, when books were common. Aristotle does not 
 mention Hekataeos, Hellanikos, Akusilaos, Thukyd- 
 ides, or Xenophon. Plato does not quote from Xen-
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. 163 
 
 ophon, nor Xenophon from Plato. 1 A similar failure 
 appears in the argument which Mr. Paley bases upon 
 the statement in the Phaedros of Plato, that Lysias 
 was taunted with being a \oyoy pdfos, speeck-ivriter, as 
 almost the same with being a sophist. Mr. Paley 
 regards this as " satirizing a practice which was then 
 beginning to come into vogue." But the same con- 
 tempt for \oyoy pd(f>ot and cro^to-rat together is 
 expressed in Dem. de Falsa Legatione, a speech 
 delivered in 342 B.C., long after the use of writing 
 must have been familiar. It is plain that it is not the 
 mere writing of the speech that is objected to, but 
 the professional composition of speeches for others 
 to use. 
 
 As the lack of reference to previous writers is mere 
 negative evidence, Mr. Paley supplements it by the fact 
 that Thukydides, in attempting to sketch the early his- 
 tory of Greece, is obliged to rest upon "inference, mem- 
 ory, hearsay." He has no current written literature 
 to appeal to, and this is made to show that the pre- 
 vious historians, Herodotos and his predecessors, 
 were not accessible to him. Indeed, Mr. Paley dis- 
 tinctly says, "Thukydides does not seem to have 
 known Herodotos at all." These statements, which 
 will surprise every Greek scholar, are founded on 
 passages in the first book, sections i, 9, 20, 21. 
 
 1 Westermann (on Dem. 01. 3: 21) remarks upon the habit of the 
 orators of referring for matters of history to tradition rather than to 
 written records, and explains it as due to a desire to identify themselves 
 as much as possible with the average hearer, assuming no more knowl- 
 edge than he would have.
 
 164 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 They ignore the language of that " single reference " 
 to Hellanikos in I : 97, which Mr. Paley repeatedly 
 mentions but nowhere quotes. It deserves to be 
 quoted in full from its clear evidence on this point. 
 eypatya &e avra (i.e., the outline of the growth of the 
 Athenian empire after the Persian war) . . . Bta roBe, 
 on rot? jrpo efAov arracTLV e/cA-iTre? rovro rjv TO ^wpiov 
 Kai r) ra rrpo rwv M^Si/ttwj/ 'Ei\\tjvifca ^vveriOecrav rj 
 avra ra M-^Si/ea rovrutv Be ocnrep teal rjtyaro ev rrj 
 >?7 'EXXaz/i/co?, /Spa^etw? re /cat rot? 
 eTre/Avijo-dr}. " I have written this 
 outline for this reason, because all my predecessors 
 have neglected this period and composed either a his- 
 tory of Greece before the Persian wars, or of the Per- 
 sian wars themselves ; and the one who did touch on 
 this period in his history of Attika, Hellanikos, made 
 but a brief record without strict chronological accu- 
 racy." It is clear from this, (i) that he knew the 
 works of several predecessors in full, so that he could 
 tell what periods they treated and in what way ; (2) 
 that he knew Herodotos's work, for no one else so 
 far as we know, wrote so full a history of the Persian 
 wars ; and (3) that he expected readers to look in 
 their histories for information on that period, and, 
 failing to find it, to have recourse to his. (Cf. I : 23 
 Biori & eXvcrav, ra? atr/a? Trpoeypatya rrpwrov Kal ra<? 
 Bia(j)opd<?, rov f^tj nva tyfrffO'eU rrore e orov rocrovros 
 TToXe/io? rot? "E\\r)cri Karea-rrj.) How, then, are those 
 other passages to be understood, wherein he speaks 
 as if obliged to rest on tradition and without any
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. 165 
 
 previous authorities to refer to ? Simply by recogniz- 
 ing the evident fact that he did not regard his prede- 
 cessors ars authorities. He had formed for himself a 
 new standard of historic evidence and, tested by 
 that standard, the works of his predecessors could 
 not command his confidence. He refused to trust 
 such material as Herodotos used, and he means by 
 this language to indicate that in his view all previous 
 so-called histories rested merely on tradition. It can 
 hardly be doubted that he included Herodotos, as 
 well as Hellanikos and Hekataeos among the Xoyo- 
 <ypd(j>oi, " who composed rather to please the ear than 
 with a view to truth." 
 
 One other point in Mr. Paley's article deserves 
 notice. He supposes that the stories, histories, and 
 philosophic teachings of the early Greeks were a 
 purely oral literature, and that they were put into 
 writing eventually from the dictation of the pupils 
 and followers of their authors and that thus it hap- 
 pens that the writings of the early philosophers and 
 historians are referred to. It would seem from this 
 suggestion that Mr. Paley can hardly have ever 
 looked into the fragments of the early historians. 
 He would have found a reasonably large number of 
 such fragments, from Hekataeos, Charon, Xanthos, 
 Hellanikos, and Akusilaos, preserving in many 
 cases apparently the original words of the authors, 
 and quoted from works of some extent, of which the 
 titles are given. He would have seen also that the 
 matter of these quotations and the style are such as
 
 l66 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 to make it impossible to imagine them orally deliv- 
 ered and preserved by memory until after the lapse 
 of years writing was introduced. It is, I think, 
 really impossible to suppose that such matter as 
 makes up the " Europe " and "Asia " of Hekataeos, 
 for example, can ever have been delivered orally by a 
 master to a group of listening pupils. For it con- 
 sists largely, if we may judge by the fragments pre- 
 served, of a list of names of towns hardly more 
 than the simple name in many cases, with a brief in- 
 dication of the locality. One example, taken almost 
 at random, may show the character of a multitude : 
 Steph. Byz. XaXatoy TroXt? Aorcpwv ' 'E/carato? 
 l&vpwTry " pera Be Ao/cpol, ev Be XaXatoy 7roXi9, ev Be 
 Olavdrj 7roXt9." (Miiller, F. H. G., 83.) One might 
 as well commit the dictionary to memory as matter 
 like this, without help of metre or of connection. 
 Not only could it not be committed to memory, but 
 we may rightly argue from the subject matter that 
 it would not be composed before the time when the 
 idea of a book had become a familiar idea. The mak- 
 ing of such a record does not belong to the age of 
 epic narration, nor to that of lyric song, nor to that 
 of oral speculative discourse, but to that in which 
 history begins when men first recognize the value 
 of facts preserved in writing and begin to regard 
 matter as well as form. That gave rise to a prose 
 style, and thus also made writing necessary. What 
 could induce a man to put together such a string of 
 bare facts as this, except the desire to preserve
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. 167 
 
 the knowledge for the information of others in such 
 a form that they could consult it ? We cannot imag- 
 ine Hekataeos as delivering orally such matter as 
 this to a company of hearers. We must suppose 
 that it was written out from the first, and either kept 
 by him for consultation, or, as seems more likely, 
 copied out as a whole or in part for the convenience 
 of those whose interests, of trade or colonization, 
 made them willing to pay for the work. 
 
 I come now, omitting several minor points in Mr. 
 Paley's article which are open to criticism, to the 
 evidence upon which I rely to carry back the exten- 
 sive use of writing to the middle of the fifth century 
 before Christ. It may seem the more worth while 
 to do this because, so far as I can ascertain, this pre- 
 cise point has not been fully illustrated in any easily 
 accessible work. Several of the passages cited are 
 referred to in Mr. Paley's article, but have in his 
 view little or no importance. The passages are ar- 
 ranged as nearly as possible in chronological order. 
 
 Find. 01. XL iff. 
 
 rav 'OAu/ATTtoviKav dvayvwre yu,oi 
 'Ap^ecTTpaTou TratSa iroQi <f>pevo<; 
 e//,as 
 
 This appears to be, as Mr. Paley says, the earliest 
 instance of avayiyvwa-Kw meaning to read. It is more 
 than a mere instance of the word, for it shows it in 
 connection with ypdfaiv meaning to write or engrave, 
 and both together in a metaphor, which would hardly
 
 168 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 be natural or intelligible, unless the two ideas in this 
 association were so familiar as to be caught at once 
 by hearers of the ode. The practice of reading writ- 
 ten words must have been not the secret art of a 
 few, but in some degree a part of common life, 
 before a poet could thus casually refer to it. Unfor- 
 tunately, this ode cannot be precisely dated, though 
 it must belong some years before 440 B.C., near which 
 time the poet died. The same metaphor occurs re- 
 peatedly in Aeschylos (e.g., Prom. 989, Supp. 991, 
 Clio. 441). 
 Aesch. Supp. 946! 
 
 TO.\ST ov 
 
 iv ecmv 
 
 The second of these lines Mr. Paley brackets in his 
 third edition, on the ground of the metre, though the 
 fault had not attracted his notice before. No other 
 editor has ever suspected its genuineness, and many 
 other lines no less open to objection stand unchal- 
 lenged (e.g., Supp. 465, 931, 1016). It can hardly be 
 doubted, I think, that the desire to get rid of the 
 evidence of the line on the question of the use of 
 writing sharpened Mr. Paley's sense of its faulty 
 metre. For it plainly testifies to the familiar use of 
 papyrus, folded and sealed, at the same time with 
 that of wax-covered tablets. The date of the Sup- 
 plices is not known, but from its structure it seems 
 to be one of the earlier plays of Aeschylos, and no
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. 169 
 
 one, so far as I know, has placed it later than 460 
 B.C. 
 
 The next witness is Herodotos, whose history is 
 supposed, from the latest incident referred to in it, 
 to have been finished in its present form by about 
 the year 425. Of course the material for it was 
 gathered in great measure before this date, and 
 his numerous references (i : 123, 125 ; 3 : 42, 123, 
 128) to writing upon papyrus, ypdfaiv e'<? /3i/3A,W, 
 though they may all refer to short memoranda or 
 notes, yet imply familiar and frequent use of writ- 
 ing before his time. But the particular passage 
 which I quote indicates much more than that. He 
 says, in 5:58: KCU ra? /9t/3A,ou9 St</>#epa 
 aTro TOV TToXaiov ol *\(ove<$, on Kore ev cnravi 
 e^peovro St^deprjcn aljer](TL re Kal olerjcri eri Be KOI 
 TO KCLT epe 7ro\\ol TWV ftapfidpwv e*9 Toiavras Si<f>0epa<j 
 <ypd$ov(ri. "And the lonians from old usage give the 
 name &t,(f)depai (skins) to sheets of papyrus, because 
 when papyrus was scarce they used to use instead 
 skins of goat and sheep; and still even in my day 
 many uncivilized peoples use such skins for writing." 
 This passage proves that papyrus was the usual ma- 
 terial for writing, as much so as paper in our day, and 
 that it had been so for a long time. Also, that it was 
 ordinarily plentiful among the lonians of Asia Minor 
 and the Greeks generally in the time of Herodotos. 
 He explains the local use of the word 8t(f>0epat, (skins) 
 as a name for papyrus, as arising from a local scarcity 
 of papyrus. Whether the explanation is correct or not,
 
 I/O STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 it plainly shows that the writer thought of papyrus as 
 the common thing for everybody to write, on at least 
 among civilized Greeks, for he adds that some uncivil- 
 ized peoples still used skins or parchment. In my 
 view this passage alone supplies fully that which Mr. 
 Paley desiderates, viz., some mention of the use of 
 papyrus as a writing material. It fully supports the 
 statements of Grote and Hayman, which Mr. Paley 
 characterizes as "unsupported by evidence." 
 
 In connection with this passage should be men- 
 tioned the occurrence in certain comic poets, of 
 about the same time with Herodotos, of words 
 implying the commonness in ordinary life of writing 
 and apparently of books. These words are mentioned 
 by Pollux (vii. 210). Thus he ascribes to Kratinos, 
 who died about 422 B.C., the word fti/3\ioypd(f)o<?, and 
 quotes (ix. 47) from Eupolis, whose latest known 
 play was given in 412 B.C., the phrase ov ra jSifiX.ia 
 &via, "where is the book-market." Other similar 
 words occur in later poets. In Aristophanes there 
 are repeated references to books. Thus in the Frogs 
 
 (405 B.C.), verse 943, 
 
 
 
 (layyava. 
 
 " I reduced tragedy in flesh by feeding her on a por- 
 ridge of moral maxims drawn from books." And 
 again, Frogs ni3ff., where the chorus addresses the 
 two poets just as they are going to compare their 
 poetic styles :
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. I /I 
 
 crr/3aTV/AeVo<. yap curt, 
 fii/BXLov r Z\u>v eKaoTos p.av6a.vu TO. Sc^ia 
 
 "(Fear not that the audience will not understand 
 your jokes,) for they have been disciplined and every 
 man has his book too and learns wisdom out of it." 
 These are all instances of reference to books in 
 general, but we have one from the same time which 
 names a particular book. It is the passage already 
 quoted from Thukydides (i :97). I may repeat here 
 the translation of it : " I have written this sketch for 
 this reason, viz., because all my predecessors have 
 neglected this period and composed either a history 
 of Greece before the Persian wars, or of those wars 
 themselves ; and the one who did touch on this 
 period in his history of Attika, Hellanikos, made 
 but a brief record without strict chronological ac- 
 curacy." Here we have reference to several his- 
 tories, with implied knowledge of their contents, and 
 special reference to one of which the title is given 77 
 'Am/cr) Zvyypa<f)/], being, I take it, a mere paraphrase 
 for -Y] 'AT0/9, under which name the book is quoted 
 by later writers. This passage must have been 
 written before 400 B.C., and probably was written 
 as early as between the Peace of Nikias (422 B.C.) 
 and the Sicilian expedition (415 B.C.). It supplies, 
 from an almost contemporary source, clear proof of 
 the early existence of written copies of the first 
 Greek attempts at history, the existence of which 
 has already been inferred from the subject matter
 
 1/2 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 and style of the histories as seen in the abundant 
 fragments of them. 
 
 Another passage of Aristophanes, as commonly 
 interpreted, mentions by title a copy of a particular 
 book. It is in the Frogs, 52ff. : 
 
 KO.I Srjr' ITTL r^s veo>s drayiyvwcrKOVTi' fWL 
 
 Tr]V 'AvSpoyneSav Trpos eyaauTov efat^VTys TTO$OS 
 
 TVJV napBiav tTrara^e. 
 
 Mr. Paley does not overlook this passage, but evades 
 the force of it against his theory by explaining it as 
 referring to the name of a ship. In his view, Diony- 
 sos sitting on his own ship saw another near by with 
 the name "Andromeda" painted on its stern or bow, 
 and, as his eye rested on that name and he idly read 
 it over and over, it reminded him of the play of Eu- 
 ripides bearing the same name and so called up in 
 him a longing for the poet. It is not possible, per- 
 haps, to show that this explanation is certainly and 
 necessarily a mistaken one, yet surely the common 
 explanation, that he was reading a copy of the play, 
 is more natural and probable. The tense of dvayc- 
 yvcoa-KovTi and the addition of Trpo? epavrov to it, are 
 indications in favor of this view. The passage so 
 understood shows that it was nothing strange in 405 
 B.C. for a man going to serve in the Athenian fleet to 
 take with him a copy of some favorite author or 
 book. 
 
 As to the material on which such books were writ- 
 ten, we have, besides the passage from Herodotos
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. 1/3 
 
 already quoted, a line from Plato Comicus, quoted by 
 Pollux (vii. 210), which proves the use of the later 
 word for paper in his time (425-395 B.C.) : 
 
 TO. ypa/A/xareia TOVS re ^apra? K<j>pa)v, 
 
 " bringing out the tablets and the sheets of paper." 
 With this should be put the passage from the other 
 and greater Plato (PJiaedros, 276 C.), where he says : 
 OVK apa (TTrovSfj avra eV vSari jpd^ret, peXavi (TTrelpcov 
 Sia tcaXdfiov " he will not then laboriously write 
 them in water, sowing (his seed of truth) with ink 
 through a pen." The date of the Pkaedros cannot be 
 certainly determined, though some scholars have 
 maintained that it must have been one of Plato's 
 earliest writings. In any case we have here, not far 
 from 400 B.C. on either side, mention of pen, ink, and 
 paper (made, of course, from papyrus), and I would 
 call attention to the perfectly incidental, matter-of- 
 course character of the reference to pen and ink, in 
 an illustration, in this last passage. It is not so that 
 a writer would speak of a new instrument, just intro- 
 duced and known to few persons. 
 
 The passages so far cited, except the last, have 
 been all taken from writers or writings prior to 400 
 B.C. It seems proper, however, to add some from 
 Xenophon and Plato, whose writings probably all 
 belong after that date. It will be seen that one of 
 these certainly and others probably involve recogni- 
 tion of books as easily accessible before that date. 
 The lives of these two men extend from about 430
 
 174 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 B.C. to about 355 B.C., but their writings were prob- 
 ably all composed after 400 B.C. It is a great misfor- 
 tune, especially in the case of Plato and with regard 
 to the history of his philosophical opinions, that the 
 chronological order of these works cannot be ascer- 
 tained. But I think it is fair to accept his incidental 
 references to the existence and use of books as evi- 
 dence of the facts within the first twenty-five years 
 after 400 B.C. 
 
 I begin with the passages from Xenophon : 
 Mem. I. 6. 14 KOI TOU<? Ovjcravpovs rwv 7rd\ai ero- 
 (frwv dvSpwv 01)9 efceivoi Ka,Te\nrov ev /3t/3A,toi9 ypd^av- 
 re?, dvekirrwv tcoivf) crvv rot? <iXoi? Siep-^ofiai. " And 
 the treasures of the wise men of old which they have 
 left behind them in written books, I open and read 
 over in company with my friends." It is Sokrates 
 who speaks here, and the conversation in which the 
 words occur, Xenophon explicitly tells us that he 
 himself heard. It must have occurred then before 
 his departure from Athens to join Kyros on his ill- 
 fated expedition, that is, before 401 B.C. If there is 
 any historic truth in the Memorabilia, it would be in 
 a passage thus commended to us by the author him- 
 self, and I hardly see how we could ask for clearer or 
 better evidence that books were easily obtained in the 
 lifetime of Sokrates. That they were to be obtained 
 for money appears from another passage : 
 
 Xen. Mem. IV. 2. I (o ^(OKpdrr)^ Kare^adev) 
 Sr)/j,ov TOV Kakov rypd[A/J,aTa TroXka (rvvet'X.e'yfj.evov 
 TWV re KOI ao(f)i(rT(J!)v TWV evBoKi/jLcoTaTfov. ... 8. etVe
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. 1/5 
 
 /u.ot, (77, &> l&vdvBrj/jue, TO> OVTI, wcnrep eyu> dtcova), 
 TTOA.A.O, ypdfMfiara (rvvrj-^a^ rwv \eyo/j,ev(av ao^wv dv- 
 Bpwv yeyovevai ; N^ rov Ai'a, e(f>r), a> ^u>Kpare^ real 
 
 N^ rrjv "Hpav, e<f)r) 6 ^(OKparr)^, ayapai <ye <rov, Store 
 OVK dpyvpiov Kal xpva-tov Trpoei\ov Oija-avpovs Ke/CTfj- 
 aOai p,a\\ov 17 cro^ta?. . . IO. Ti 8e 8r/ ySof\oyu.ei/09 dya- 
 $09 yevecrdai, e(f>r), & ^vOvSrjf^e, o~v\\eyet<f rd ypdp/J,ara; 
 eVel Be Biea-iMTrrjcrev 6 Eu$u87/ / ao9, (TKOTTWV on diroKpi- 
 vatro, 7rd\iv 6 ^m/cpdrrj^, 'Apa fir} tar/009 ; <f)r) 7ro\\d 
 ydp teal larpwv ecrn o-vyypdpfiara. (Sokrates learned) 
 "that Euthydemos, a noble youth, had collected 
 many writings of the most eminent poets and 
 learned men. ... ' Tell me, Euthydemos,' said he, 
 ' have you really, as I am told, collected many writ- 
 ings of those who have been eminent for wisdom ? ' 
 'Certainly, Sokrates,' said he, 'and I am still collecting 
 in order to get as many as I possibly can.' ' By Hera,' 
 said Sokrates, ' I am delighted with you, because you 
 have not preferred the possession of treasures of 
 money to that of treasures of wisdom. . . . But what 
 is it that you want to excel in, Euthydemos,' said he, 
 ' that you are collecting books ? ' And when Euthy- 
 demos was silent, considering what answer to make, 
 'Is it in medicine?' asked Sokrates, 'for there are 
 many books on that subject.' " Here the praise given 
 to the preference of wisdom over wealth shows that the 
 books had been obtained by purchase. Though this 
 conversation is not vouched for, as the other is, by 
 Xenophon's statement that he heard it, yet it prob-
 
 1/6 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 ably has historic reality, and if so, must have occurred 
 before 400 B.C., and probably some years before the 
 time of the Thirty (404 B.C.). 
 
 Another passage shows that books were exported 
 to the Greek colonies on the Euxine Sea : 
 
 Xen. Anab. VII. 5. 14 (The Ten Thousand on 
 their way home come to Salmydessos and find there 
 many spoils of wrecks on that dangerous coast.) ev- 
 ravda evplo-KOvrat TroXXat fj*ev K\tvai, TroXXa e /a/3&>- 
 rta, 7ro\\al Be /3//3Xot jeypafjifjievac, tcai raXXa TroXXa 
 oaa ev ^v\ivoi^ rev^ecri vavfc\r)poi, ayov<riv. " There 
 were found many bedsteads, and many chests, and 
 many written books, and quantities of other things of 
 all kinds that shipmasters convey in wooden cases." 
 The word yeypafjifAevai here is wanting in some inferior 
 manuscripts, but all the later editors (L. Dindorf, Kru- 
 ger, Rehdantz, Vollbrecht, Sauppe) take it into their 
 text without question. These works of Xenophon 
 were probably written after 390 B.C., but the evidence 
 in these quoted passages all refers to facts occurring 
 before 400 B.C. Of these passages Mr. Paley takes no 
 notice whatever. 
 
 I add now a few passages from Plato, not as proof 
 of the existence of written books before 400 B.C., 
 for the writings of Plato are of too uncertain date 
 and presumably too late for that, but as indicating 
 how common and accessible books were, and on how 
 great a variety of subjects they were composed, with- 
 in the first thirty or forty years after that date. It 
 may be legitimate to reason backwards from this fact
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. I'J'J 
 
 and infer something like a similar rapidity in the 
 spread of the new practice before 400 B.C., and thus 
 get a confirmation of what we might conclude from 
 the passages already quoted. 
 
 Apol. 26 D 'Ava^ayopov olei, tcarijyopeiv, & <f)\e 
 MeA/^re, teal OVTW fcaTa<f>povei<; rwv&e real olei avrovs 
 cLTreipovs ypa^jjidrwv elvcu, ojcrre OVK elBevcu on, ra 
 'Avagayopov /3i/3\la TOV K\ao/J,Viov ye/jiei TOVTWV 
 rwv \oywv ; Here it will be observed that Plato rep- 
 resents Sokrates as saying that it would impute il- 
 literacy or at least strange want of knowledge of 
 current literature to the jurors, men chosen by lot, 
 some five hundred perhaps in number, from all ranks 
 of the citizens, to suppose them ignorant of the fact 
 that "the books of Anaxagoras teem with such 
 doctrines " as the accuser charged him with holding. 
 "The books of Anaxagoras," one would think, must 
 have been easily within the reach of the people when 
 this could be said. The next succeeding sentence, 
 in which reference is made to "buying from the 
 orchestra, for a drachma at the highest, power to 
 ridicule Sokrates if he claims these doctrines as 
 original with him," is so much disputed as to its 
 precise meaning that it is better not to use it in 
 evidence here. 
 
 PJiaed. 97 C aXA,' aKovcras fiev irore e/c /3i/3X.iof 
 Tti/o?, to? f'^ 7 ?? 'Ava^ayopov avayLyvcacncovTos KT\. 
 
 98 B Kal OVK av aTreBo/Jujv TroXXoO ra<? eX,7rtSa<?, 
 a\\a Trdvv mrov^fi \a/3a)v ra? /3//3Xou<? &> 
 olo? T' r)v dveylyvwcrtcov.
 
 178 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 Sympos. 177 B eywye r/S?? rtvl everv^ov J3ij3\iw, 
 ev <j> evfjcrav a\e<; eTraivov dav/^datov e^ovres 7T/909 uxfre- 
 \etav, Kal d\\a roiavra av^vd t'Sot? av eyKe/cwuiaa-- 
 fieva. 
 
 Gorg. 462 B IIci>Xo9. 'AXXa ri croi &o/cei r) prjro- 
 piK'rj elvat ; ^WKp. lUpdy/jia o <^>^9 av 7roirj<rai Te%vr]v 
 ev rcS (rvyypdfAfAaTi b e<ya) 6^0.7^09 dveyvwv. 
 
 518 B M/$at09 6 rrfv o^foirodav awyyeypcK^ws Trjv 
 ^LKeXtKrjv. (Mithaikos, author of the " Handbook of 
 Sicilian Cookery.") 
 
 Protag. 325 E. ol 8e SiSda-KaXot rovrwv re eVt/ie' 
 \ovvrai, Kal 7reiSav av ypd^fAaTa fJidOwcn KCU fjieX\o)crt 
 crvvrjcreiv rd yeypaf^/jteva, . . irapaTiOeaaiv 
 rcov ftddpwv dvayiyvaxTKeiv iroi'rjrwv dyaOwv 
 Kal eKfjuavOdveiv dvajKa^ovo-tv. (If the boys had copies 
 of Homer and Hesiod to learn lessons from in school, 
 one would suppose their fathers might have had them 
 to read.) 
 
 Phaedr. 228 D ^w/cp. Aet^o.9 ye Trpwrov, 5) <j)i\o- 
 T?79, TI dpa ev rfj dpicrrepa %et<; viro ro3 iftarup, ro- 
 Trd^co ydp ere e^eiv rov \6yov avrov. (And so he had 
 a copy of Lysias' speech, which he presently reads.) 
 
 230 D. . . av e/iol \6yov<? OVTW Trporelvcov ev /3i- 
 /3Xiot9 rrfv re 'A.TTiKr)v (f>aivei Trepidgeiv aTracrav real 
 OTroi av aXXoae fSov\,r]. 
 
 273 A rov ye Ticriav avrbv TreTraTrjfcas aKpi/So)^, 
 (This same phrase, TreTrarrj/cevai rwd, to be familiar 
 with an author, occurs in the Birds of Aristophanes 
 (v. 471) ovS* Mawirov TreTrdnj/cas, It seems to imply 
 almost necessarily the use of a copy of the author's
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. 1/9 
 
 works. The Birds came out in 415 B.C. Mr. Paley 
 speaks of this phrase as new in the time of Plato's 
 literary activity.) 
 
 276 C. (The passage speaking of pen and ink, 
 already quoted.) 
 
 Theaet. 152 A ^co/cp. ^al yap rrov rcavrwv %prj- 
 p,drwv /Aerpov dvOpwirov elvai. , . aveyvco/cas yap TTOV ; 
 ea/T. 'Aveyvwfca teal TroAAa/a?. 
 
 162 A el d\.rj0r)$ f) d\ij6eia TIpcorayopov, a\\a ftr) 
 rrai^ovaa etc rov dSvrov r% ^ijB\ov e(f)6ey^aro. 
 
 1 66 C ov IAOVOV auTO? vyvels, a\Xa KOI rovs dfcov- 
 ovra? rovro &pdv et9 ra arvyypd/^pard fiov dvaTreiOeis* 
 
 Soph. 232 D Hei>. Ta ye i^rjv irepl TTCLCTWV re KOL 
 Kara p,iav eKaarriv re^v'rjv, a Bel TT/OO? e/caarov avTov 
 rov Srj/Jiiovpybv dvreurrelv, Se8r)fj,ocri(i)fjieva rrov tcara/3e- 
 ^\T]rai yeypa/A/jieva rw jBov\op.evw paOelv. ea/r. Ta 
 Upwrayopeid /AOL (fratvei Trepl re TrdX.ijs teal rwv a\\wv 
 re^ywv elprjKevai,. Rev- Kat TroXXwi/ ye, & 
 erepwv. 
 
 Poht. 293 A TOU9 iarpovs 8e ov% rfKia 
 (Aev, edv re kitovra*; edv re cifcovras rjfJids Iwvrai, . . /cat 
 eav Kara ypd/ji^ara r) %&)pt9 ypa/ji/jidrcov, . . rrdvrws 
 ouBev rjrrov larpovs (frafiev fcrX. 
 
 Parmen. 128 D 8td roiavrijv Sr) <fci\oveiKiav VTTO 
 veov oWo? efjiov eypd(f)r), Kai Tt9 avrb e/c\e^re ypa(f>ev, 
 axrre ovSe /3ov\evcracr6ai egeyevero, e'ir egotcrreov avrb 
 6i9 TO <^>&)9 ei-Ve //.?/. 
 
 In these passages we see that books were so com- 
 mon in Plato's time that not to know the contents 
 of a certain one would prove a man deficient in
 
 180 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 education, that they were put before schoolboys 
 to learn lessons out of, that particular ones were 
 read again and again by the same person, that 
 there were books on rhetoric, on the uses of salt, on 
 cookery, on medicine, on wrestling, and, in a word, 
 on all arts, that once a book was stolen and cir- 
 culated while the author was still deliberating about 
 publishing it, that a man overheard another read- 
 ing from a book and immediately got hold of the 
 book to read it for himself. If now the use of books 
 was so general in all circles of life in Plato's time, 
 the first thirty or forty years after 400 B.C., and if, as 
 we have previously seen, mention of reading and 
 writing, of tablets, papyrus, and parchments goes 
 back to about 450 B.C., and the mention of books 
 and of book-writers (copyists) and book-selling comes 
 along between 420 and 405 B.C., can it be supposed 
 that so quick-witted a people as the Athenians, so 
 interested especially in every stimulus to mental 
 activity, failed to see the capabilities of this contri- 
 vance and to make use of it in that earlier period ? 
 
 I may be permitted in conclusion briefly to restate 
 the evidence as to that earlier period. We have in 
 Pindar before 450 B.C., a metaphor drawn from the 
 arts of writing and reading. We have in Aeschylos, 
 before 460 B.C., repeatedly the metaphor from writing, 
 and once a mention of tablets and of papyrus. We 
 have in Herodotos, before 425 B.C., frequent reference 
 to writing on papyrus, and once a recognition of that 
 as the usual material for writing, occasionally supple-
 
 BEGINNING OF A WRITTEN LITERATURE. l8l 
 
 mented by parchment. We have abundant fragments 
 of Hekataeos (540-4806.0.) and other early historians, 
 in a style of composition that forbids the idea of oral 
 transmission. We have from the comic poets Kra- 
 tinos (before 420 B.C.), Eupolis (before 412 B.C.), and 
 Plato (probably before 405 B.C.), fragments containing 
 mention of book-writing, paper, and book-selling. We 
 have from Aristophanes (in plays down to 405 B.C.) 
 reference to books as used by authors and readers, 
 and consulted by his own audience. We have in 
 Thukydides (probably before 405 B.C.) reference to 
 the works of his predecessors implying knowledge 
 of their contents on his part, and a suggestion that 
 other historical inquirers would consult his own work 
 as he had theirs. Finally we have in Xenophon (in 
 reference to a time before 400 B.C.) mention of books 
 as read among a company of friends, as bought by a 
 collector of a library, and as exported to the shores 
 of the Euxine sea. Now in view of this evidence, 
 recognizing the fragmentary character of the remains 
 we have of the literature of the fifth century before 
 Christ, are we not justified in holding that the use of 
 writing on papyrus for the purpose of preserving and 
 multiplying copies of works of literature began as 
 early as the middle of that century and rapidly grew 
 to be a familiar matter of common life before its end ? 
 It will be observed that I have confined myself to 
 the production of the evidence attainable on my sub- 
 ject with only the necessary explanation of it. My 
 purpose has been simply to bring together all the
 
 1 82 STUDIES IN GREEK THOUGHT. 
 
 passages which I could find containing real evidence, 
 in the hope that the collection, not elsewhere made 
 so far as I know, might be of- service to any one who 
 wishes to ascertain the facts. 
 
 ERAICK & SMITH. PRINTERS. BOSTON.
 
 Latin Text- Books. 
 
 INTROD. PRICE. 
 
 ALLEN & GREENOUGH : Latin Grammar $1.12 
 
 1. 12 
 1. 12 
 
 .60 
 
 1. 12 
 50 
 1.40 
 1.12 
 1.40 
 .90 
 .90 
 .90 
 
 Latin Composition 
 
 " Caesar (four books, with vocabulary) 
 
 Sallust's Catiline 
 
 Cicero, 13 orations (or 8 orations with vocabulary) 
 
 Cicero de Senectute 
 
 Ovid (with vocabulary) 
 
 Virgil (Bucolics and 6 Books of the ^Eneid) . . 
 Preparatory Course of Latin Prose . . . 
 
 ALLEN . . . Latin Primer 
 
 New Latin Method 
 
 Introduction to Latin Composition . . . 
 
 Latin Reader 1.40 
 
 Latin Lexicon 90 
 
 Remnants of Early Latin 75 
 
 Germania and Agricola of Tacitus .... i.oo 
 
 BLACKBURN . Essentials of Latin Grammar 70 
 
 Latin Exercises 60 
 
 Latin Grammar and Exercises (in one volume) i.oo 
 
 CROWELL . . Selections from the Latin Poets 1.40 
 
 CROWELL & RICHARDSON : Brief History of Roman Lit. (BENDER) i.oo 
 GREENOUGH . Virgil : 
 
 Bucolics and 6 Books of JEneid (with Vocab.) . 1.60 
 Bucolics and 6 Books of JEneid (without Vocab.) 1.12 
 Last 6 Books of JEneid, and Georgics (with notes) 1.12 
 Bucolics, .ffineid, & Georgics (complete, with notes) 1.60 
 
 Text of Virgil (complete) 75 
 
 Vocabulary to the whole of Virgil .... i.oo 
 GINN& HEATH: Classical Atlas and Geography (cloth) . . . 2.00 
 
 HALSEY . . Etymology of Latin and Greek 1.12 
 
 Classical Wall Maps (three or more), each . . 3.50 
 KEEP . . Essential Uses of the Moods in Greek and Latin .25 
 
 KING . . Latin Pronunciation 25 
 
 LEIGHTON. Latin Lessons 1.12 
 
 MADVIG . Latin Grammar (by Thacher) 2.25 
 
 PARXHURST Latin Verb 35 
 
 PARKER & PREBLE: Handbook of Latin Writing 50 
 
 SHUMWAY . . Latin Synonymes 30 
 
 STICKNEY . . Cicero de Natura Deorum 1.40 
 
 TETLOW . . Inductive Latin Lessons 1.12 
 
 TOMLINSON . Manual for the Study of Latin Grammar . . .20 
 
 WHITE (J.W.) Schmidt's Rhythmic and Metric 2.50 
 
 WHITE (J. T.) Junior Students' Latin-English Lexicon (mor.) 1.75 
 
 English-Latin Lexicon (sheep) 1.50 
 
 Latin-English and English-Latin Lexicon (sheep) 3.00 
 
 WHITON . . Auxilia Vergiliana ; or, First Steps in Latin Prosody .15 
 
 Six Weeks' Preparation for Reading Csesar . .35 
 
 Copies sent to Teachers for Examination, with a view to Introduction, 
 on receipt of Introduction Price. 
 
 Send for description of our new Illustrated Caesar (seven books). 
 
 & COMPANY, Publishers, 
 
 BOSTON, NEW YORK, AND CHICAGO.
 
 GREEK BOOKS; 
 
 Allen Medea of Euripides $1.00 
 
 College Series of Greek Authors .... See D'Ooge, Dyer, Hum- 
 phreys. 
 
 D'Ooge Sophocles' Antigone : Text and Notes 95 
 
 Text only 45 
 
 Dyer Plato's Apology and Crito : Text and Notes .95 
 
 Text only 45 
 
 Flagg Hellenic Orations of Demosthenes 1 .00 
 
 Anacreontics 35 
 
 Seven against Thebes 1.00 
 
 Goodwin Greek Grammar 1.50 
 
 Greek Reader 1.50 
 
 Greek Moods and Tenses 1.50 
 
 Selections from Xenophon and Herodotus 1.50 
 
 Goodwin & WMte : Anabasis 1.00 
 
 Anabasis (with Vocabulary) 1 .50 
 
 Humphreys Aristophanes' Clouds : Text and Notes ... .95 
 
 Text only 45 
 
 Keep Essential Uses of the Moods 25 
 
 Kendrick Greek at Sight 15 
 
 Leighton New Greek Lessons 1.20 
 
 Liddell & Scott. . Abridged Greek-English Lexicon 1.90 
 
 Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon 9.40 
 
 Seymour Selected Odes of Pindar 1.40 
 
 Sidgwick Greek Prose Composition 1.50 
 
 Tarbell Philippics of Demosthenes 1.00 
 
 Tyler Selections from Greek Lyric Poets 1.00 
 
 White First Lessons In Greek 1.20 
 
 Schmidt's Rhythmic and Metric of the Clas- 
 sical Languages 2.50 
 
 CEdipus Tyrannus of Sophocles 1.12 
 
 Stein's Dialect of Herodotus 10 
 
 Whiton Orations of Lysias 1.00 
 
 Copies sent to teachers for examination, with a, view to Intro- 
 duction, on receipt of Introduction Price given above. 
 
 GINff & COMPANY, Publishers. 
 
 >TOX. NEW YORK. CHICAi
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACIUT 
 
 1 
 A 000035731 9