^{Page 61 note 1} One has only to glance at Aristophanes' free treatment of such a staple element as the parabasis—his repetition, excision of parts, variation of meter—to realize that he was not working with hobbles.

^{Page 61 note 2} Welcker, , Die aeschylische Trilogie Prometheus (Darmstadt, 1824)Google Scholar, in his chapter on the character of Zeus, quotes (pp. 92–94) with disapproval from the letter of a ‘friend’ who believes that the Prometheus Bound represents only a phase of the struggle among the gods, and that in the sequel the tyranny disappeared; Zeus concluded that it would be better to rule over ennobled man than over the brute beast; he came out of the struggle with a higher wisdom; a new order ensued, in which stupidity and oppression gave way to free spiritual development.

Miss Janet Case, in her able article in the Classical Review for 1904, pp. 99 sq., On Prtmetheus Desmotes, Lines 980–1, writes: ‘I would suggest that the solution of the difficulty may rather be looked for in the theory first published by Dissen [in Welcker's Trilogie Prometheus, I.c.], and adopted by Caesar, which I venture to restate and support; that in the Prom. D. Aeschylus deliberately presented an undeveloped Zeus, who presumably in the Prom. Luom. attained to the higher level of the Zeus of the Oresteia.’ She cites the conflict between Apollo and the Erinyes with the reconciliation in the Eumenides, and stresses particularly lines 980 sq.:ὣμοo — τδε Zεὑς τοῠπος οὐκ πσταται. —λλ' κδιδσκει πνθ'γμρσκων χρὐμος. These lines, ‘taken in conjuntion with Prometheus’ words 926–7, … seem to indicate that Zeus, no less than Prometheus, both could and would learn wisdom by suffering.’

The late Professor Butcher stated in his Harmanvard Lectures that he had for years taught his classes that there was a change in Zeus's nature in the trilogy.

In a late volume of the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology (No. XXXI.), J. A. K Thomson (The Religious Background of the Prometheus Vinctus), without going into details, states (p. 34) the view held in the present paper: ‘…the Zeus of the Solutus is not the Zeus of the Vinctus. Neither is the Prometheus of the later play the Prometheus of the earlier. The interval of 30,000 years has profoundly altered the character of Proboth’.Following this, however, he appears to lapse into the notion that Zeus was from the beginning, in Aeschylus' mind, a champion of law and order as against the ναρχίαof the Titans. ‘Zeus, on the other hand, represented the Reign of Law—θεσ δθεν Zεὐς ν νμοις βασὑων (Plato, Crit. ad fin.). Not only Plato but Aeschylus speaks like this. … the design of Zeus may honestly be regarded as something higher and in the long run more beneficial man himself than the hasty generosity of Prometheus.’ How Zeus's plan of annihilation (cf.lines 234 sq.:ιστὡσας γνος τ πν) could be more beneficial than Prometheus' generosity is not explained. But the point that I would insist on particularly is that, while the ultimate character of Zeus was doubtless righteous, so far as Prometheus Bound is concerned we must abide by the judgment of the chorus (line 150): Zεὑς ὑθὑτς κρατὐνει.

^{Page 62 note 1} Beside the words of Hephaestus in line 35, cited by Miss Case, I.e. (and the vague reference in lines 403–406), we have the following explicit instances:

(a) 96 (Prometheus): νος ταγς μακρων

b) 149 sq. (Chorus): νοι γρ οιακονμοι κρατοσ' Oλὐμφoυ.

(c) 311 sq. (Oceanus): μεθρμοσαι τρπονς νονς' νος γρ καἰ τὐραννος ν θεοῖς.

(d) 391 (Oceanus): τῷ νον θακοντι παγκρατεἰς ἔδρας.

(e) 439 (Prometheus): θεοῖσι τοῖς νοις

(f) 942 (Prometheus): τνρννου το νου.

(g) 955 (Prometheus):νον νοι κρατεῖτε.

(h) 960 (Prometheus): τοὐς νους θεοὐς.

^{Page 63 note 1} Line 150. Note the δ⋯, ‘of course,’ ‘as everyone can see’. Miss Case well says, refer ring to lines 50, 150, 186, 326: '… he is described in terms that suggest an irresponsible despot of the type of the Persian King’. Note reminisespecially line 50: λεὐθερος γρ οὒτ πλνΔιςwith Eur. Hel. 276: τ βαρβρων γρ δολα πντα πλν νς; and Xen. Anab. I. ix. 29: κρου ὃοὐλον ντος; and II. v. 38:κὺρον… το κενου δο; and line 326: τραχὺς μναρχος οὐδ' ὐπεθμνος κρα^tau;εῖ. One might add the frequent use of the words τραννος and τμ7rho;7alpha;ν7nu;ς.

^{Page 63 note 2} It is not impertinent to the argument to mention here one of those details which go to out the picture of Zeus throughout the play (details given with so generous, nay lavish, ahand that rather than read a classified enumeration of them we might prefer to read the play), a detail which might well convince the Athenian audience that Zeus at the beginning of his administration was autocratic and unfeeling. This is his purpose (see lines 234 sq.) of annihilating the human race, including, presumably, the Athenian' ancestors and their allies and kinsmen. How is this met by one who reads the Agamemnon Zeus into the Prometheus Bound ? By explaining that Zeus meant to destroy the old race so as to ‘create another in his own image!’ Where does this idea come from? Not from the other plays of Aeschylus, no, nor from the two accounts in Hesiod; it looks more like a reminiscence of Genesis.

^{Page 63 note 3} (Hermes to Prometheus):

μακ⋯ν δ⋯ μ⋯κος ⋯κτελευτσας χρνον

ἂψορρον ἢξεις εἰς ϕος.

,^{Page 63 note 3} Though I am not certain that the text cannot be explained well enough just as it stands.

^{Page 64 note 1} 180 sqq., 261 sq., 543 sq. Cf. also 1036 sqq.

^{Page 64 note 2} See lines 149–151, 160–167, 186 sq., 403–406.

^{Page 64 note 3} See especially lines 144 sqq., 244–247. 472 and the beautiful choral on Nature's lament beginning line 399.

^{Page 64 note 4} Exod. vii. 3, 13 sq., 22, etc.

^{Page 64 note 5} The words τὐραννος and τνραννς are used over a dozen times, chiefly by Prometheus, but also by κρτος, Oceanus, and Io; see lines 10, 224,226, 307, 312, 359, 736, 756, 761, 909, 942, 956, 959, 996.

^{Page 64 note 6} We get pretty close in 165 sq. (δμναταιΟủραν⋯αν γνναν). See also 203 sq., 221–223, 230, 910–912. Miss Case, I.c., p. 100, believes that Aeschylus represented Zeus as repenting of this act and releasing his father. This may well over have been so, though I do not see how it can be established, as Miss Case impliesI.c., p. 100, believes that Aeschylus represented Zeus as repenting of this act and releasing his father. This may wellhave been so, though I do not see how it can be established, as Miss Case implies, on the basis of Eumenides, 641–646.

^{Page 65 note 1} This is just the attitude of Creon in Sophocles' A ntigone under similar circumstances. Such instances of despotic harshness at the beginningof a new régime must have been a commonplace in Greece.

^{Page 66 note 1} Line 268. I am not sure that ἣμαρτον has any moral connotation here.

^{Page 66 note 2} π⋯θει μ⋯θος Ag. 177).

^{Page 67 note 1} Which he had already treated in lighter vein few years earlier (the satyr play of 472 B.C., according to the hypothesis of the Persae), doubt less before realizing its full dramatic possibilities.