B.A. (Hons.

) English Semester-I

Core Course
Paper-II : European Classical Literature
Study Material : Unit 1-5

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Department of English
 Paper-II : European Classical Literature
Study Material : Unit 1-5

Contents
Unit-1 : Homer The Iliad 01
Unit-2 : Sophocles Oedipus Rex 33
Unit-3 : (a) Plautus The Brothers Menaechmus 63
(b) Ovid Metamorphoses 73
Unit-4 : (a) ‘The Book of Job’ 89
(b) ‘The Gospel According to St. Matthew’, Chapter V
Unit-5 :
(a) Plato The Republic 147
(b) Aristotle Poetics
(c) Sappho (i) On The Throne of Many Hues, Immortal Aphrodite
(ii) Some Say an Army of Horsemen
(d) Horace ‘Ars Poetica’

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007
 Paper-II : European Classical Literature
Unit-1 : Homer : The Iliad

Contents
Part-I
1. Introduction
2. Detailed Summary
3. The Characters
4. The Homeric Gods
5. The Epic Similes

Prepared by:
Ms. Krishna Dasgupta

1
2
 Unit-1
1. The Iliad by Homer: An Introduction

The Homeric question basically raises the point whether the Iliad is the work of a single poet,
or a composite one of different poems by different poets, grouped together into one. We need
not enter into all the learned academic controversy of the authenticity of one viewpoint or the
other. The oral poetic tradition was incorporated by Homer into an artistic whole. The
Phoenician alphabet came to Greece around the 8th century BCE. It may be safely assumed
that the poet of the oral tradition got his composition written down, maybe through dictation.
This explains the co-existence of the traditional formulaic style (with its minor
inconsistencies and slips) with the profound overall unity of the poem.
The content of the poem is also traditional. The story and associated patterns and motifs
were known to the poet and the audience. The beginning of the poem from the conflict
between Agamemnon and Achilles implies that the foregoing legend was known to the
audience. So not much is required by way of exposition. It is evident, from reading The Iliad
that the audience of Homer was familiar with the story of the Trojan war and its origin, and
the characters, associated with it. The mythological tradition was common and the contents of
the poem deal with the shared knowledge of the poet and his listeners and readers. “The Iliad,
though composed in the late 8th century BCE, takes place in a remembered, long past, heroic
age. This heroic age corresponds in general with what we might loosely call the Late Bronze
Age, the era of the final stages of the Minoan civilization of Crete and of the Mycenaean
Civilization or the Greek Civilization.
Homer opens the Iliad with an invocation to “The Goddess” – the Muse who personifies
the inspiration for epic poetry. The Muses were the nine beautiful daughters of Zeus and
Mnemosyne (Memory). They were divinities according to Greek mythology, inspiring
Poetry, Science, and the Arts. Each Muse presides over one particular field. Calliope is the
Muse of epic poetry. The Muses provided inspiration to the Greek bards and are also the
source of knowledge for them. For Homer, his own personality or opinion is of no
significance. The poet in his garland and singing robes, as Milton says, performs a ritual. The
invocation lifts the poem above every day matters, giving it a ritual quality.
The Iliad has been called from the beginning to end a poem of death yet one could
also argue that from beginning to end the Iliad is a poem of life. In the world of
the poem war is the medium of human existence and achievement. Bravery and
excellence in battle win honor and glory, and thus endow life with meaning. The
Iliad is both a poem of death and a poem of life. In other words, it is a poem of
mortality; Achilles is the central figure of the poem.
(The Mortal Hero; Seth L Schein)
An epic, according to Aristotle, is a poem about men in action. According to Ezra Pound,
an epic is a “poem containing history” – history of civilization and culture. The epic must

3
have a theme of high seriousness, treated with equal conviction, of a multitude of men. The
choric element in the epic brings out the feelings of a large group of people living at a
particular time.
Though the choric element is necessary to epic, it does not exclude from the epic
the presentation of timeless feelings. It is when the tragic intensity co-exists with
group consciousness of an age, ... that epic attains its full growth.
The English Epic by E.M.W. Tillyard, O.U.P.
1996
According to Prof. Maurice Bowra,
. . . the epic is a narrative of some length, which “deals with events which have a
certain grandeur and importance and come from a life of action, especially of
violent action such as war. It gives a special pleasure because its events and
persons enhance our belief in the worth of human achievement and in the dignity
and nobility of man”.
C. M. Bowra. Heroic Poetry
From this definition it follows that;
- an epic is a long narrative poem,
- it deals with grand and serious subjects,
- the events originate from heroic action,
- the actions centre on a heroic figure,
- the epic enhances our belief in the possibilities of man, and
- it has a wide range of its theme from heavens to the lower world and over an
enormous mass of traditional knowledge.
Greek literature begins effectively with Homer and Hesiod. The epics of Homer were
composed in the 8th century BCE. The events taking place in his epics, The Iliad and The
Odyssey happened in the 13th century BCE. The unique event of the Anger of Achilles
comprises the theme of the Iliad. The context is war – between the Greeks, whom Homer
calls the Achaeans, Danaanes, or Argives, and the Trojans. The reason is the abduction of
Helen, the most beautiful woman on earth, wife of Menelaus, the King of Lacedaemon, by
Paris, son of King Priam of Troy. The war lasted for ten years, ending with the fall of Troy.
Iliad means a poem about Ilium, i.e. Troy. The poem deals with a few weeks in the ninth
year of the ten years’ war. The Iliad ends with the funeral of Hector, the Trojan hero, and
before the end of the war, with the destruction of Troy. The Trojan war was for real, and
around this kernel of reality were woven myths, legends and folktales, which formed lays of
bards, handed down orally from generation to generation. Hundreds of years later, Homer
organised these tales into two epics The Iliad and The Odyssey. Around this time, the art of
writing returned to the Greeks and maybe Homer himself, wrote down or dictated his poems.
4
It is also possible that some others might actually have written down the epics composed by
him.
The story of The Iliad begins with the wrath of Achilles, his quarrel with Agamemnon,
and withdrawal from the battle. The battle goes on without Achilles and the Greeks suffer
heavy losses. The Olympian gods take sides in the battle but Achilles re-joins the battle only
after the death of Patroclus, his dear friend. He finally kills Hector, who had killed Patroclus
but his spirit of revenge is not assuaged. He drags Hector’s dead body around, aiming to feed
dogs upon it. The gods are displeased with this treatment of the dead. Zeus sends word to
desist and Hector’s father Priam comes as a suppliant to Achilles, requesting him for Hector’s
body to be given a proper burial. In the end Achilles regains his humanity and repents. He
pities Priam and surrenders the body of Hector for burial.
This is the bare outline of the epic, details of which we are going to study.
The background of the Iliad is the battle between the Greeks and the Trojans, over the
abduction of Helen, the wife of Menelaus, King of Lacedaemon (Sparta). Myth tells us that at
the wedding of Thetis and Peleus; Eris, the goddess of Discord, was not invited and turned
away when she appeared. Feeling angry and humiliated, she threw a golden apple, with the
inscription “to the fairest,” among the guests. Three goddesses – Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite
fought over it. Ultimately, they went to Paris, son of Priam, the king of Troy, to settle the
dispute. He was working as a shepherd at Mt. Ida. The goddesses promised him different
things but he was tempted by Aphrodite’s offer of the fairest woman as his prize. He gave the
apple to Aphrodite. He went to Sparta and with the help of Aphrodite, carried off Helen to
Troy. The Greeks invaded Troy to regain Helen. The battle lasted for ten years and ended
with the defeat of Troy. Many legends and myths are woven around this original story. The
Iliad only narrates a few episodes in this long saga of the war of Troy.
The Trojan War did actually take place. The real cause though, might not have been the
abduction of Helen. Conflicting trading interests had, perhaps, caused the war. This prosaic
reason was abandoned in favour of the romantic one of conflict over Helen’s abduction.
It seems that the city of Troy actually existed. Excavations show that modern Hissarlik in
north western Asia Minor is the site of ancient Troy. Nine layers have been excavated at the
site, each representing a different city. Of these, the seventh layer from the bottom was the
Homeric Troy. The remains of its ruin show the destruction of the city by fire.
There was another city with evidence of a rich civilization excavated at Mycenae that
flourished between 1600-2000 BCE. This was the home of Agamemnon. The Mycenaean
civilization was a splendid and enterprising one but it was destroyed by far less civilized
Dorian Greeks from the north. The art of writing, inscribed on clay tablets in script called
Linear B, lately deciphered, disappeared along with other forms of civilized existence. For a
long time (1200-750 BCE) the Greek world passed through a dark age.
Athens held off the Dorians and gave shelter to fellow Mycenaeans. But due to
overcrowding, many Greeks left Athens, to settle on the islands on the Aegean Sea. These
5
settlements came to be called lonia and the people settled there, were lonians. They preserved
the ancient songs and stories. For generations, bards added their own interpretation and
details to these legends. There was an established outline for each legend. A stock of phrases
was used in these songs and poems; “wine-dark sea”, “brazen sky”, and “windy Troy.” Myths
regarding gods were also incorporated. This tradition was brought to a climax in the latter
part of the 8th cent. BCE by Homer in his two epics, The Iliad and the Odyssey. Homer’s
epics mark the beginning of European literature. The traditional myths and songs were the
main source of Homer, but he added much that was his own;

He enlivened the primitive tales with a generous and tender vision of life ... All
of Homer’s characters, even those to whom he pays little attention – swine herds,
ordinary soldiers, serving women; worthless suitors, are real and convincing
people. Each episode abounds in the endless variety of human conduct. Homer
himself never obtrudes, hardly ever passes judgment. He gave a whole new
vision of the world, of the gods at their appointed tasks, of men and women
pursuing their destinies, of every mood from grim vengeance to uproarious farce,
of palaces and gardens, remote islands and rocky shores. Homer’s poetry was
probably set down in writing within his own lifetime.
(From Classical Greece by C.M. Bowra)
The Iliad is concerned with heroes; ordinary soldiers are not given much attention. In
battle what matters is glory not victory or defeat. Defeat heroically endured is glorious,
perhaps a little less than victory. The epic is high tragedy. Achilles the central figure, a great
fighter, is brought down by his anger. In The Iliad, the paradoxical values of war and peace
are both upheld. Peace is desirable and destruction of cities is nightmarish. In one of the cities
represented by Hephaestus, on the shield for Achilles, a bridal procession is shown, with
women standing at the door and admiring it. Other pictures of ploughing, harvesting, and
vintage are implanted on the shield. Homer obviously delighted in such peaceful activities. At
the same time, his agony at the unavoidable misery caused by war is evident. Hector prays
that he may be in his grave before Andromache is dragged off to slavery by some victorious
Argive. But honour has the prime value. The brave warrior has to prove himself and so war is
inevitable – the enemy cannot be shown mercy, cities have to be sacked and miseries heaped
upon the conquered.
War and peace are the two sides of life and this double theme is spelt out as the story
unfolds. Achilles made his choice between honour and a long peaceful life. His mother Thetis
had foretold him of the significance of the choice. If he chose to fight at the Trojan war, he
would earn the highest honour but at the expense of his life. If he chose to stay away at home,
then he would enjoy a long life, domestic bliss and prosperity. He chose to have a life of
honour and glory. His anger makes him inhuman and he gets back his humanity partially but
not fully, when he comes to fight again for the Greeks to take revenge for the death of
Patroclus.

6
 He kills Hector and insults his body, an offence displeasing to the gods. Zeus sends him
a message to accept Priam’s ransom and hand over his son’s body to him. So, when Priam
goes to Achilles to request for his son’s body. Achilles feels pity for him, bereaved father;
also for his own father Peleus, left by himself in his old age, and he repents. This episode
shows “that reverence, for the agreed decencies of life, which was central to Homer’s
morality and, for a moment at least, unites the two opposed values of honour and domestic
order.” (E.M.W. Tillyard, The English Epic. O.U.P 1966)
The sense of the pity of war dominates the epic. Homer’s sympathy is with the suffering
people of both sides; this humanity comes out in such passages as the wavering feelings of
Hector’s fear and courage, the scene between Hector and his family, in the statement of
Zeus– “There is nothing alive more agonized than man.” (Iliad Book 17 line 515) So, in The
Iliad honour is the greatest good. In search of honour, heroes lay down their lives and earn
glory; many a time, the reluctant fighter is lashed back into action, being reminded of shame
as the worst evil. To get the epithet of a coward is the biggest shame for a soldier. And that is
the story of Iliad; noble, heroic, truthful, displaying epic qualities of unity of action, and the
ornamental simile.

7
 2. The Iliad: A Detailed Summary

Book One
Homer begins the Iliad with an invocation to the Muse, personifying the inspiration for epic
poetry. The poet wants to sing about the wrath of Achilles. The wrath that pervades and gives
unity to the whole epic.
The epic narrative begins in the tenth year of the Trojan war. Achilles and Agamemnon
bitterly quarrel as Apollo sends a plague to strike down the Greek forces. Chryses, the priest
of Apollo had come to Agamemnon to seek the release of his daughter Chryseis, taken
captive earlier. Agamemnon’s refusal had brought Apollo’s anger and consequent plague
upon the Greeks. A Greek assembly is called but Agamemnon does not willingly part with
the girl he has got as his share of the booty. In retaliation, he insists on capturing the lovely
Briseis, the prize of Achilles. This results in the withdrawal of Achilles from the war on
behalf of the Greeks. He appeals to his mother, the sea goddess Thetis, to intercede for him
with Zeus. Thetis the loving mother of Achilles agrees. Meanwhile Chryseis is sent back to
her father, with offerings to Apollo to propitiate his anger. The God is appeased. Thetis soars
up to Mount Olympus and grasping the knees of Zeus, appeals to him to grant Achilles the
honour he deserves. She appeals to Zeus to grant the Trojans victory after victory till the
Greeks pay Achilles back what they have deprived him of. Zeus agrees to her request, but
Hera his wife contends with him, as she dislikes the help Zeus has promised the Trojans.
Hephaestus, the son of Hera and God of fire succeeds in reconciling the two and brings back
harmony to the assembly of gods, serving them the feast which all partake of.
Book Two
Zeus decides to deceive Agamemnon through a dream. He should attack Troy, he is told, as
the Trojans will soon be crushed. The king reports the dream to the Greek elders. Then
Agamemnon addresses the assembled troops and to test their moral he reminds the men of
their wives and children, of the long wait outside Troy. His words move the men to prepare to
hasten home. But once again divine intervention upsets their desire. Hera and Athena, patrons
of the Greek cause, stop them in their tracks. Athena reaches Odysseus, asking him to
persuade the Greeks to stay back till Helen is restored to them. Odysseus and Nestor inspire
the soldiers to gain back their fighting spirit and Agamemnon calls them to battle.
And then follows the description of the men and ships of both the Trojans and the
Greeks.
Book Three
Helen comes out and stands on the ramparts of Troy. King Priam talks kindly to her, asking
her to identify the Greeks, standing below the gates of Troy. Paris appears on the field,
dressed magnificently in full armour and challenging his enemies. But all his bravado melts
as soon as he watches Menelaus menacingly appear on the scene. Hector shames Paris,
charging him with cowardice. Finally, he agrees to fight Menelaus. The Trojans and Greeks
8
agree that whosoever wins, whether Paris or Menelaus, will get Helen with all her treasure.
The war will end and the Greeks return home. Priam is called to seal the oath taking
ceremony. Paris and Menelaus fight but Paris is no match for his opponent. Aphrodite, the
goddess of love rescues him, enfolding him in mist and taking him from the battlefield to his
bed chamber. Helen is taken there by the goddess. Since Paris cannot be traced, Agamemnon
declares Menelaus to be the victor and claims Helen.
Book Four
On Mount Olympus, the gods plan to break the truce, and Athena is sent down to break the
peace. Athena incites the Trojan Pandarus to aim an arrow at Menelaus. Protected by Athena,
Menelaus is not seriously injured but the battle between the Greeks and the Trojans starts
again. Agamemnon is frightened to see Menelaus wounded and the healer Machaon is
urgently summoned. The Greek soldiers are stirred to battle. The chiefs are summoned and
praised. The Cretan captain Idomeneus, great and little Ajax, and Nestor, the old soldier, all
gather. Agamemnon speaks out scornfully against Odysseus, watching his troops not yet
ready for battle. That makes him flare up and at once Agamemnon withdraws his charge.
Like that he speaks to all the chiefs of the Greek army, goading all to put in their best and the
Trojans match them in strife. Apollo and Athena incite Trojans and Greeks respectively. And
the two warring sides fight on.
Book Five
The gods help the mortals, and some of them get wounded. The scene in book five shifts back
and forth from the battle field to Olympus. Diomedes, the Greek hero, is aided by Athena and
kills Pandarus. Aeneas, son of Aphrodite, is wounded by Diomedes but is saved by
Aphrodite. The gods intervene and thus many a life is saved on either side.
Diomedes injures Aphrodite, who escapes from the battle field, leaving Aeneas, who is
picked up by Apollo and saved. Aphrodite escapes to Olympus and is consoled by her mother
Dione and is advised by Zeus, to concern herself only with love.
And then Ares the God of war is called by Apollo to set right Diomedes, causing havoc
on the battlefield. Ares infuriates the Trojans. Aeneas launches into the fray once again and
Hector’s prowess makes Diomedes shudder. The battle rages on, while the Greeks fall back.
Both Hera and Athena come to the rescue of the Greeks with the permission of Zeus. He
does not want to upset the balance by destroying the whole Greek army which, it seems, Ares
is bent upon doing. So, Diomedes injures Ares with the help of Athena.
But Zeus has no consolation for Ares who comes to him with complaints. He orders the
healing god to cure him, and he sits along with Hera and Athena in the halls of Olympus.
Book Six
The battle continues, though the gods are no longer on the scene. Helenus, a son of Priam,
comes calling to Hector and Aeneas. He is endowed with the gift of augury and he requests

9
Aeneas to hold back the retreating Trojans, while the Greek troops are getting the better of
them.
Hector is requested to go back to the city. He has to tell the women there to offer the gift
of a fine robe and sacrifice twelve heifers in Athena’s shrine, so that she takes pity on Troy.
Hector accordingly speaks to the Trojans to instil courage in them.
Diomedes meets Glaucus, the Trojan he is about to fight. Diomedes wants to know who
he is, as he has never seen him before. Bellerophon, Glaucus says, was his ancestor. So,
Diomedes and Glaucus trace back the friendship of their families. They promise to revive this
old family friendship and never to hurt each other, though they belong to opposite camps.
They exchange their armour and thus seal the bond of friendship. Hector comes to Troy, and
to the anxious queries regarding their dear men from the Trojan women, Hector can only tell
them to pray to the gods.
Hector tells Hecuba, his mother to offer gift and Sacrifices to Athena, so that she may
take pity on Troy and hold back Diomedes. The Trojan women offer the gifts and prayer to
Athena, but she refuses their prayer.
Hector visits the bedroom of Paris and Helen. He taunts Paris for sitting in the safe
haven, while his country men are shedding blood for a war, brought upon them by Paris
himself. Paris assures Hector that he will soon return to the battlefield; he had only come to
his room to plunge himself in grief. Helen requests Hector to take rest for a while. She speaks
of herself as the one to have brought misfortune on all and she speaks of Paris as one who has
no self respect. But Hector has no time to stay. He speaks kindly to Helen, to make Paris go
to the battlefield. For himself, his heart bleeds for the suffering Trojans but before he returns
to the field, he must see his wife and baby son.
Andromache weeps to see Hector, telling him that his fiery courage is sure to destroy
him soon; asking what will happen to her and her son. Hector feels pity for her and for his
son too. It makes his heart bleed to think that in his absence, she will be held captive by his
enemies. But since nobody can escape fate, Hector too must go down fighting. He kisses his
son, wishing he becomes a better man than his father. So, Hector leaves for the battlefield,
joined by Paris.
Book Seven
As both the brothers enter the battlefield, they fight with the Greeks. Athena again rushes
down to help the Greeks. At the same moment, Apollo intercepts her. The two decide to call a
halt to the battle at least for the day and agree to another individual combat. Helenus, the
Trojan augur, tells Hector to challenge a Greek to duel. The challenge is made by Hector and
accepted by the Greek Ajax. After the day long fight, the combatants part in friendship,
exchanging gifts.
At night, the Greeks hold an assembly and decide to build a protective wall around the
ships and a trench outside the wall.

10
 Another assembly is held in Troy, where Antenor the Trojan elder, proposes that Helen
should be restored to the Greeks and thus the war should end. But Paris rejects the proposal.
He is prepared to give back the treasures he had once brought from Argos, adding his own to
it.
Priam, the Trojan king, agrees and decides to send the herald, Idaeus, to the Greek camp
at dawn to moot the proposal. They are asked to stop the fight for the day so that the dead
bodies could be burnt.
The Greeks do not agree to accept the treasures offered by Paris; they say they do not
want to accept even Helen, as the Trojans are now sure to be defeated. As for the cessation of
hostilities for the day, they readily agree to it.
Both sides burn the bodies of their soldiers, washing the blood and weeping warm tears.
Then the Greeks build their proposed wall. But the sea god Poseidon complains that the
Greeks are building their wall without offering any sacrifice to the gods. Zeus gives him
permission to destroy the walls, after the war ends and the Greeks leave for home.
Book Eight
Zeus speaks to the assembled gods and goddesses in Olympus, warning them that they must
not try to help the Trojans or the Greeks, or they will be severely punished. So, it is the day of
the Trojans and Hector goes on winning and covering himself with glory. Now Queen Hera
in Olympus speaks to Poseidon to help the Greeks, which the sea-god refuses to do, as he is
afraid of Zeus.
Both Hera and Athena now get ready to enter the field, to help their favourites. They, of
course, are not able to do so, as Zeus orders them to desist forthwith. Hector is thus
triumphant, with divine will backing him. The Trojans keep a night long vigil, with a hundred
fires burning.
Book Nine
Since the Greeks are at a disadvantage, the king despairingly tells his troops to prepare to sail
back home. But Diomedes voices his opposition to such a defeatist attitude. He declares that
the Greek army will never acknowledge defeat and all the Greeks shout their assent. And
thus, it is assured that they will continue to fight.
An assembly of the commanders and senior chiefs is held. There, Nestor advises
Agamemnon to send an embassy to Achilles to make him forget his anger with soothing
words and gifts. Agamemnon acknowledges his fault and agrees to make amends. He agrees
to return Briseis’ daughter, who was seized from Achilles. He promises to give one of his
daughters in marriage to Achilles, along with a magnificent dowry. Other invaluable gifts are
promised, so Achilles may forget his anger and agree to participate in the war.
Leading Greek chiefs Phoenix, Ajax, and Odysseus carry the message to Achilles.
Achilles receives them warmly and offers them lavish hospitality, but refuses to join the war
and rejects the offer of reconciliation made by Agamemnon. He decides to return home. His
11
tutor Phoenix tries to make him relent but to no avail. He is requested to spend the night in
the camp of Achilles, which he does. The rest of the group go back with the depressing news.
The Greeks feel disappointed but Diomedes declares that they will fight on even without
Achilles, and everybody agrees.
Book Ten
The whole episode takes place in the night. Agamemnon and Menelaus are worried about the
Greek fate in battle. They cannot sleep and the others are called to meet and decide on a plan
of action. In the meeting, also attended by Nestor, Odysseus, and Diomedes, it is decided to
send å spy to the Trojan Camp to find out their strategy and plan of action. Diomedes
volunteers for the job and selects Odysseus as his partner in this mission.
The same thing happens in the Trojan camp. Hector induces one Dolon to go out to the
Greek camp and find out whether the fleet is still guarded as before or not. He is promised the
horses of Achilles if he is successful in his mission. Unfortunately, Dolon is caught by the
Greek pair of Diomedes and Odysseus as soon as he steps out of the Trojan Camp. He is a
coward and blurts out information about troop position in the Trojan camp, to the Greeks. But
he cannot save himself and is killed.
Diomedes and Odysseus kill the Thracian soldiers with their king Rhesus. They drive
away the magnificent horses of the Thracian king and, with Athena’s advice, quickly depart
from the Trojan camp. They are received with great joy in the Greek camp. And the
Thracians, awakened by Apollo, find to their dismay, the havoc wrought in their camp by the
Greek marauders.
Book Eleven
The Greeks are eager for fight as Zeus sends the goddess Strife; inflaming the spirit of war
among them.
Agamemnon gets ready and calls his men to arms. The Trojans too are ready for the
battle, along with Hector and the other leaders. It is Agamemnon who fights fiercely, killing
many Trojans. Zeus sends his messenger Iris to tell Hector that he must not move till
Agamemnon is wounded and leaves the battle field. And very soon Agamemnon is severely
wounded, retiring from the battle field. That provides the signal for Hector to join the fray.
Odysseus, Ajax, Diomedes, and the physician Machaon fight fiercely but all are seriously
wounded. Achilles observes Nestor carrying Machaon, wounded, from the field. In order to
make sure, he asks his friend Patroclus to go and ask Nestor the name of the wounded man.
Patroclus goes at once to Nestor, and sees for himself that the injured man is no other
than Machaon. Nestor detains Patroclus, telling him a story of one of his past exploits. He
also requests him to take part in the fight with the armour of Achilles on his person so that
Patroclus may be mistaken for Achilles. Patroclus goes back to Achilles with this message
but on his way, he comes across Eurypylus, who asks him for help, since the healer Machaon

12
is wounded and needed looking after. Patroclus stays with him and applies herbs to his
wound.
Book Twelve
The wall the Greeks build for their defence is doomed to fall but only when the battle is over.
In their hurry the Greeks did not pay the dues to the gods, so Poseidon and Apollo decide to
smash the rampart, eventually. For now, the battle rages on, with the Trojans trying to attack
the wall. The horses however cannot cross the ditch, protected by rows of sharp stakes, and
the Trojans came fighting on foot. The Greeks cannot withstand the might of Hector,
endowed with glory by Zeus. He bursts through the gates and the Trojans follow him. The
Greeks retreat to their ships.
Book Thirteen
The earth-shaker god Poseidon comes to inspire the Greeks to greater efforts to fight the
Trojans. In the form of Calchas the prophet, he first speaks to both Great and Little Ajax,
asking them to defend their position strongly. He touches them to fill them with strength and
striking force. They recognise the god’s voice through his assumed persona.
When his grandson Amphimachus dies, Poseidon is full of anger and projects himself as
Thoas before the Cretan captain Idomeneus. Idomeneus stops the Trojan assault with the
god’s aid and the assistance of Menelaus. Poseidon further helps the Greeks by saving
Nestor’s son Antilochus from sure death. Menelaus wounds Helenus and kills Peisander,
crying against the Trojans for stealing his wife. Hector is advised by Polydamas to call his
troops, drawing them into one unit. Hector goes around rallying his men when he comes
across Paris; he mocks him for his love of women and fear of battle. As Hector hears Ajax
say that Troy is bound to fall, he taunts him in return and the battle goes on.
Book Fourteen
Agamemnon loses hope and proposes retreat to the sea and eventually sail home. But
Odysseus is opposed to it and Diomedes suggests that the leaders must take their positions,
wounded though they are, and spur their men to action. This is approved by all. Poseidon
comes to Agamemnon in the form of an old man, and speaks disapprovingly of Achilles, who
sits idly to see so many Greeks killed. The gods may strike him down, he says and the
Trojans will soon flee for Troy. The Greeks take heart, as the god gives a cry like the yell of
ten thousand warriors.
The goddess Hera now tries to come to the aid of the Greeks, with the help of an
elaborate plan. She dresses nicely and then on her way to entice Zeus, asks Aphrodite for
charms. She hides her real purpose and tells Aphrodite that she wants the charms to reunite
the quarrelling couple, Oceanus and Tethys. After securing the wherewithal from Aphrodite,
Hera approaches the god Sleep. She wants help from him to make Zeus fall asleep
immediately after finishing their love-making. Sleep is too scared to do this, remembering the
close shave he had earlier, while attempting a similar ploy. But he agrees eventually, tempted

13
by Hera to get one of the Graces in marriage. Armed with her strategy, Hera descends on Mt.
Ida. As expected, she charms Zeus and then he is conquered by sleep. Immediately Sleep
goes to Poseidon, informing him of the deep sleep which enfolds Zeus. Poseidon can now
help the Greeks, which he does. Soon, Hector is severely wounded and his friends take him
away from the battle field. The battle goes on.
Book Fifteen
Zeus awakens from the charmed sleep, induced by Hera’s machinations. He is shocked to see
Hector, badly wounded and is very angry with Hera. He reminds her of an earlier punishment
she had received due to disobedience. But Hera denies her role in making the Trojans slide in
battle; Poseidon alone is responsible for it. Zeus accepts her apology and summons Apollo
and Iris to his presence. He clearly outlines his plan. Apollo will now restore strength to
Hector. Then the Greeks will receive such a beating from the Trojans that they will be pushed
back to their ships. Patroclus will then be sent to fight and will eventually be killed by
Hector. Then Zeus is going to turn the tide of the war. Achilles will kill Hector, being
angered by the death of his friend. This way Zeus is going to fulfil his promise to Thetis to
vindicate Achilles. Hera is sent back to Olympus. She tells the other gods that Zeus has
threatened that unless all obey him and maintain order, he will punish them.
Ares alone, among all the gods, is ready to defy Zeus, as his son has been killed and he is
prepared to go to the battlefield to avenge his son’s death. But Athena stops him, telling him
that Zeus will punish everybody in Olympus for his transgression. Zeus sends Iris and Apollo
on their separate missions. Iris goes to Poseidon, persuading him to withdraw on the orders of
Zeus. Apollo goes to revive Hector and assure the Trojans of his help. The onslaught of the
Trojans is now almost impossible to counteract and the battle reaches a crisis. Patroclus
leaves Eurypylus to the care of an aide, and he rushes back to Achilles to try to persuade him
to join the battle to help the Greeks. A desperate battle rages on, with Hector urging the
Trojans to seize the Greek ships. Ajax tries his best to repel the attack and the Trojans start
setting the Greek ships afire.
Book Sixteen
Patroclus is grief stricken at the beating the Greeks have taken. He tells Achilles that at least
he should be allowed to go to fight for the Greeks, wearing Achilles’ armour. Achilles agrees,
though he still cannot forget the insult heaped upon him by Agamemnon. He will not fight till
the Trojan attack reaches his own ships. Patroclus is allowed to go and fight, along with the
Myrmidon army. But he is warned not to pursue the Trojans into the city or kill Hector.
Achilles goes to call the Myrmidon army to fight, as Patroclus puts on Achilles’ armour.
Achilles goes to pour out libations to father Zeus, praying that Patroclus should achieve glory
in battle and come back safe. Zeus hears his prayers but decides that though the Trojan
onslaught will be fought off by Patroclus, he will not return safe.
Patroclus goes to fight and driving the Trojans off the ships, he puts out the fire. The tide
of battle is turned in favour of the Greeks. The Trojans are trapped between the ships, the
14
trench, and the river. Patroclus kills a number of Trojans and a fierce combat ensues between
Patroclus and Sarpedon, a son of Zeus. Zeus wonders whether he should save his son against
his fate. Queen Hera strongly opposes the desire to save a mortal against his destiny. If
Sarpedon is saved, then other gods also would like to have the same privilege for their own
sons, many of whom are fighting in the battle field. At most, Zeus should allow the body of
Sarpedon to be moved to Lycia, his home land, so that he gets a proper burial.
Sarpedon is killed by Patroclus. Before breathing his last, Sarpedon asks his comrade
Glaucus, to shield his body from being stripped of armour. Glaucus, wounded himself, prays
to Apollo to help him fight off the Greeks, to save the corpse of his friend. Granting his
request Apollo quickly heals his wound. Glaucus at once spurs his Lycian captains on to
guard the body of Sarpedon and then he urges Hector to join the battle to save the body of
Sarpedon from any indignity. In the sharp fight between the Greeks and Trojans, so many are
killed that the body of Sarpedon can hardly be made out of the mass of corpses that have
fallen. It is the wish of Zeus that the body of Sarpedon be lifted by Apollo from the field and
bathed in a river and set down in the green fields of Lycia to be buried with royal rites.
It is, again, the will of Zeus that makes the Trojans retreat from the field, with Patroclus
in hot pursuit. Led by Patroclus, the Greeks charge against the wall of Troy but Apollo hurls
the charges back and reminds him that it is not his fate to seize Troy. Hector is now inspired
by Apollo, who urges him on, in the shape of Asius, his uncle. Hector goes to fight Patroclus.
Apollo goes on to hurl the Greeks back to chaos; handing glory to Hector and the Trojan
forces. Patroclus kills Cebriones, the charioteer of Hector. The Greeks seize the body of
Cebriones and as Patroclus is fighting fiercely, Apollo comes from behind, shrouded in thick
mist, and knocks the helmet off his head. Patroclus stands senseless, as his armour, lent by
Achilles, drops from his shoulders. The young Trojan Euphorbus, first wounds him between
the shoulder blades and Hector gives the death blow to his belly. Standing over the dying
Patroclus, Hector mocks him.
With his dying breath Patroclus tells him that only Zeus and Apollo have brought him
down and Hector could kill him because he was already wounded and stripped of his armour.
Very soon destiny is going to overtake Hector too.
Book Seventeen
Menelaus kills Euphorbus. Fierce battle ensues for the body of Patroclus. Apollo rouses
Hector against Menelaus, who is forced to withdraw. Hector tears the armour off Patroclus
but before the body can be taken away, Great Ajax charges him and Hector leaps on his
chariot. He puts on the newly acquired armour. Zeus does not quite approve of the armour of
Achilles being taken by Hector. Anyway, the Trojans are granted some victory as Hector is
soon doomed to die.
The battle rages on for the body of Patroclus. The goddess Athena gives strength to
Menelaus but the Greeks are again threatened. But Zeus does not allow the body of Patroclus
to be taken by the Trojans. Apollo appears to Aeneas, in the guise of a loyal herald, to

15
provoke him. Aeneas recognises Apollo and he shouts at Hector not to let Patroclus’ body be
taken by the Greeks.
Achilles as yet does not know of the death of Patroclus. Antilochus is sent to Achilles
with this sad news though the Greeks know that he will be of little help without his armour.
Menelaus and Meriones carry off Patroclus’ body to the Greek camp. The two Ajaxes fight
off the Trojans but the Argives flee in fear. The battle rages on and Hector and Aeneas pursue
the Greeks.
Book Eighteen
As Achilles sits in his ship, worrying about Patroclus, Antilochus comes with the news of his
death and the loss of his armour. Achilles is overwhelmed with grief and his wrenching cry is
heard by his mother Thetis and her sisters, the Nereids, dwelling under the sea. She, along
with her sisters come up to Achilles. Achilles tells her that he is going to the battle field to
avenge the death of his dear friend by killing Hector. Thetis warns him that he will die shortly
after the death of Hector. But if he must go for the battle then she will get for him a set of
armour from Hephaestus, the god of fire. As the tussle goes on for the body of Patroclus,
Hera sends Iris to Achilles with the message that at least he must go and stand near the trench
to frighten the Trojans. Athena rings his head with a blazing cloud, and he lets out a cry,
along with Athena, and the combined shriek sends a wave of panic through the Trojan ranks.
Evening comes and the day’s battle ends. Taking advantage of the darkness, the Greeks drag
the body of Patroclus out of range and lay him on a litter.
The Trojans meet in an assembly and Polydamas advises them to retreat inside Troy and
fight the Greeks, led by Achilles from the ramparts. But Hector rejects the suggestion and
decides to assault the Greek ships in the morning. The Greeks, with Achilles, clean the body
of Patroclus and Achilles vows that his friend’s body will not be buried until he brings back
the head and armour of Hector.
Thetis reaches the workshop of the fire god Hephaestus in Olympus. He is told what all
has happened to Achilles and is requested to forge a set of new armour for Achilles.
Hephaestus forges a great and massive shield on which is depicted the universe to which
Achilles is returning. Through this shield he is linked with heaven, earth and sea. The shield
has five concentric circles. On the first is forged the sun, moon, and stars; on the second, two
cities - one at peace, one at war; the seasons and scenes from pastoral life. The outermost
layer depicts the sea. A sturdy helmet is also made, along with greaves of pliant tin. This is
brought to Thetis, who carries it to Achilles.
Book Nineteen
The armour is given to Achilles, who gets ready to go for the battle but is afraid that his
friend’s body may rot. Thetis assures him that she will look after Patroclus’ body. Now
Achilles must forget his rage and tremendous courage is instilled in him. He calls the whole
army to fight and apologises to Agamemnon, calling a halt to his anger. King Agamemnon, in
his turn, says that fate and the will of Zeus had made him act the way he did. Now he is intent
16
on setting things right. He offers Achilles the priceless ransom, promised earlier. Odysseus
asks Achilles to allow the soldiers time to take their meal before going to battle. He agrees
but refuses all nourishment himself so, Athena fills him with nectar and sweet ambrosia that
will sustain his strength.
Achilles then covers himself with all the gear made by Hepheastus and is ready for
battle. The horses of his chariot speak to him. The goddess Hera gives voice to the dumb
beasts. They tell him that Patroclus could not be saved as it was divine will that killed him
and Achilles won’t also live for long now. Achilles knows it, but that knowledge does not
stop him from fighting the Trojans.
Book Twenty
Zeus allows the gods to give aid to any side of their choice. Accordingly, the gods help their
respective favourites. Aeneas is filled with power by Apollo. Aeneas and Achilles fight and
Poseidon removes Aeneas from the battle to save his life. Achilles kills many Trojans. Hector
is warned by Apollo, not to fight Achilles alone. But when his brother Polydorus is killed,
Hector charges Achilles. Athena diverts the weapon from Achilles. Apollo saves Hector
similarly in a protective mist. Achilles is angry with Apollo for intervening and keeps on
killing other Trojans.
Book Twenty- One
Achilles pushes the Trojan warriors into the river Xanthus and kills many of them; taking
twelve of them captive when he is tired. The river, angry at the bloodshed, asks Achilles to
stop killing the Trojans. When he refuses, Xanthus sends giant waves to drown Achilles and
calls on fellow river, Simios to help him. Achilles runs up an embankment to save his life.
Hera asks her son Hephaestus to intervene and he sends a great fire on the stream, that almost
burns it up. Athena and Poseidon urge Achilles to fight on and kill Hector.
The gods fight among themselves. Ares attacks Athena, who hurls a stone at him. He is
badly injured and when Aphrodite comes to his help, she is also knocked down. Poseidon
reminds Apollo of the wrong done to both of them by Laomedon, an earlier king of Troy. On
Zeus’ order, both Apollo and Poseidon had laboured for Laomedon for stated wages. But they
were never paid and were ill treated in every way. So now they should not favour the Trojans.
Apollo does not want to fight with him. For that, his sister Artemis taunts him but Hera boxes
her ears and sends her to Olympus in tears.
Down below, Achilles goes on killing the Trojans and Priam orders the gates of Troy to
open, to let in the Trojans fleeing from Achilles. As the Greeks reach the gates in hot pursuit,
Agenor stands there to fight Achilles. Achilles leaps at Agenor but Apollo whisks him off.
Apollo, taking the shape of Agenor, makes Achilles chase him across wheat fields and the
Trojans get the opportunity to enter the city walls.
Book Twenty-Two
Hector’s parents fervently request him to take shelter inside the walls of Troy and not face
Achilles, who is sure to kill him. Hector feels he should have listened to Polydamas when he
17
wanted the Trojans to take shelter inside Troy. Now that so many Trojans have been killed,
Hector must face Achilles; either to kill or be killed.
He wavers again; thinking that he can save himself by going to Achilles, offering him
Helen with all her riches, along with the treasures of Troy. Then he realises that will not be of
help and it is better to clash in battle and see who wins. Seeing Achilles, all of a sudden
Hector loses his nerve and runs in fear. Three times they run around the city of Troy. Athena
comes to help Achilles. She deceives Hector in the shape of Deiphobus, his brother, by
offering to help and lures him into facing Achilles. Hector throws a spear at Achilles. He is
now without any lance, so he calls to Deiphobus for one. But there is nobody to listen to him.
Now Hector knows that his final moment has come as Athena has tricked him. But he
resolves to earn glory through struggle, before his death. So, Hector and Achilles fight, only
for Hector to be killed by Achilles. With his last breath, Hector begs Achilles to give his body
to his friends so that he is given a proper burial. Achilles angrily rejects his appeal and
declares that dogs and scavenger birds will eat his dead body. With his last breath, Hector
foretells the death of Achilles. Hector’s body is fastened to the chariot of Achilles and
dragged through the dust to the Greek lines.
Hector’s parents wail and mourn. Priam wants to go and appeal to Achilles to hand over
the body to him.
Andromache is weaving at her loom and preparing Hector’s bath, when the sound of
wailing reaches her. She reaches the tower and sees the terrible sight of Hector being dragged
by Achilles. She faints and coming to, cries for her dead husband; she mourns for her
fatherless son, who will suffer humiliation with nobody to save him from that.
Book Twenty-Three
The burial of Patroclus is arranged with timber from Mount Ida and animal and human
sacrifices. Achilles has a dream of the ghost of Patroclus requesting to be buried quickly and
for his bones to be buried alongside those of Achilles. Achilles orders his men to do
everything as his dead friend desired; he cuts his own red-gold locks and places them in his
friend’s hand. He kills twelve Trojans and places their bodies on the same pyre as Patroclus.
But Hector’s body, he resolves to give to the dogs. This is not acceptable to the gods.
Aphrodite beats off the dogs from Hector’s body and anoints it with ambrosial oil of roses, so
that his skin will not rip while being dragged by Achilles. Apollo brings down a dark cloud to
safeguard the body of Hector from the sun’s fury.
Achilles offers libations to the west and north wind. (Zephyr and Boreas) so that
Patroclus’ pyre burns properly. His prayer is granted and the flames burn fiercely as Achilles
weeps, dragging himself around the pyre.
At dawn, Agamemnon and his followers come to collect the bones and place them in a
golden urn. The last embers are put out with wine and a tomb is erected. Games are proposed
in his honour and all the Greek heroes participate to pay homage to Patroclus.

18
Book Twenty-Four
Though everything is over; the death of Patroclus avenged, rituals done, and homage paid to
him, Achilles cannot overcome his sorrow for his friend. He weeps and drags Hector’s body
round the tomb of Patroclus. This goes on for twelve days. Hector’s body is protected by
Apollo, so it is not disfigured by all that is done to it. The gods are not happy with Achilles’
behaviour, who has lost all pity. Zeus decrees that Achilles may receive a ransom from King
Priam, but he must give back Hector’s body, so he summons Thetis to his presence. She is
ordered to tell her son that Zeus is angry with him, and he must give back Hector’s body.
Zeus sends Iris down to Priam, telling him to carry ransom to Achilles to assuage his rage and
bring home his son’s body. Thetis goes to Achilles, bearing the message of Zeus and he
agrees to give back the body of Patroclus.
Priam gets ready to go to Achilles, as ordered by Zeus. He collects rich gifts and
treasures to be handed to Achilles. Before he starts, Hecuba brings a golden cup of honeyed
wine to be poured in honour of Zeus, so he grants him safe return. Priam washes his hands
and pours the wine to earth. He prays to Zeus to send him a bird of good omen. Zeus hears
his prayer and sends an eagle that sweeps through the city. Then Priam drives towards the
Greek ships. Hermes is ordered by Zeus to conduct Priam through the Greek ships so that
none will see him. Hermes talks to Priam in the guise of one of Achilles’ men. He assures
Priam that the body of Hector is intact and uncorrupted. Priam is overjoyed to hear this and
offers him a handsome cup. Hermes safely drives the chariot of Priam inside Achilles’s
shelter and then introduces himself. He tells Priam that now he should go in and clasp
Achilles’s knees to make him yield to his request.
Priam goes to Achilles, going down on his knees. He appeals to Achilles to think of his
own father and both Priam and Achilles weep; one for his dead son, the other for his father
and for his friend. Achilles takes pity on the old man and offers him a seat. He tells him that
excessive grief does not serve any purpose as Zeus gives mixed blessings and sorrows to
mortals. Even Peleus, Achilles’ father, has his share of both. He married a goddess but he will
not have a son to care for him in old age, as Achilles is destined to die shortly. Achilles
orders the body of Hector to be washed and wrapped in a finely woven shirt brought by
Priam. Hector’s body is cleaned and wrapped and placed on a bier by Achilles himself. He
then offers food to Priam, orders a proper bed for him, and agrees to hold back hostilities for
eleven days – the time required for the burial.
In a short while, Hermes comes to urge Priam to leave the Greek camp with his son’s
body, before Agamemnon catches him. Hermes guides them back safely. Once they reach
Troy, the whole city is plunged in grief. Andromache mourns Hector, foreseeing her future as
a slave of the Greeks. She fears the worst for her son, now that his father is not there to save
him. Hecuba and Helen cry in grief. Helen, miserable in Hector’s death for the gentleness he
had shown.
And then Hector is buried, all Troy bidding him a tearful farewell.

19
 3. The Characters
Achilles
Homer shows us that force is not omnipotent, though it may achieve the near impossible.
Achilles has super human force and he attempts to achieve the impossible through cruelty but
his attempt breaks down finally as he attains insight into the workings of the human mind.
Achilles’ wrath is the main theme of the Iliad. It causes great losses to the Greeks though
the wrath ends in reconciliation. The epic prepares us in advance for important events
through prophecies, decisions of the gods, and portents. We come to know by the end of the
1st book that the Trojans will keep on winning till Achilles’ honour is restored. Achilles’
nature is half human, half divine as his mother is the goddess Thetis and his father a mortal;
Peleus, King of the Myrmidons. It is the artistic role of Thetis to bring with her when she
comes, the thought of Achilles’ approaching death. Achilles is ardently attached to his
mother, calling her to his side for all his complaints. She is equally attached to him, the
tortured mother of a suffering son. She tries to bring to him succour for all his misery,
helping him in all his needs, literally running from heaven to earth to ocean in order to do
what is required for his help. She never fails him in his hour of trial.
In the first chapter, nine years after the war, a priest of Apollo, Chryses comes to the
camp, asking them to return his daughter, who was captured by the Greeks. The Achaeans
advise Agamemnon to return Chryseis, his daughter. When Agamemnon refuses, Chryses
prays to Apollo to strike the Greek camp with plague. Seeing the soldiers suffer, Achilles
asks Calchas, the seer, to find a remedy. Calchas says that Apollo can only be appeased if
Chryseis is returned to her father. Achilles and Agamemnon fight over the surrender of
Agamemnon’s trophy; not an inanimate one but a living woman, Chryseis. At the beginning,
Agamemnon does not want to part with her as he considers it a loss of his honour. He insists
that since Chryseis, his prize has to be sent away, he will snatch Briseis, Achilles’ prize, as
his own. Achilles is mad with anger and is about to kill Agamemnon but he stops, heeding
the command of Athena and Hera. But he swears to stay away from the battle and never come
to fight along with the Greeks. He feels greatly humiliated when his honour prize, the
beautiful Briseis has been taken away from him. His mother Thetis, on his request, goes to
Olympus, to pray to Zeus to grant the Trojans victory after victory, till the Achaean armies
restore Achilles’ honour. Zeus grants her request.
The Trojans gain while Achilles sits back, not taking part in the battle. The Greeks
advise Agamemnon to try reconciliation with Achilles. Agamemnon agrees to give him a
priceless ransom, return Briseis, the girl seized from him, and also offers one of his daughters
to him in marriage, with a huge dowry. All this – along with a point that almost cancels the
whole effort – he does not apologise. He says Achilles must submit to him as he says, “I am
the greater king, /I am the elder-born, I claim, the greater man.”
The ambassadors Phoenix, Ajax, and Odysseus, arrive at the Myrmidon shelter. They
plead with Achilles to come and rescue the beleaguered Greeks. They are threatened with
20
annihilation by the Trojans and the only hope they have is in Achilles. Shrewd Odysseus does
not tell Achilles that the gifts have been sent by Agamemnon; nor is he told of the last
condition – “Let him bow down to me”. However, Achilles is not convinced. He rejects the
offer, planning to go back home. What he most values is honour. He wants to be paid back
for all his “heart breaking outrage”. He has not been offered any apology, no amends for his
wounded pride.
Achilles’ anger assumes an all- consuming force and he does not relent, even though
Phoenix, his tutor and guardian, reminds him that even the gods can be brought round by
prayers and sacrifice. Prayers are the daughters of mighty Zeus and they should be honoured.
Achilles must defend his friends; Ajax tells him to rejoin the Greek army, saying that the
whole army will honour him like a god. But Achilles refuses to fight as he has nothing but
overwhelming hatred for Agamemnon.
And then the predictable happens. All the big names in the Achaean camp; Agamemnon,
Diomedes, and Odysseus get wounded and the battle goes very much against the Greeks.
Achilles watches all this and feels elated; “Now I think they will grovel at my knees, our
Achaean comrades, begging for their lives.”
Patroclus comes back from an inspection of the Greek camp, with news of the disaster
there. Agamemnon, Diomedes, and Odysseus are all wounded; even their healer Machaon is
wounded. Patroclus has come with a request from Nestor, that Achilles should at least allow
Patroclus to use his armour and join the battle. The Trojans might mistake him for Achilles
with his Myrmidon army, and he, fresh in battle, might change the course of the war.
The news makes Achilles forget his hard resolve to sit back now that Agamemnon is
utterly helpless but still thinks, “I would not relax my anger not till the cries and carnage
reached my own ships.” Now all that he agrees to is to allow Patroclus to put on his armour
and lead the Myrmidon army into action.
Even now he is totally self absorbed. It is his own glory that concerns him; Patroclus is
regarded as part of himself. But he too is displeased with Achilles’s indifference to the
sufferings of the fellow Greeks. He says, “Pray god such anger never seizes me/ such rage
you nurse/cursed in your own courage!” Gradually Achilles relents; “enough/ Let bygones be
bygones now/ Done is done/ How on earth can a man rage on forever?” (Book 16, 68-70)
Patroclus is ordered to drive the Trojans off the ships. He must do no more that may take
away from the glory of Achilles. Now he hopes to get back the gifts once rejected and also
his girl. It is to be his own personal triumph; “Not one of all these Trojans could flee his
death, not one/ no Argive either, but we could stride from the slaughter so we could bring
Troy’s hallowed crown of towers toppling down around us/ you and I alone.” (Book 16-116-
120)
Patroclus is killed by Hector and the fight is now over his corpse. Achilles’ quarrel with
Agamemnon ends in the death of his dearest comrade. Achilles has been warned by his
mother of his own death immediately after the death of Hector. But he must avenge
21
Patroclus, whom he loved as his own life. His anger is still there, but he beats it down by
force. Achilles has to fight now, but not before he gets the armour his mother has promised to
get him from Hephaestus, the god of fire. The old armour he had given to Patroclus has been
seized by Hector.
When the new set of armour is brought, Achilles calls the Achaeans to assemble, as he
had done at the beginning (Book 1). Achilles tells them that he is still angry but he has
another cause for anger. He is going to beat down his rage against Agamemnon by force. He
says “It is wrong to keep on raging. Let bygones be bygones. Done is done” (Book 19). He
regrets the feud, that raging, brought down so many Greeks; however, now it is time for
action against the enemy.
Agamemnon disowns his own responsibility, makes some excuse and offers all the gifts
he had sent earlier to Achilles, and offers to display them so that all could see. Moreover,
Briseis is to be restored to Achilles; untouched by any in Agamemnon’s camp.
To Achilles, nothing matters now but Hector. He commands immediate launch of an
attack against the Trojans. He does not have any taste for food and rest. His all-consuming
passion for revenge makes him forget his physical needs. The goddess Athena strengthens his
limbs, instilling nectar and ambrosia in his body. Odysseus suggests a display of all the gifts
that Agamemnon would give to Achilles; they should have a public ceremony of
reconciliation and Agamemnon agrees. He also offers to sacrifice a wild boar to Zeus and
prepare a feast but Achilles is not interested in such ceremonies, which will only restore
Agamemnon’s prestige. Hector’s death, and only that, preoccupies him; “You talk of food? I
have no taste for food, what I really crave/ is slaughter and blood and the choking groans of
men. (Book 19, Page 253-55)

Hector’s death avenges Patroclus and establishes Achilles’ identity as the

unchallengeable and unconquerable violence of war personified.
(Introduction to The Iliad by Bernard Knox, p.55)

Hector till the end, thinks of his own responsibility towards his country; his poised
civilized behaviour is contrasted with the self-absorbed fury of Achilles. Hector is compared
to a soaring eagle swinging his sharp sword but Achilles bursts with barbaric rage; “Would to
god,” Achilles says “rage, my fury would drive me now/ to hack your flesh away and eat you
raw.” He is fighting for himself, his own honour and glory. Even at the last moment Hector
thinks of his own people, “How much lighter the war would be for Trojans then/ if you their
greatest scourge were dead and gone.” (Book 22, 339-340)
Achilles is inhuman even when he is avenging his friend, “Hector surely, you thought
when you stripped Patroclus’ armour /that you would be safe/ Never a fear of me, far from
the fighting as I was – you fool! Left behind there, down by the beaked ships/his great
avenger waited/ A greater man by far; that man was, I.” (Book 22, 390-99)

22
 Earlier, being inhuman and equally self- glorifying, Achilles rejects Hector’s offer to
enter into a pact that the victor should take the armour of the vanquished but give his body for
burial. It is a fair and civilized gesture to be adopted by warring opponents. Achilles’s rage is
comparable with the rage of the gods; “only if you could break their gates and their long
walls and devour Priam and Priam’s sons and the Trojan armies raw then you just might cure
your rage at last “(Book 4, 39-42). Hector’s body is dragged by Achilles, lashed to his chariot
in full view of his parents and all the other Trojans standing on the walls of Troy. The funeral
of Patroclus is arranged with human sacrifice and the promise to feed Hector’s body to the
dogs.
Though he triumphed he was bent on shaming noble Hector; he flung him face down in
the dust beside Patroclus’ bier. (Book 23) Achilles’ sorrow can be assuaged only by making
other people suffer, “in front of your flaming pyre/ I’ll cut the throats of a dozen sons of Troy
in all their shining glory, venting my rage on them for your destruction.”
A magnificent funeral is arranged for Patroclus and after the pyre is burnt, games are
arranged to celebrate his memory. The dead man is honoured by the rich prizes and the
endeavour of the contestants to win them. As Achilles is offering these prizes he does not
contest. The whole episode is designed, it seems, to offer some relief from the macabre
treatment of Hector’s body and the blood-soaked scenes of war. Achilles is gradually shown
to be coming back to normalcy; it shows us what Achilles might have been in peace – noble,
aristocratic, courteous in his bearing, as far as the Greeks are concerned. He is no longer
alienated from the larger community of fellow Greeks but he is not totally free from his
obsession. Hector’s corpse is again dragged around the tomb of Patroclus and he weeps
whenever he remembers him. Such obsession, causing the atrocity to the dead body is
offensive even to the gods. Apollo pities Hector and keeps all corruption off his body. The
gods even plan stealing the body, but the plan is abandoned at the behest of Zeus, who
decides that he will ask Thetis to tell Achilles to return Hector’s body to Priam in exchange
for a ransom. Achilles agrees but without any sign of relenting, reminiscent of indifference
when Agamemnon had renewed his offer of gifts.
The unexpected arrival of Priam, as a suppliant, starts to bring about the real change in
the attitude and mind of Achilles. Guided by the god Hermes, Priam’s arrival is a mystery
that astonishes Achilles,
as when the grip of madness seizes one who murders a man in his own fatherland
and flees abroad to foreign shores, to a wealthy noble host and a sense of marvel
runs through all who see him. (Book 24)

It seems to reverse the situation, as if Priam, not Achilles, were the killer. And yet it is
carefully chosen.
For Achilles, a child of the quarrelsome, violent society of the Achaeans we
know so well from the bitter feuds of the camp, from old Nestor’s tales of cattle
raids, ambush and border war, from the tales of Achaean suppliants fleeing their
23
 homeland with blood on their hands – for Achilles, the appearance of a
distinguished stranger and his gesture of supplication evoke the familiar context
of the man of violence seeking shelter.
(Introduction to The Iliad. Bernard Knox)
Now, gradually, Achilles regains his human feelings. He overcomes his own rage and
isolation. Priam first of all reminds Achilles of his father – lonely at home, with no one there
to defend him. But he is better off than Priam, as he may hope to see his son back home any
day. Not so Priam, whose son Hector has been killed by Achilles. For him only, Priam has
dared to come to Achilles, with a priceless ransom, supplicant for his pity; “I deserve more
pity ... I have endured what no one on earth has ever done before – I put to my lips the hands
of the man who killed my son.” (Book 24)
These words stir within Achilles a deep desire to grieve for his own father and both men
cry together; one for his lost son, the other for his lost friend and for his father. Achilles’
return to normal human feelings, and identification with and empathy for a fellow sufferer is
complete. He tries his best to console the bereaved father. The divine gifts to mortals are
always a mixed blessing. Achilles’s own father was endowed with great honour and wealth.
But the only son he has, Achilles is doomed and he cannot look forward to any help from him
in his old age. Achilles looks at war and at Priam from the point of view of Priam. He
describes himself to Priam, as “a grief to you, a grief to all your children.”
When Priam becomes impatient, Achilles warns him not to go too fast. He demonstrates
self- knowledge; knowledge of his own volcanic temper, which might erupt and bring about
disaster. He also has insight into the other’s mind. He is returning Hector’s body to his father,
washed and anointed, but this has to be done away from Priam’s sight otherwise
“Overwhelmed by the sight of Hector, wild with grief/ Priam might let his anger flare and
Achilles might fly into fresh rage himself, cut the old man down and break the laws of Zeus.”
He is no longer, from this point onwards, “Godlike Achilles” but a full-fledged human being.
He tells Priam that there is a limit to which a man may go, mourning for even his dearest. The
king is offered food; he has to go on with his life. This is acknowledging the common bond
that unites Achilles with all mortals, with their obvious limitations. He takes steps to protect
Priam, he makes him sleep outside the tent so that no other Achaean should be able to detect
him and report it to Agamemnon. He is a part of the common human group now but is alone
and may not be strong enough to launch another bitter fight against his own camp of
Achaeans, to protect the apparently common enemy. His code of honour makes it obligatory
for him to save Priam, to whom he has promised protection. He has also promised a cessation
of hostilities for the twelve days required by Priam for the funeral of Hector. Magnanimous,
noble, and sympathetic; Achilles has become human in the best sense of the term. He no
longer remembers the wrongs he so long resented, done to him by Agamemnon and Hector.
He only tries to be of comfort and solace to the bereaved father Priam, who reminds him of
his own father, whom he will not meet again. His own death is about to follow, as told by his
mother, and prophesied by the dying Hector. The poem ends with the burial of Hector.

24
Achilles’s character is the ideal of the tragic hero, later presented by Sophocles on the Greek
stage; arrogant and stubborn, yet redeemed by a noble humanity that is the most important
trait.
Hector
Hector alone has the responsibility to defend his city, though he does not shirk his
responsibility and is a formidable warrior; he is a man of peace, unlike Achilles. He shows
qualities of leadership when he makes the Trojan soldiers sit down with his spear, as the
Greek soldiers make him the target of their arrows. He talks of a truce, proposed by Paris,
that peace should be restored between the two warring parties.
The Iliad transcends martial epic by its sense of the pity of war. Homer’s
sympathy is with the doomed and dying of both sides. It is a drama of human
passions that forms the main plot. The climax is the death of Hector, Troy’s great
champion. It is given immense human significance by being made an act of
personal vengeance for the killing of Patroclus, the dearest friend of Achilles and
by the dramatic portrayal of Hector’s alternating courage and fear, the agony of
his parents who watch helplessly from the city wall, and the grief of family and
people as they prepare to bury their hope ... Homer is an artist with rare depths of
humanity.
(M.L. West. Ancient Greek Literature, O.U.P, 1980, p. 15)
As in the case of all other eminent characters in the Iliad Hector’s actions and responses
reveal his character. He is held in great respect by all who know him and is dearly loved by
his near ones. Helen addresses him as “dear brother”, when he visits Paris to urge him on to
join the battle. Helen mourns him after his death;

Hector! Dearest to me of all my husband’s brothers – never once did I hear –

from you a taunt, an insult./ But if someone else in the royal halls would curse
me,/why you’d restrain them with words, Hector./ You with your gentle temper,
all your gentle words. And so, in the same breath I mourn for you and me, my
doom struck harrowed heart! Now there is no one left in the wide realm of Troy,
no friend to treat me kindly. (Book 24, The Iliad )
These speeches reveal Hector as a compassionate man, whose understanding and
sensitivity impressed all. He is a warrior, but primarily a man of peace. Hector means
“Holder”. He defends Troy, inspiring the Trojans by his own valour. He knows his efforts are
futile but he does not shrink from battle. In book 12, when the seer Polydamas reads a bird
sign as an omen to retreat, even at the peak of success, Hector refuses to heed – “you tell me
to put my trust in birds, flying off on their long wild wings? Never/I would never give them a
glance, a second thought, /whether they fly on the right toward the dawn and sunrise/or fly on
the left toward the haze and coming dark! No, no, put our trust in the will of mighty Zeus.
Bird signs! Fight for your country that is the best, the only omen!” (Book 12, Iliad)
25
 His love for his country, his defiance of all hostile portents and omens of disaster, his
determination to fight against all odds; distinguishes him as a man among men. Ultimately,
the two champions meet. The duel ends in the death of Hector, the protector of Troy and
upholder of family values; indicating the imminent destruction of Troy, the death of all
civilized values for which Hector stood. The death of Hector presages the death of Achilles
himself, symbolising the fall of Troy’s conquerors.

26
 4. The Homeric Gods

Read the following observation about the divine background to the The Iliad, by famous
Greek scholar, H. D. F. Kitto,
. . . to Homer it was not decoration, it was rather a kind of perspective – not in
space, but in meaning. It makes us see a particular action that we are watching
not an isolated, a casual, and a unique event: we see it rather in its relation to the
moral and philosophical frame work of universe. This framework – is not one
which Homer consciously expounds. He had no complete philosophical system.
Nevertheless, he sees that there is a unity in things that events have their causes
and their results that certain moral laws exist. This is the framework in which a
particular action is seen to fit. The divine background of the epic means
ultimately that particular actions are at the same time unique and universal.
The Greeks had no organised religion though some priests performed certain religious
rites. The Greeks had many gods; Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Poseidon, Hera, and others. The
stories of the Greek gods and goddesses comprised Greek mythology, which the Greeks
believed to be true. These gods and goddesses are anthropomorphic divinities.1 They have
human characteristics, except that they are not mortal. They are jealous and fight each other
but like humans, they can be pacified. If one god is hostile to a man, another may be friendly
to the same man. Homer looks upon his gods as made in the likeness of man. A god is always
given due respect by Homer, whenever he refers to any. The gods have unlimited powers and
the contrast is sharp, between the carefree happiness of gods and the suffering of mankind.
Though Zeus is supreme and administers the fate of men, it is doubtful to what extent he is
independent of fate. As Sarpedon, the mortal son of Zeus and a mortal mother, is about to die
at the hands of Patroclus, Zeus wonders whether he should rescue him from death. But
reminded by Hera, his queen, that he cannot save Sarpedon from his doom, which he is
destined to suffer, he allows him to die. Justice and punishment of the transgressor are in
Zeus’ hands, as is mercy. Being more powerful than all the other gods, he is more
compassionate than his fellow Olympians. However, the gods add a sense of fate; the destiny
of humans, happy or tragic, is strengthened by divine interference. The gods themselves have
almost human frailties. Moreover, divine jealousy, anger, everything may be pacified by
prayer and sacrifice. Greek society was founded by gods. Every race traced its descent from a
particular hero, son of a divinity. The Dorians traced their descent from Heracles, the son of
Zeus and the Ionians from Ion, the son of Apollo. The gods and goddesses had children,
whose mothers, or fathers were mortal. The whole society was religious and gods and
goddesses were looked upon with fear and reverence, much as children look upon parents.
Every force of nature is looked upon as the manifestation of a particular god or goddess.
All mysterious power in nature is divine power and prophecy speaks out their intention and

1. Anthropomorphism is the belief that a god resembles a human being in appearance, feelings or behaviour.
27
motivation. For the Greeks the whole of nature; streams, woods, and trees were peopled with
divine spirits.2 In The Iliad, the gods sometimes take part in the fighting. They impart courage
and fighting spirit to individuals and even to armies. They sometimes fight against each
other; Athena against Ares and Aphrodite, Hera against Artemis, and Hephaestus against
Xanthus, fire against water. The last being the only dignified contest. The other fights, such
as when Hera boxes the ears of Artemis, are almost ridiculous. Since gods cannot die, only
men can have true dignity in the battle field through their death-defying courage; “The
perfection of the gods serves as a foil to the tragedy of the human condition” (The Mortal
Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad, S.L. Schein.)
A god is always directly helping, whenever a person attains exceptional success. Thus,
any outstanding achievement brings out the divinity in man, in this sense. However the gods
lack the tragic seriousness of the human condition, as humans strive for significance in life.
At the same time, compared to divine power, man’s condition is unimportant, with severe
limitations. The art of forecasting the future developed early in Greece. Holy men like
Teiresias and others predicted the future and indicated the shape of things to come. Certain
omens like the flight of birds in a particular direction showed whether conditions were
favourable or not. Before undertaking any venture, the Greeks always consulted seers, who
knew how to interpret omens and signs. They knew the art of determining what will happen
in the future. In other words, they practised divination. All through the Iliad, they sacrifice
animals to propitiate the gods and wait for the right signs before they start anything.
Hecuba stands in front of the horses, crying up at Priam to pour a libation out to Zeus and
pray for a safe return from all their mortal enemies, seeing he is dead set on going down to
the ships, against her will.
Pray for a bird of omen, Zeus’s wind-swift messenger, the dearest bird in the
world to his prophetic heart, the strongest thing on wings-clear on the right so
you can see that sign with your own eyes ... But if far seeing Zeus does not send
you that sign, his own messenger – then I urge you, beg you, don’t go down to
the ships.
Priam prayed and offered libation to Zeus.
Zeus in all his wisdom heard that prayer and straight away the Father
launched an eagle truest of Zeus’s signs that fly the skies ... flashing clear on the
right before the king and queen. All looked up, overjoyed – the people’s spirits
lifted.
(Book 24, Achilles and Priam)

2. Lakes, springs, and fountains were the abode of the nymphs, the Oreades stayed in mountains and caves,
Pan was the god of flocks and shepherds. Zeus was the ruler of the sky, Demeter of the earth, and Poseidon
of the sea whereas Hades ruled the underworld. Nature was ordered and the gods too had to obey their
supremo, Zeus.

28
 The abovementioned example is one of many in the Iliad where every important task is
commenced by offering sacrifices and libations to gods.
It was common practice in classical Greece to consult seers and Oracles for the
interpretation of incidents and directions for future course of action.
Oracles
An oracle was a divine announcement, revealed through any person or agency believed to be
in communication with a deity. Such oracles were firmly believed in by the people of ancient
Greece. There were men and women in ancient Greece, who claimed inspiration and
clairvoyance. The most famous oracle in Greece was that of Apollo at Delphi.
Three priestesses, each at least fifty years of age,

. . . were trained to consult Apollo through the medium of a trance. From a

hollow in the earth below the temple came a peculiar gas, ascribed to the eternal
decomposition of the python that Apollo had slain there: the officiating
priestess, called Pythia took her seat on a high tripod over this cleft, inhaled this
divine stench, chewed narcotic laurel leaves, fell into delirium and convulsions,
and thus inspired, uttered incoherent words which the priests translated to the
people. Very often the final reply admitted of diverse, even contrary
interpretations, so that the infallibility of the oracle was maintained whatever
the event. Possibly the priests were no less puppets than the priestesses.
Sometimes they accepted bribes and in most cases the voice of the oracle
harmonized melodiously with the dominant influence in Greece. Nevertheless,
where external powers did not constrain them, the priests taught valuable
lessons of moderation and political wisdom to the Greeks ... they aided the
establishment of law, encouraged the manumission (liberation) of slaves and
bought many slaves in order to give them liberty. They were not in advance of
Greek thought, but they did not hinder it by doctrinal intolerance. They gave a
helpful supernatural sanction to necessary Greek policies and provided some
degree of international conscience and moral unity for the scattered cities of
Greece.
(Will Durant, The Life of Greece. p.198)
It is a feature of epic composition that the poet prepares for every important
throng of events in advance by means of prophecies, portents, debates, and
proposals decisions of the gods.
(M.L. West, ‘Homeric and Hesiodic poetry’, Ancient Greek Literature.
p.16)

29
 The end of the first book makes it clear that Achilles will get back full honour, as Zeus
promises. The wrath of Achilles, with which the epic starts, ends in reconciliation and
Hector’s death, as foretold. Achilles’s death is also envisaged, though the epic ends before it.
Hector has foreboding of Andromache being led away to slavery.

30
 5. The Epic Similes

The epic similes are prolonged similes to fit the epic, a prolonged poem. They are one of the
best features of The Iliad. These similes always portray the normal world of ordinary
activities and natural way, compared and contrasted with the ways of the heroes and the
warlike ways of the protagonists. This form of the simile has been used from Homer to
Virgil, Dante, and Milton. These similes suit the grandeur of treatment and magnificence of
the epics’ themes. Some of the similes of the Iliad are noted here. Read this description of the
assembly of the Achaeans in Book 2;
Rank and file streamed behind and rushed like swarms of bees pouring out of a
rocky hollow, burst on endless burst bunched in clusters seething over the first
spring blooms, dark hordes swirling into the air, this way, that way so the many
armed platoons from the ships and tents/come marching on close file along the
deep wide beach/to crowd the meeting grounds. (103-110)
The full impact of the scene is brought out vividly through these similes; “The action of
the poem halts as it were, and the poet proceeds to paint a whole scene that is magically
powerful”. This simile brings together the world of hordes of warriors, and the close flying of
the natural order of bees; the everyday phenomenon brings about a clue to the war like
situation reflected in the coming together of the Greek soldiers. The similes portray scenes
that bring out particular episodes, events and situations, vividly before our eyes. The poet
wants us to savour life in all its many- sided splendour. The full impact of a particular
episode is brought about by a simile illuminating the whole scene. These similes are, so to
say, islands of calm in an ocean of turbulence. Take for example this one from book 17.
There he lay/like an olive slip a farmer rears to strength on a lonely hill top,
drenching it down with water, a fine young stripling tree, and the winds stir it
softly, rustling from every side, and it bursts with silver shoots – then suddenly a
wind in gale force comes storming, rips it out of its trench, stretches it out on the
earth.
Or the one in book 18; “And the crippled smith brought all his art to bear on a dancing
circle, broad as the circle Daedalus once laid out on Cnossos’ spacious fields for Ariadne, the
girl with lustrous hair.”
Or the one in Book 11; “wild as a swollen river hurtling down on the flats, / down from
the hills in winter spate, bursting its banks / with rain from storming Zeus, and stands of good
dry oak, whole forests of pine it whorls into itself and sweeps along till it heaves a crashing
mass of driftwood out to sea.” (Lines 580-585)

All these similes are detailed descriptions of natural phenomena, miniatures by

themselves. The similes bring out the actions and movement as they get etched out in the
reader’s and listener’s consciousness. Various dimension of a particular action, sought to be

31
illustrated through the similes, make the poem interesting and totally absorbing. The
comparison in a Homeric simile, of an object or action or event with another one is developed
beyond the specific points of comparison between the two. The simile brings out effectively,
a particular event or a scene. The scene is described through the simile. As at the same time it
shows the poet’s power of observation, providing us with a significant explanation of the
episode it seeks to illustrate. The following example shows what the epic poet wants to speak
about; the divine attitude to deal with mortals from book 15.
Holding formation now the Trojans rolled across it, Apollo heading them,
gripping the awesome storm-shield and he tore that Argive rampart down with
the same ease some boy at the seashore knocks sand castles down he no sooner
builds his playthings up, child’s play, than he wrecks them all with hands and
kicking feet just for the sport of it. God of the wild cry Apollo so you wrecked
the Achaeans’ work and drove the men who had built it up with all that grief and
labour into headlong panic rout.
The simile shows not only the supernatural power of the immortal god but also the
indifference that the divines have towards human labour and feelings. For the god Apollo it is
child’s play to destroy human endeavour, with little or no qualm with regard to it, as children.
The epic simile gives us the picture of man and his efforts to be nothing more than toys to the
all-powerful gods. It reminds us of Shakespeare’s lines written centuries after the Iliad; “as
files to wanton boys/ we to the gods, they kill us for their sport.” The epic simile stirs us
emotionally, sometimes for contemplation, sometimes simply to have pleasure in the
magnificent beauty of its presentation.
Description of character is vividly made through these similes. In book 20 Homer paints
Achilles as a force of sheer destructive energy; inhuman, both physically and ethically (See
lines - 554-560 Book 20, page 519); also (page 519, lines 560-572). The images on the new
shield made by Hephaestus for Achilles are related to one another, describing human reality.
It is filled with scenes of joy and fruitfulness of life and also its conflicts and sorrows. It will
be admired by all the men who see it. Says its maker, “both the poem and the shield are
transformations of human experience into sublime art.” The tragically significant pattern of
the shield is, in brief encompass, the pattern of the Iliad.

32
 Paper-II : European Classical Literature
Unit-2 : Sophocles : Oedipus Rex

Contents
Section-1 : Oedipus Rex : Sophocles Devapriya Sanyal
Section-2 : Character Analysis Udita Garg
Section-3 : Themes and Critical Analysis Udita Garg

Edited by:
P.K. Satapathy

33
34
 Unit-2

Oedipus Rex
Sophocles
Devapriya Sanyal

Section-1 : Greek Tragedy- Origins and Performance

Oedipus Rex-Myth and Legend, Plot, and Summary

1. Learning Objectives
The aim of this study material is to:
 Familiarise you with the beginnings of Tragedy in Ancient Greece and the place of
Sophocles’s Oedipus Rex in it
 Familiarise you with the mythological sources for the plot of Oedipus Rex and
Sophocles’s treatment both in terms of innovations and deviations from the original
myth
 Help you understand the play in detail, with a comprehensive study-guide and
commentary about the plot and analysis of the same
 Develop your individual perspective after reading the play alongside the analysis
provided here of Characters-Major and Minor (Section-2) and the various Themes in
the play. (Section-3)

2. Origins of Greek Drama

Ancient Greeks from the 5th century BC onwards were fascinated by the question of the
origins of tragedy and comedy. They were unsure of their exact origins, but Aristotle and a
number of other writers proposed theories of how tragedy and comedy developed, and told
stories about the people thought to be responsible for their development. Here are some
excerpts from Aristotle and other authors which show what the ancient Greeks thought about
the origins of tragedy and comedy.
Aristotle on the origins of Tragedy and Comedy
1. Indeed, some say that dramas are so called, because their authors represent the
characters as "doing" them (drôntes). And it is on this basis that the Dorians [the
Spartans, etc.] lay claim to the invention of both tragedy and comedy. For comedy is
claimed by the Megarians here in Greece, who say it began among them at the time
when they became a democracy [c. 580 BC], and by the Megarians of Sicily on the
grounds that the poet Epicharmas came from there and was much earlier than Chionides
and Magnes; while tragedy is claimed by certain Dorians of the Peloponnese. They
offer the words as evidence, noting that outlying villages, called dêmoi by the
35
 Athenians, are called kômai by them, and alleging that kômôdoi (comedians) acquired
their name, not from kômazein (to revel), but from the fact that, being expelled in
disgrace from the city, they wandered from village to village. The Dorians further point
out that their word for "to do" is drân, whereas the Athenians use prattein.
(Aristotle: Poetics Chapter 3)
2. And in accordance with their individual types of character, poetry split into two kinds,
for the graver spirits tended to imitate noble actions and noble persons performing
them, and the more frivolous poets the doings of baser persons, and as the more serious
poets began by composing hymns and encomia, so these began with lampoons....Thus
among the early poets, some became poets of heroic verse and others again of iambic
verse. Homer was not only the master poet of the serious vein, unique in the general
excellence of his imitations and especially in the dramatic quality he imparts to them,
but was also the first to give a glimpse of the idea of comedy [in the Margites]...And
once tragedy and comedy had made their appearance, those who were drawn to one or
the other of the branches of poetry, true to their natural bias, became either comic poets
instead of iambic poets, or tragic poets instead of epic poets because the new types were
more important-- i.e. got more favorable attention, than the earlier ones. Whether
tragedy has, then, fully realized its possible forms or has not yet done so is a question
the answer to which both in the abstract and in relation to the audience [or the theater]
may be left for another discussion. Its beginnings, certainly, were in improvisation
[autoschediastikês], as were also those for comedy, tragedy originating in impromptus
by the leaders of dithyrambic choruses, and comedy in those of the leaders of the
phallic performances which still remain customary in many cities. Little by little
tragedy grew greater as the poets developed whatever they perceived of its emergent
form, and after passing through many changes, it came to a stop, being now in
possession of its specific nature [tên hautês phusin]. It was Aeschylus who first
increased the number of the actors from one to two and reduced the role of the chorus,
giving first place to the dialogue. Sophocles [added] the third actor and [introduced]
painted scenery. Again, [there was a change] in magnitude; from little plots and
ludicrous language (since the change was from the satyr play), tragedy came only late in
its development to assume an air of dignity, and its meter changes from the trochaic
tetrameter to the iambic trimeter. Indeed, the reason why they used the tetrameter at
first was that their form of poetry was satyric [i.e. for "satyrs"] and hence more oriented
toward dancing; but as the spoken parts developed, natural instinct discovered the
appropriate meter, since of all metrical forms the iambic trimeter is best adapted for
speaking. (This is evident, since in talking with one another we very often utter iambic
trimeters, but seldom dactylic hexameters, or if we do we depart from the tonality of
normal speech. Again, [there was a change] in the number of episodes -- but as for this
and the way in which reportedly each of the other improvements came about, let us take
it all as said, since to go through the several details would no doubt be a considerable
task. (Aristotle: Poetics Chapter 4)
36
3. Staging an Ancient Greek Play
Attending a tragedy or comedy in 5th century BC Athens was in many ways a different
experience than attending a play say in the 20th century. To name a few differences, Greek
plays were performed in an outdoor theatre, used masks, and were almost always performed
by a chorus and three actors (no matter how many speaking characters there were in the play,
only three actors were used; the actors would go back stage after playing one character,
switch masks and costumes, and reappear as another character). Greek plays were performed
as part of religious festivals in honor of the god Dionysus, and unless later revived, were
performed only once. Plays were funded by the polis, and always presented in competition
with other plays, and were voted for the first, second, or third (last) places. While tragedies
almost exclusively dealt with stories from the mythic past (there was no "contemporary"
tragedy), comedies almost exclusively dealt with contemporary figures and problems.

3.1 Greek Theatres

This is how a Greek theatre looked like.

Greek tragedies and comedies were always performed in outdoor theatres. Early Greek
theatres were probably little more than open areas in city centers or next to hillsides where
the audience, standing or sitting, could watch and listen to the chorus singing about the
exploits of a god or hero. From the late 6th century BC to the 4th and 3rd centuries BC there
was a gradual evolution towards more elaborate theatre structures, but the basic layout of the
Greek theatre remained the same. The major components of Greek theatre are labelled on the
diagram above.
Orchestra: The orchestra (literally, "dancing space") was normally circular. It was a level
space where the chorus would dance, sing, and interact with the actors who were on the stage
37
near the skene. The earliest orchestras were simply made of hard earth, but in the Classical
period some orchestras began to be paved with marble and other materials. In the center of
the orchestra there was often a thymele, or altar. The orchestra of the theater of Dionysus in
Athens was about 60 feet in diameter.
Theatron: The theatron (literally, "viewing-place") is where the spectators sat. The theatron
was usually part of hillside overlooking the orchestra, and often wrapped around a large
portion of the orchestra (see the diagram above). Spectators in the fifth century BC probably
sat on cushions or boards, but by the fourth century the theatron of many Greek theaters had
marble seats.
Skene: The skene (literally, "tent") was the building directly behind the stage. During the 5th
century, the stage of the theater of Dionysus in Athens was probably raised only two or three
steps above the level of the orchestra, and was perhaps 25 feet wide and 10 feet deep. The
skene was directly in back of the stage, and was usually decorated as a palace, temple, or
other building, depending on the needs of the play. It had at least one set of doors, and actors
could make entrances and exits through them. There was also access to the roof of the skene
from behind, so that actors playing gods and other characters (such as the Watchman at the
beginning of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon) could appear on the roof, if needed.
Parodos: The parodoi (literally, "passageways") are the paths by which the chorus and some
actors (such as those representing messengers or people returning from abroad) made their
entrances and exits. The audience also used them to enter and exit the theater before and after
the performance.
3.2 Structure of the plays
The basic structure of a Greek tragedy is fairly simple. After a prologue spoken by one or
more characters, the chorus enters, singing and dancing. Scenes then alternate between
spoken sections (dialogue between characters, and between characters and chorus) and sung
sections (during which the chorus danced).
Parts of a Greek Tragedy:
1. Plot- According to Aristotle it is the most important element.
2. Characters- The Tragic Hero
3. Thought- Theme
4. Diction- The use of literary devices such as metaphors.
5. Song- The Chorus.
6. Spectacle
Greek Tragedy also consists of the following:

38
Hubris in Greek tragedy refers to excessive pride or self-confidence because of which the
protagonist tries to transcend normal limitations or ignore divine warning, ultimately leading
to his nemesis.
Hamartia Aristotle introduces this term in the “Poetics” to describe an error of judgement
which contributes to the hero’s downfall.
In addition, the tragic hero may receive some revelation or recognition (Anagnorisis) about
human fate, destiny, and the will of the gods.
Peripeteia ("plot reversal"): a pivotal or crucial action on the part of the protagonist that
changes his situation from seemingly secure to vulnerable. Anagnorisis ("tragic recognition
or insight") according to Aristotle, a moment of clairvoyant insight or understanding in the
mind of the tragic hero as he suddenly comprehends the web of fate that he has entangled
himself in.
Self-Check Questions
1. Define Hamartia.
2. Define Peripeteia.
4. Oedipus in Myth and Legend
Sophocles had a number of myths at his disposal which were closely aligned with his own
culture, and the images and stories associated were in turn connected with every form of
artistic expression and ceremonial ritual. They used these stories to make sense of the world
even around them and to define themselves in the world.
The story of Oedipus the king is part of the legend of the house of Laius, king of Thebes,
which also incidentally became a source of inspiration for two other surviving tragedies by
Sophocles-Antigone and Oedipus at Colonnus.
The Theban saga of Laius and his children was one of the most popular in the Greek
literary and iconographic tradition. Laius, king of Thebes,has been cursed by Apollo,
protector of youth and boys, because the king had allegedly raped Pelops’ son Chrysippus
who then committed suicide from shame. According to the myth the curse is to run for three
generations: Laius, his son Oedipus and Oedipus’s sons Eteocles and Polynices.Laius and his
wife Jocasta receive a prophecy from Apollo’s oracle that Oedipus will murder his father and
marry his mother. Full of fear, they seek to defy the prophecy by leaving their infant son on a
hillside to die. On being discovered by a shepherd he is given to the childless kingly couple at
Corinth-Polybus and Merope who bring him up as their own son. He soon meets Laius, kills
him, solves the riddles of the sphinx at Thebes and marries Jocasta the queen, who is his
mother, thus fulfilling the prophecy. He has four children by her: Antigone, Eteocles,
Polynices and Ismene. The play deals with Oedipus’s discovery of the truth, Jocasta’s
eventual suicide and Oedipus’s blinding himself. According to the myth Oedipus dies in
exile.

39
This myth was used by Sigmund Freud in the 19th century to explain what he called the
Oedipal Complex which in psychoanalytic theory means a desire for sexual involvement with
the parent of the opposite sex and a concomitant sense of rivalry with the parent of the same
sex; a crucial stage in the normal developmental process of a male child. Sigmund Freud
introduced the concept in his book Interpretation of Dreams which was published in 1899.
Self-Check Questions:
1. Where was Oedipus born?
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
2. What was the name of Oedipus’s father?
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
.
3. Name the sons of Oedipus?
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
4. Which city did Oedipus save by answering the Sphinx’s riddles?
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
5. Why did Laius abandon his infant son?
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
6. Why did Oedipus kill the old man at the crossroads?
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
7. What happens when Oedipus is successfully able to answer the Sphinx’s riddles?
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................

40
5. The Plot of Oedipus the King
By leaving his home in Corinth, Oedipus thinks he has escaped a terrible prophecy that says
that he will kill his father and marry his mother. Oedipus has defeated the riddling Sphinx,
saved the seven-gated city of Thebes, and married the queen Jocasta. (Her first husband,
Laius, had been killed.) They have four children, Eteocles, Polynices, Antigone, and Ismene,
and they rule in peace.
But a mysterious plague has recently afflicted the city, bringing death to the people,
livestock, and crops. Oedipus has sent Creon to Delphi to find out from the oracle there what
to do.
In the play:
A priest and his followers ask Oedipus to find a way to save them from the plague. Creon
returns and reports that they need to find the murderer of Laius, the former king. Oedipus
swears he will find and punish the man.
He summons Tiresias, the famous seer, to tell what he knows. At first Tiresias refuses to
speak, but when pressed, he tells Oedipus that the murderer he seeks is Oedipus himself. The
king and the chorus refuse to believe the prophet, and Oedipus accuses Tiresias and Creon of
plots and corruption.
Jocasta intervenes and tells Oedipus not to worry. Oedipus starts to asks questions about
Laius’s death, and the circumstances begin to sound familiar. But a Messenger comes from
Corinth to say that Oedipus’s father is dead, so he doesn’t need to worry about the prophecy.
Oedipus asks about his mother, since there’s that other part of the prophecy, and the
Messenger tells him he was adopted.
Jocasta realizes the truth—that Oedipus is her son as well as her husband—and tells
Oedipus to stop the interrogations. He doesn’t listen, and an eyewitness, the Herdsman who
rescued him when he was an infant, confirms that he was Laius and Jocasta’s child, and that
Oedipus killed Laius.
A Servant reports the suicide of Jocasta, and Oedipus emerges from the house having
blinded himself. He seeks exile and mourns with his daughters. Creon takes over.
The plot of Sophocles’ great tragedy Oedipus the King (sometimes known as Oedipus
Rex or Oedipus Tyrannos) has long been admired. In his Poetics, Aristotle held it up as
an exemplary Greek tragedy. Samuel Taylor Coleridge called it one of the three perfect plots
in all of literature (the other two being Ben Jonson’s The Alchemist and Henry
Fielding’s Tom Jones). Oedipus the King might also be called the first detective story in
Western literature. Yet how well do we know Sophocles’ play? And what does a closer
analysis of its plot features and themes reveal?

41
 Michael Patterson calls Oedipus the King ‘a model of analytic plot structure’. So it’s
worth briefly recounting the plot of Sophocles’ play in a short summary. The city of Thebes
is in the grip of a terrible plague. The city’s king, Oedipus, sends Creon to consult the
Delphic oracle, who announces that if the city rids itself of a murderer, the plague will
disappear. The murderer in question is the unknown killer of the city’s previous king, Laius.
Oedipus adopts a sort of detective role, and endeavours to sniff out the murderer. He himself
is plagued by another prophecy: that he would one day kill his father and marry his
mother. He thinks he’s managed to thwart the prophecy by leaving home – and his parents –
back in Corinth. On his way from Corinth to Thebes, he had an altercation with a man on the
road: neither party would back down to let the other past, and Oedipus ended up killing the
man in perhaps Western literature’s first instance of road rage. Then Oedipus learns that his
‘father’ back in Corinth was not his biological parent: he was adopted after his ‘real’ parents
left him for dead on a hillside, and he was rescued by a kindly shepherd who rescued him,
took the child in, and raised him as his own. (The name Oedipus is Greek for ‘swollen foot’,
from the chains put through the infant’s feet when it was left on the mountain.)
Tiresias the seer then reveals that the man Oedipus killed on the road was Laius – the
former king of Thebes and Oedipus’s biological father. Laius’ widow, Jocasta, is Oedipus’
own mother – and the woman Oedipus had married upon his arrival in Thebes. When this
terrible truth is revealed, Jocasta hangs herself, and Oedipus puts out his own eyes and leaves
Thebes, going into self-imposed exile so he can free the Thebans from the plague.
When in Corinth Oedipus heard the prophecy that he would one day murder his father
and marry his mother, and so fled from his presumed parents so as to avoid fulfilling the
prophecy. Such an act seems noble and it was jolly bad luck that fate had decreed that
Oedipus would turn out to be a foundling and his real parents were still out there for him to
bump into. But what is clever about Sophocles’ dramatising of the myth is the way he
introduces little details which reveal Oedipus’ character. The clues were already there that
Oedipus was actually adopted: when he received the prophecy from the oracle, a drunk told
him as much. But because the man was drunk, Oedipus didn’t believe him. But, as the Latin
phrase has it, in vino veritas. Then, it is Oedipus’ hubris, his pride, that contributes to the
altercation on the road between him and Laius, the man who turns out to be his real father: if
Oedipus was less stubborn, he would have played the bigger man and stepped aside to let
Laius pass.
What does all this mean, when we stop and analyse it in terms of the interplay between
fate and personal actions in Oedipus the King? It means that Sophocles was aware of
something which governs all our lives. Call it ‘karma’ if you will, or fate, but it works even if
we remove the supernatural framework into which the action of Oedipus the King is placed.
Our actions have consequences, but that doesn’t mean that a particular action will lead to a
particular consequence: it means that one action might cause something quite different to
happen, which will nevertheless be linked in some way to our lives.

42
 Oedipus kills Laius because he is a stubborn and angry man; in his anger and pride, he
allows himself to forget the prophecy (or to believe himself safe if he kills this man who he
decides cannot be his father, since he is brought up by the king of Corinth Polybus and to kill
another man. That one event will set in motion a chain of events that will see him married to
his mother, the city over which he rules in the grip of plague, and – ultimately – Oedipus
blinded and his wife/mother hanged.
Or perhaps that is to impose a modern reading onto a classical text which Sophocles
himself would not recognise. Yet works of art are always opening themselves up to new
readings which see them reflecting our changing and evolving moral beliefs, and that is
perhaps why Oedipus the King remains a great play to read, watch, analyse, and discuss.
There remains something unsettling about its plot structure and its ambiguous meaning, and
that is what lends it its power.
6. Summary of the Play
Oedipus steps out of the royal palace of Thebes and is greeted by a procession of priests, who
are in turn surrounded by the impoverished and sorrowful citizens of Thebes. The citizens
carry branches wrapped in wool, which they offer to the gods as gifts. Thebes has been struck
by a plague, the citizens are dying, and no one knows how to put an end to it. Oedipus asks a
priest why the citizens have gathered around the palace. The priest responds that the city is
dying and asks the king to save Thebes. Oedipus replies that he sees and understands the
terrible fate of Thebes, and that no one is more sorrowful than he. He has sent Creon, his
brother-in-law and fellow ruler, to the Delphic oracle to find out how to stop the plague. Just
then, Creon arrives, and Oedipus asks what the oracle has said. Creon asks Oedipus if he
wants to hear the news in private, but Oedipus insists that all the citizens hear. Creon then
tells what he has learned from the god Apollo, who spoke through the oracle: the murderer of
Laius, who ruled Thebes before Oedipus, is in Thebes. He must be driven out in order for the
plague to end.
Creon goes on to tell the story of Laius’s murder. On their way to consult an oracle,
Laius and all but one of his fellow travelers were killed by thieves. Oedipus asks why the
Thebans made no attempt to find the murderers, and Creon reminds him that Thebes was then
more concerned with the curse of the Sphinx. Hearing this, Oedipus resolves to solve the
mystery of Laius’s murder.
The Chorus enters, calling on the gods Apollo, Athena, and Artemis to save Thebes.
Apparently, it has not heard Creon’s news about Laius’s murderer. It bemoans the state of
Thebes, and finally invokes Dionysus, whose mother was a Theban. Oedipus returns and tells
the Chorus that he will end the plague himself. He asks if anyone knows who killed Laius,
promising that the informant will be rewarded and the murderer will receive no harsher
punishment than exile. No one responds, and Oedipus furiously curses Laius’s murderer and
anyone who is protecting him. Oedipus curses himself, proclaiming that should he discover
the murderer to be a member of his own family, that person should be struck by the same

43
exile and harsh treatment that he has just wished on the murderer. Oedipus castigates the
citizens of Thebes for letting the murderer go unknown so long. The Leader of the Chorus
suggests that Oedipus call for Tiresias, a great prophet, and Oedipus responds that he has
already done so.
Self-Check Questions
1. Could Oedipus have avoided his fate?
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
2. What does the Oracle at Delphi prophesy?
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
3. If you were asked to direct the play would there be any other way that the play could
have ended?
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................

7. Critical Analysis
Oedipus is notable for his compassion, his sense of justice, his swiftness of thought and
action, and his candor. At this early stage in the play, Oedipus represents all that an Athenian
audience—or indeed any audience—could desire in a citizen or a leader. In his first speech,
which he delivers to an old priest whose suffering he seeks to alleviate, he continually voices
his concern for the health and well-being of his people. He insists upon allowing all his
people to hear what the oracle has said, despite Creon’s suggestion that Oedipus hear the
news in private. When Creon retells the story of Laius’s murder, Oedipus is shocked and
dismayed that the investigation of the murder of a king was so swiftly dropped (145–147).
Oedipus quickly hatches plans to deal with both his people’s suffering and Laius’s unsolved
murder, and he has even anticipated the Chorus’s suggestions that he send someone to the
oracle and call forth Tiresias. Finally, Oedipus is vehement in his promises of dire
punishment for Laius’s murderer, even if the murderer turns out to be someone close to
Oedipus himself.
Sophocles’ audience knew the ancient story of Oedipus well, and would therefore
interpret the greatness Oedipus exudes in the first scene as a tragic harbinger of his fall.
Sophocles seizes every opportunity to exploit this dramatic irony. Oedipus frequently alludes
to sight and blindness, creating many moments of dramatic irony, since the audience knows

44
that it is Oedipus’s metaphorical blindness to the relationship between his past and his present
situation that brings about his ruin. For example, when the old priest tells Oedipus that the
people of Thebes are dying of the plague, Oedipus says that he could not fail to see this (68–
72). Oedipus eagerly attempts to uncover the truth, acting decisively and scrupulously
refusing to shield himself from the truth. Although we are able to see him as a mere puppet of
fate, at some points, the irony is so magnified that it seems almost as if Oedipus brings
catastrophe upon himself willingly. One such instance of this irony is when Oedipus
proclaims proudly—but, for the audience, painfully—that he possesses the bed of the former
king, and that marriage might have even created “blood-bonds” between him and Laius had
Laius not been murdered (294–300).
Although the Chorus’s first ode (168–244) piously calls to the gods to save Thebes from
the plague, the answer they get to their prayer arrives in human form. Immediately following
the ode, Oedipus enters and says that he will answer the Chorus’s prayers. For a moment,
Oedipus takes upon himself the role of a god—a role the Chorus has been both reluctant and
eager to allow him (see 39–43). Oedipus is so competent in the affairs of men that he comes
close to dismissing the gods, although he does not actually blaspheme, as Creon does
in Antigone. At this early moment, we see Oedipus’s dangerous pride, which explains his
willful blindness and, to a certain extent, justifies his downfall.
Self-Check Questions
1. Do you feel Oedipus deserved his fate?
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
2. What are some of the qualities of a king that Oedipus possesses?
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................

3. What are the elements in the play that makes the play appealing to its audience?
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................

8. Tragedy vs Epic: Differences

An epic is a long narrative poem about the deeds of warriors and heroes. The basic difference
between epic and tragedy is that epic is in narrative form and tragedy is in dramatic
form. Epic and tragedy both are written in verse form. Both can have simple or complex plot.
45
According to Aristotle, the structure of the epic should be modelled on dramatic principles.
Single actions should be the proper content of the epic. Another difference between
the epic and the tragedy is their length. Tragedy by its nature is more concentrated and
compact.
Self-Check Questions
1. List the differences between Epic and Tragedy.
..........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................

References
Kitto, H.D.F Greek Tragedy, London: Routledge, 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_tragedy. Accessed on 25/10/19.
https://www.reed.edu/humanities/110Tech/Theater.html Accessed on 28/10/19.

46
 Section-2 : Character Analysis
Udita Garg
Sophocles is famous in the Greek dramatic tradition for his innovations in characterization.
He added a third actor on stage thereby reducing the role of the chorus in the Greek plays and
increasing the scope for greater interaction and conflict among characters. He also developed
his characters in greater complexity than seen in earlier plays.
1.1 Major Characters on Stage
Oedipus
Oedipus is the King of Thebes and the protagonist of our play. He has come from Corinth to
Thebes after solving the riddle of the Sphinx monster and is venerated as the man of great
intellect and strength and the saviour of the city. You will be reading about the various
aspects of his complex characterization throughout these two lessons on his role as a man,
son, father, saviour, survivor, tragic hero (discussed in the next lesson), riddle-solver, etc. but
in this section, I wish to briefly discuss the aspects of his naming and his role as a king.
Oedipus’ name’s etymology is often related with swollen-foot because he was said to
have been abandoned as an infant with his feet tied together which is cited as the final
physical evidence of him being Laius’ son but as Knox mentions there are other flattering
meanings also possible such as “"Know-where" (oidi-pou) and, especially, "Know-all" (oidi-
pds),30 Indeed, at one point Oedipus appears to pun upon his name’s apposite know-it-all
etymology to Teiresias: "I came, / Oedipus [’Know-all’], who knew nothing" (OT 397-98).
Two other etymologies, "Two-foot" (oi dipous)31 and "Know-foot" (oidi-pous), might also
be valued by a man renowned for having solved a riddle of feet”” (Knox, 184). The
multiplicity of these etymologies along with the uncertainty of all other inferences, accounts
and observations problematizes the credibility of the truth of Oedipus’ self-conviction.
Further, the play goes by three titles namely Oedipus, the king, Oedipus Tyrannos or
Oedipus Rex. Conventionally in Greek etymology, Knox argues, a tyrant was not the
hereditary successor of the throne but one who has acquired it. Oedipus is an outsider but as
revealed later, indeed a native Theban and inheritor which makes the use of ‘tyrannos’
strikingly ironical (Knox, 97-8). It did not suggest an unconstitutional monarch as he is loved
and not feared by the people: “the Athenian arche, like that of Oedipus, is not an inherited
power, but something new in the Greek world, gained by self-exertion. Pericles proudly
refers to the fathers of the Athenians whom he is addressing, "who by their own efforts and
not by inheriting it, gained this power and maintained it."29 And, like the power of Oedipus,
it was originally offered, not sought. Oedipus in his typical reactions and capacities, his
virtues and defects, is a microcosm of the people of Periclean Athens, the audience which
watched the play.”(Knox, 100) Dodds argues that Oedipus suffers not because of a character
flaw of being a rash and impetuous tyrant but as a good and noble king who is a savior and
protector proactively looking for solving the problems of his people.

47
Tiresias
Tiresias is the blind prophet of Thebes called upon by Oedipus to reveal the murderer of
Laius. He is understood to possess wisdom and more knowledge about contents of Delphic
oracle concerning the murderer of Laius and is invited by Creon. He remains tight-lipped in
the beginning despite Oedipus’ initial requests and threats to him until Oedipus finally
charges him with the conspiracy of Laius’ murder along with Creon. An angry dialogue
consisting of allegations and counter-allegations ensues between the characters where
Tiresias reminds Oedipus that he is equal to him in at least responding to him and he is a
servant of Apollo, not Oedipus. Tiresias reveals to Oedipus that he is the man/ murderer he is
looking for and indicates his sins of patricide and incest. The theme of sight and blindness,
and ignorance and knowledge governs their dialogue which we shall discuss in the next
lesson. Tiresias emerges as the prophet for Laius and Jocasta as well, respected by Theban
elders but Jocasta and Oedipus also exhibit scepticism towards Tiresias’ prophecy.
He emerges as a strong, honest, wilful and assertive seer who does not manipulate the
prophecies in favour of the king for fear or favour and argues rhetorically with Oedipus on an
equal footing. Lattimore says, “While Teiresias’ open malice is authentically human, his
almost perverse unhelpfulness (e.g., his refusal to exonerate Creon clearly in 379) seems
authentically divine. I do not find it possible to make a consistent distinction between two
voices of Teiresias, one human and one mantic or divine. Both voices belong to a complex
being who stands ultimately on a level which is not human but daimonic… It is as though the
failure of Teiresias and the gods to give man a straight answer is actually (because) they
cannot; their knowledge and very existence are too alien from his, and the extreme economy
of expression which comes naturally to beings who know all is unintelligible to those who
must learn, step by step. Teiresias represents the gods of the Oedipus Tyrannus and
dramatizes this alienation.” (Lattimore 108-9)
Creon
He is the brother of Jocasta and a politically astute man. When Oedipus, to whom Creon has
been a great friend and brother-in-law, charges him with the conspiracy of murder of Laius
along with Tiresias, the chorus rebukes him for his wrath and “jumping to conclusions.”
Creon, on the other hand, behaves sanely while keeping his composure and tries to explain to
Oedipus rationally why his accusations, although serious, are untrue. He vouches his loyalty
to the city of Thebes and binds himself by an oath that is supported by the chorus. Creon
emerges as a sane foil to the insane anger of Oedipus.
He explains to Oedipus that he would not want to be treacherous and try to seize the
power or rule from either Laius or Oedipus and face the troubles, fears of death, and qualms
that a king faces when he already enjoys equal respect, power and privileges as the king and
queen themselves, without facing the same dangers and difficulties. Therefore, Creon hints at
the difficulties of kingship and shows himself to be the only politico in the play who has been
managing the city dutifully in the absence of the ruler and has shown sincere loyalty to his
kinsmen. His is not an angry or emotional response but he argues rather sensibly. He is also
48
cautious and careful in his dealings demarcating the private and the public as he asks Oedipus
to reveal the oracle in private, but Oedipus insists otherwise. He also warns Oedipus about his
tendency to be judging too quickly that makes him stand alone against his own kith and kin
and be extremely harsh on himself. Oedipus wants Creon dead or banished based on his
suspicion, while even when Oedipus requests Creon to exile him as his truth has come to the
fore, Creon waits for the gods to take action which shows his rather astute sensible and
political nature.
Finally, it is again Creon to whom Oedipus turns for requesting him to take care of his
daughters as his own kin after sending him away to exile. Creon insists on consulting the
oracle again leaving the fate of Oedipus open-ended at the end of the play. In this, unlike
Oedipus, Creon shows a greater reliance on the oracle by resorting to consult it again and
again, if need arises. Creon orders Oedipus to go inside the palace to cover his pollution and
not to try to exert his power even now to drive the future course of the play. In effect,
therefore, though Oedipus has surrendered and accepted his guilt, he has only formally let go
of his powers where Creon now urges him to withdraw control absolutely.
Jocasta
She is the wife and mother of Oedipus, sister of Creon and the queen of Thebes. She is the
only woman character in the play that has been given a voice. Jocasta-Oedipus relationship is
both understood in terms of the mother and the wife as she behaves with the concern for the
public image and for the survival of her private life. Jocasta had been the wife of Laius and
she was a participant in abandoning Oedipus as an infant. Jocasta is also the only one who
knows about the survivor from the killing of Laius. She had kept the secrets of his details
until her husband urges her to present him for investigation.
Jocasta and Oedipus share an incestuous relationship. Although seemingly a happily
married pair with four children, they have hidden the most significant details or truths from
each other which has continued to baffle audiences and scholars alike as Newton discusses in
his essay. It is only when Oedipus starts uncovering the details of the murder of Laius that
Jocasta reveals to him about the abandonment of their infant and Oedipus discloses the
oracular knowledge to her.
References to the behaviours of wives and mothers are scarce in Greek classical
literature of the period but one important instance may be borrowed from Hector-Hecabe-
Andromache relationship in Homer’s epic, Iliad. Based on this episode, Newton says that
ironically when Jocasta should be concerned with her private image as a wife in the initial
episodes, she is constantly trying to preserve her public image, acting like the mother such as
in the Oedipus-Creon quarrel etc. On the other hand, when she is to behave like a mother to
Oedipus having that knowledge come to her, she makes a wife’s plea to preserve her
household by coaxing Oedipus to not investigate the details of Laius’s murder. Her private
and public life and image are therefore, at discord always and finally when it is expected with
the arrival of the Corinthian messenger that her private and public will finally peacefully

49
coexist, it leads into the most horrific knowledge that she is unable to bear and commits
suicide which indicates that she has been unable to reconcile her public and private worlds.
She also exhibits scepticism about oracles and prophecies and dissuades Oedipus from
investigating further to not pay heed to Tiresias’ prophecy, but she also goes to Apollo’s
temple to pray to him. She is sceptical because she is aware of the horrific deeds and is too
frightened to be uncovering them. Her suicide shows that she does not emerge as a survivor,
unlike Oedipus, and in a way betrays him by leaving him alone to bear the consequences of
their actions.
Messenger from Corinth
The messenger from Corinth appears as an unexpected visitor and is the major agent of
peripeteia in the play fulfilling both Apollo’s oracle and Sophocles’ dramatic design as
Huston argues in his essay as he brings news of the death of Polybus and Merope that
relieves Oedipus of his fears of committing the sins, yet just the next moment, he initiates a
complete reversal of events while trying to win Oedipus’ favour but in effect bringing him his
ruin by revealing to him that he was not Polybus’ biological son which finally proves
Oedipus guilty of patricide and incest. The messenger is a shrewd man, looking for self-
advancement by establishing a close relationship with Oedipus who is to be now crowned as
the new ruler of Corinth by claiming to know Oedipus since his infancy and being father-like
to him.
Chorus
The role of the chorus is mitigated and the chorus comprises of Theban elders headed by the
leader. Rather than commenting on the action by swaying audience’s reactions, the chorus
looks externally at the play, stepping out of its usual role to comment on the contemporary
society when they say that if the oracles cannot be trusted, what role they play performing in
Greek tragedy that reinforces divine faith, as Dodds suggests in his essay. The Theban elders
too venerate Oedipus but they do not take sides until they are certain. In fact, they are often
seen favouring Jocasta or Creon when Oedipus in his anger or hasty conclusions acts
irrationally. They do not want to act against the power of the king, but they are disturbed by
Tiresias’ revelations as well, though they show faith in the king.
Vellacot argues that the chorus as the reliable point of reference meant to hear,
understand and comment on the action has paid attention to Jocasta’s account of the murder
of Laius and they are aware of Oedipus’ guilt which he himself remains blind to. Yet they
cannot comment directly, not only because of the power of Oedipus, but also because the
truth is too horrendous for them to bear. They are respectful towards Oedipus for his services
to Thebes but as his crimes unfold, they do not show him sympathy. He says, “Convention
allows a Chorus to be slow, or timid, or foolish, or all three; it does not allow them to be
either stone deaf or imbecile. They have heard and understood; now they must make a
decision.” (Vellacot, 113). The chorus has yet faithfully commented on the action and
showed belief in gods but they do not understand the blind Oedipus as the survivor. As
Rachel Kitzinger argues, both the audience and the chorus who possess the foreknowledge
50
about Oedipus now face difficulty in grappling with the comprehension of his trauma as a
lone survivor where his trauma is his own.
Shepherd
The shepherd of Laius is the lone-survivor and eyewitness from the scene of the murder of
Laius, sent away years ago on his request made to Jocasta, who appears upon the insistence
of Oedipus to clarify details about the murder especially concerning the number of men who
killed Laius. Oedipus would be proved innocent if a group of thieves killed Laius instead of
only one man as the prophecy decreed that he will be killed by his son, and “one can’t be
many”, as Oedipus says in the play. However, as Fosso points out that when the shepherd
appears this significant question is not asked from him. Instead, the details of Oedipus’
personal life and birth are revealed to him as the messenger from Corinth identifies him to be
the same shepherd who helped him get Oedipus in the safe custody of foster parents. It is also
noteworthy that this shepherd appears as an old man, feeble and oblivious to the memory of
young Oedipus and is goaded into revealing these details by threats from Oedipus and
prompts from the Corinthian messenger while he himself seems to be forgetful and uncertain
of these past events thereby putting to test the validity of evidence and consequently of
Oedipus’ self-conviction. He as a reluctant, oblivious and timid, old man emerges as a foil to
the Corinthian messenger who appears to be rather certain, confident and outspoken in
relating these past events to Oedipus.
Messenger from inside the palace
The messenger from the palace appears to provide important details about the suicide of
Jocasta and the self-mutilation of Oedipus. He reports the anguish of the couple and their
consequent gory actions as they were prohibited as spectacles on the Greek stage. He says
that Oedipus’ pollution is now self-evident and states that his self-mutilation is his own
doing, not divinely decreed, indicating that the character indeed possesses free-will. The act
of blindness is Oedipus’ free action and his way of dealing with the situation as the lone
survivor as survival is one important theme of Greek tragedy.
Priests
The Priest of Zeus and the priests of Thebes stand as supplicants to Oedipus at the beginning
of the play requesting him to defend the city once again through his intellect and strength.
They hold Oedipus in great regard as he says that the hand of God is with him (though they
know that he cannot equal the gods) as he had saved the city from the Sphinx.
It is curious to see that Oedipus has already sent Creon to Delphi to consult the oracle
before the priests and people have come to him to ask for his help. It helps to establish the
background or context to the play. Also, it shows that the Theban priests and people
venerated Oedipus as “first of men” and their saviour. After this scene, with the entry of
Creon, the focus of action of the play shifts from the problem of the plague and the priests
disappear.

51
Antigone and Ismene
Antigone and Ismene are the two daughters born out of the union of Oedipus and Jocasta
thereby making them both sisters and daughters of Oedipus. They appear on stage as two
small children (l. 1610) when Oedipus after blinding himself requests Creon to take care of
his “poor, helpless girls.” He hears them sobbing and reaches out to them as the stage
direction tells us the “children approach him cautiously, then embrace him” as the spectacle
of a blind and lamenting Oedipus is terrifying for the children. This creates a very moving
scene for the audience where Oedipus is shown to be a caring father who acknowledges fully
the consequences of his actions on the lives of his children. The given stage direction shows
fear in the children yet their embrace indicates the closeness of the family that heightens the
pathos of the scene. He predicts their fate as women who will be “single, without a child”
making their fate worse than their brothers, Eteocles and Polyneices, who are far away and
can manage on their own as men.
Check Your Progress
1. How is the shepherd a foil to the messenger from Corinth? What roles do they perform in
the play?
..........................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................

2. Do you think the Jocasta acts both like a mother and a wife to Oedipus? How?
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
2. Comment on Tiresias as the seer.
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
1.2 Characters in Absentia
Given below is a description of characters that do not appear on stage (are in absentia) but
have important roles to play in the action:
Apollo
Apollo is the god of sun, prophecy and oracle in the Greek mythology. He is absent from the
play but drives the course of action by ensuring that the oracle is fulfilled and justice is
maintained. Oedipus identifies himself with Apollo. He is the one who watches over Thebes
and is the closest to them (Gould, 587.) Griffith says that although seemingly by not telling
Oedipus about his biological parents or preventing his actions or ignorance, Apollo may
appear to have led to Oedipus’ tragedy but gods cannot straightforwardly save humans like
that without actually destroying them as this lies in the fundamental difference between the

52
power of gods and man. (Griffith, 205-6) According to the Greek “conception of justice
where Gods help those who do good to them and punish those who are sacrilegious towards
them, Apollo is under no obligation to help Oedipus by warning him of the impending
catastrophe, for Oedipus has performed no prior service for him. Yet, once Oedipus has
offended the gods by his sacrilegious behaviour at the crossroads, Apollo is obliged to
intervene and ensure that the fitting penalty of exile is enforced.” (Griffith, 206)
Laius
Laius is the biological father of Oedipus, ex-husband of Jocasta and the erstwhile king of
Thebes. There are various rumours about the murder of Laius that Oedipus comes to know of
during his investigation years after the death. In the myth, the oracle predicted that Laius will
be murdered by his son with Jocasta, if he marries her. Therefore, according to Budelmann,
in the original myth, the oracle was conditional. Sophocles makes it unconditional in the play.
Therefore, it alters our perceptions about oracles, justice, questions of fate and free will, as
presented by Sophocles. On the other hand, Dodds argues that both the oracles for Laius and
Oedipus were unconditional but their reactions to the oracles differed. While Oedipus flees
Corinth for fear of committing patricide and incest, Laius ties the feet of the infant and orders
to kill him.
Laius is then, said to be cruel for ordering to kill his own child without showing any
fatherly affection and mercilessly tying Oedipus’ feet which has left a permanent scar that
leads to his name as Oedipus or swollen-feet. If the oracle is supposed to be conditional, then
Lauis has also wilfully ignored the oracle by marrying Jocasta and will be duly punished with
his death at the hands of his own son. If unconditional, even then, Laius’ murder is not
completely unjust in face of what he did to Oedipus as a child. Laius emerges as a cruel
father in contrast to Oedipus who is shown to be very caring and affectionate towards his
children but this is in view of what the oracle predicted for Laius.
Polybus and Merope
Polybus is the king of Corinth and foster-father to Oedipus. As a childless couple, Polybus
and Merope (his wife, Oedpus’ foster-mother) adopt the abandoned child brought to them by
a shepherd. They bring up Oedipus until he is told by a drunkard that they are not his
biological parents and he consults the oracle which foretells patricide and incest, fearing
which he flees Corinth. Oedipus is afraid until he realises that Laius and Jocasta are his
biological parents, that after the death of his foster-father, Polybus, he may still share an
incestuous relationship with Merope but she is also reported dead by the messenger. It is said
that it was not the oracle but Oedipus’ foster parents that misled him by not revealing to him
the story of his birth.
Sphinx
Sphinx is a monster in Greek mythology that has the head of a human, the haunches of a lion,
the breasts of a woman, and sometimes the wings of a bird. It is a merciless creature that is
said to kill those who cannot answer its riddles. The menace of the Sphinx was resolved by
Oedipus years before the beginning of the play by answering its riddle, consequent to which
53
he becomes the king of Thebes, venerated by the Theban people as a great riddle-solver and a
man of intellect and strength. Creon states that they were unable to investigate the murder of
Laius because of the menace of the Sphinx. The Sphinx motif has been used in the play to
allude to the theme of riddles, intellect, knowledge and ignorance. It intensifies the irony of
Oedipus as the great riddle-solver unable to solve the riddle of his own birth and life with his
own intellect, thereby testing the limits to human knowledge. The Sphinx is also said to
signify all riddles presented to Oedipus in a puzzling and monstrous manner to which he does
not always know the answers.
It was usually the wisdom of the blind prophet that should have helped alleviate the
problem of the Sphinx but it is Oedipus, the great riddle solver, as Tiresias rebukes him, who
solves the riddle. Oedipus takes pride in this ability. The greater irony lies in the fact that the
menace of the actual monster may have been avoided by Oedipus, but unwittingly, he has set
into motion the second half of the prophecy, i.e. of incest, for himself that will lead to his
tragic downfall towards which Teiresias hints in his angry retort. The motif of the Sphinx is
symbolic of the larger themes of riddles, sight and blindness, ignorance and knowledge, and
Oedipus’ own strength and limits of intellect discussed in the next lesson.
Check your progress
1. What does the killing of the Sphinx signify for Oedipus in the play?
...................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
2. How is Laius different from Oedipus in terms of their response to the oracle?
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
1.3 Points to Remember
1. Oedipus’ complex characterisation as a loved and venerated saviour and an intellectual
king stands in contrast to his rash impetuousness and drive to self-knowledge that raises
questions about human knowledge and the limits to it.
2. The different responses of Jocasta, Oedipus, Laius, chorus and Tiresias indicate the
contemporary questions about faith in prophets and prophecy in the Greek plays.
3. The role that messengers play in unravelling the Oedipus’ guilt leading to peripetia and
consequent actions of suicide and self-mutilation needs to be seen in terms of the
structure and performance of tragedy.
4. Characters absent from stage like Apollo and Laius drive the course of action in the play

54
 Section-3 : Themes and Critical Analysis
Udita Garg
In this lesson, we will look at some of the important themes in the play. It is not possible to
discuss all of them in detail as the criticism on the play is very vast but hopefully this will
shed some light on some themes.
1. Fate and Predestination, Free Will and Action
The question of fate and freewill linked with ideas of justice of the gods versus men are
central throughout Greek literature. Some assume that Oedipus’ tragedy is of an ignorant and
innocent man unjustly punished by the gods, but this is not the case. Griffith argues that as
Oedipus’ fate is pre-ordained by an unconditional oracle. “While a conditional prediction
allows for the play of free will, an unconditional prediction might be supposed to imply
predestination. Even on this assumption the prediction does not exonerate Oedipus, for
predestination does not, paradoxically, constitute a compulsion.” (Griffith, 204)
Further, he says, “Apollo does not predict the event to a disinterested third party but to
the protagonist himself, and Oedipus reacts of his own free will to the god’s prediction. Yet
such is the nature of fate that any action that Oedipus might have taken in response to any
prediction that Apollo might have made would have ended in the same result, albeit brought
about by a different chain of intermediary events. (Griffith, 206)
Verseyni says that instead of a question of the conventional fate, the central question
becomes one that of daimon, the character and nature of the humans. Accordingly, it becomes
a question of Oedipus’ search for his identity driven by his own thirst for knowledge and
critical intelligence.
As we have seen, it maintains the audience’s faith in justice according to Greek norms
while also functioning as a tragedy adequately. It is more an assurance of Chance, ruled by
the goddess Dike that Oedipus, witnesses this. He says that he is the child of Chance and
Jocasta says instead of prophecies, it is chance that governs the world.
2. Prophecy and Oracle
You would have already guessed the importance of oracles reading the play and the earlier
sections of the lesson. Oracles were understood as God’s own words about a character’s
destiny given in often cryptic words to decipher by the all-knowing Gods like Apollo via
Pythia at Delphi, further revealed or interpreted by prophets like Tiresias. Oedipus’ oracle is
often supposed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy but we see Oedipus at various instances acting
as a free agent (see previous section).
Oracles can be conditional or unconditional and the faith or scepticism about oracles
reveals the changing relationship of Athens with gods, the belief in the words of the prophet,
etc.

55
The oracles are not unjust whims of the gods, even though the depiction of Greek Gods is
largely anthropomorphic where they appear as whimsical, powerful, gluttonous, biased etc.
although they are often misunderstood by the ones who hear them just as Oedipus does(see
section on Apollo and Laius), Sophocles raises doubts about the well-established Oedipus
myth because like Athenians in the 4th and 5th century BC he participates in the scepticism
about the truth of oracles and prophecies (Fosso, 36).
3. Sight and Blindness, Knowledge and Ignorance
Literal and metaphorical sight and blindness feature in the play closely associated with ideas
of sight (knowledge) and blindness (ignorance). This is seen in the conversation of Oedipus
and the blind prophet Tiresias and the self-blinding of Oedipus when he attains the horrific
(too-much) knowledge about his parents and the crimes that he has committed. Tiresias’
prophecy may seem ineffectual and is questioned by Jocasta, Oedipus and the chorus but the
blind prophet really knows what is to come in the future. These opposites govern the play and
the quarrel between the characters is really about who is more insightful and intelligent where
the limits of both their sight and knowledge are tested. Oedipus’ own quest for knowledge
about his parentage and the murderer of Laius is said to have led to his downfall.
Further, the play is raising questions about whether the knowledge gained can be
believed or not by putting into question the credibility of all proofs and accounts relating to
the guilt of Oedipus. Does Oedipus convict himself blinded by his rashness and pride in his
intellect and not credible verifiability of truth? The play raises all these questions with no
exact answers participating in the scepticism that characterises its times.
4. Taboos
The tragedy witnesses the two grave sins or taboos according to Greek society namely
patricide and incest making them appropriate as serious subjects for a tragedy. Oedipus is
said to be guilty of both of these sins, but they are committed in his ignorance, as decreed by
the oracle. The response of the Greek society is given as the tragic consequence of plague,
death, betrayal, separation, suicide, blindness and an impending exile in the tragedy for the
participants and the family. Further it is heightened in the horrors expressed by the chorus
and the others as such a pollution cannot be covered or treated and leads to immense ruin
through which the tragic hero barely survives.
5. Oedipus, the King as a Tragedy
It was a well-acclaimed tragedy during its performance and also within Aristotle’s Poetics
wherein he constantly refers to the play to give examples of a good tragedy. Aristotle is
mistakenly believed to be prescriptive while he is only descriptive. Consequently, a lot of
later readers have tried to identify a moral flaw in the character of Oedipus such as his
temper, rashness, pride etc. that leads to his tragic downfall based on the concept of hamartia
but as Dodds, Vellacot and others suggest hamartia is an intellectual error or false moral
judgements and not necessarily always a moral fault.
56
 According to Aristotle, the play has a complex plot and is revealed through peripetia via
the news from Corinthian messenger as discussed earlier. The fall of the serious, complete,
high ranking tragic hero would arouse negative emotions of pity and fear just as the audience
witnessing the fall of Oedipus in committing incest and patricide, feels, which is finally
released (catharsis) during the performance of the play.
Oedipus as a tragic hero and the play as a tragedy is analysed either in terms of:
Refuted and reductionist readings:
 The moral flaws in character of Oedipus
 Oedipus as a mere puppet in the hands of the gods
Other critical readings:
 Oedipus as a symbol of the Athenian society (Knox’s argument refuted by Dodds on
grounds that allegory of this kind is alien to Greek tragedy)
 Oedipus suffers because of his own goodness in trying to save the Theban people and
uncovering the truth about Laius’ murder. He suffers not because he is a puppet in the
hands of God but an honest and intellectual man trying to find out the truth about his
own parentage. (Dodds)
 His is a tragedy of man’s quest for self-knowledge making us acutely aware of the
consequences of facing the truth about ourselves (Versenyi)
 It is not the intention or the ignorance of Oedipus that matters for his punishment. He
has nonetheless committed these grave sins and in order to maintain justice, which is
not often retributive in Greek society, he must be punished. (Fosso and Vellacot)
Oedipus Complex
Sigmund Freud, known as the father of modern psychology, saw various adaptations of
Sophocles’ play performed during the 20th century. Freud who was interested in the human
mind and the consequences of sexuality and its repression comes up with the theory of
Oedipus complex in his book, Interpretation of Dreams to indicate the sexual impulse of
every male child towards the mother and the antagonistic impulse towards the contesting
father and says that this play appeals to us as “His destiny moves us only because it might
have been ours — because the oracle laid the same curse upon us before our birth as upon
him.” He says, however, that the “primordial urges and fears” that are his concern are not
found primarily in the play by Sophocles, but exist in the myth the play is based on”
(Wikipedia, Oedipus complex.)Various critics after Freud have refuted this idea but it was
very popular and continues to show the relevance of the play for the modern audience.

57
Check your Progress

1. Do you think that Oedipus is a mere puppet in the hands of God?

..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................

2. How do you understand the act of Oedipus blinding himself vis-vis the theme of sight and
blindness in the play?
.........................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................

3. List the different prophecies that govern the text of the play.
........................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
Points to Remember
1. The play is raising questions about knowledge, verifiability and limits of human
knowledge by positing Oedipus as the great riddle-solver trying desperately to solve
the riddle of his own life.
2. The question of fate and free-will must be examined in view of the ideas of the Greek
conception of justice, oracles and powers of gods versus men.
3. Oracles are often unintelligible, multiple, misunderstood and pre-ordained but they do
leave scope for free action by human agents.
4. The play as a tragedy must not be understood as a simple and unjust play of fate or
moral flaw but must be understood in terms of the larger critical debates about justice,
fate, knowledge, etc.

58
 Activity:

1. Kurt Fosso begins his essay by questioning the idea that Oedipus has in fact, killed his
father. List instances, proofs and accounts from the text based on which Oedipus
convicts himself of the murder of Laius.
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................

2. Read Aristotle’s prescribed sections of Poetics and establish the play as an Aristotelian
tragedy based on your reading.
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................

Glossary
 Protagonist: the leading character or one of the major characters in a play, film, novel,
etc.
 Etymology: the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning
 Prophecy: a prediction of what will happen in the future
 Oracle: a priest or priestess acting as a medium through whom advice or prophecy was
sought from the gods in classical antiquity.
 Pythia: the priestess of Apollo at Delphi, who transmitted the oracles
 Delphi: is the ancient sanctuary that grew rich as the seat of Pythia, the oracle who was
consulted about important decisions throughout the ancient classical world
 Hamartia: arose from the Greek verb hamartanein, meaning "to miss the mark" or "to
err." Aristotle introduced the term in the Poetics to describe the error of judgment which
ultimately brings about the tragic hero’s downfall.
 Peripeteia, (Greek: “reversal”) the turning point in a drama after which the plot moves
steadily to its denouement. It is discussed by Aristotle in the Poetics as the shift of

59
 the tragic protagonist’s fortune from good to bad, which is essential to the plot of
a tragedy.
 Catharsis: Catharsis, the purification or purgation of the emotions (especially pity and
fear) primarily through art
 Patricide: the killing of one’s father.
 Incest: sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each
other or the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild
 Sacrilege: violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred
 Self-mutilation: the mutilation of oneself, especially as a symptom of mental or emotional
disturbance

Model Answers to Activities

1. Multiplicity of oracles concerning Laius, confusion regarding number of people, one
cannot be many debate, multiple meanings of Oedipus, failing memory of Shepherd and
the shrewdness of Messenger, king travelling alone killed by a group of thieves, debate
about the herald and whether Oedipus knew he was killing a king or not, etc. Delphic
oracle, Tiresias’ prophecy, Jocasta’s, Corinthian Messenger’s and shepherd’s account,
evidence of the feet
2. Hamartia, peripetia, Oedipus as a tragic hero, catharsis, unity of action, complex plot.
Refer to section on tragedy.
Previous year/ Model questions
1. How does Sophocles use the tragic elements of hamartia and peripetia in Oedipus the
King? Illustrate with examples from the play.
2. Discuss the themes of sight and blindness in Oedipus, the King.
3. Write short notes on: a) Jocasta b) Tiresias
4. Discuss Oedipus, the King as an Aristotelian tragedy with examples from the play.
References/ Bibliography
Sophocles. The Three Theban Plays: Antigone; Oedipus the King; Oedipus at Colonus.
Trans. Robert Fagles. Penguin. 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophocles
Versényi, Laszlo. “Oedipus: Tragedy of Self-Knowledge.” Arion: A Journal of Humanities
and the Classics, vol. 1, no. 3, 1962, pp. 20–30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20162791.
Fosso, Kurt. “Oedipus Crux: Reasonable Doubt in ‘Oedipus the King.’” College Literature,
vol. 39, no. 3, 2012, pp. 26–60. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23266055.

60
Bernard M. W. Knox. “Why Is Oedipus Called Tyrannos?” The Classical Journal, vol. 50,
no. 3, 1954, pp. 97–130. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3292487.
Dodds, E. R. “On Misunderstanding the ‘Oedipus Rex’.” Greece & Rome, vol. 13, no. 1,
1966, pp. 37–49. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/642354. Oedipus’ wife and mother, Rick M.
Newton. 3297791
GRIFFITH, R. DREW. “Asserting Eternal Providence: Theodicy in Sophocles’ ‘Oedipus the
King.’” Illinois Classical Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, 1992, pp. 193–211. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/23064321.
Gould, Thomas. “The Innocence of Oedipus: The Philosophers on Oedipus the King.” Arion:
A Journal of Humanities and the Classics, vol. 4, no. 3, 1965, pp. 363–386. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/20162968. The chorus in Oedipus Tyrannos, P.H Vellacot, 642448
Griffith, R. Drew. “Oedipus Pharmakos? Alleged Scapegoating in Sophocles’ ‘Oedipus the
King.’” Phoenix, vol. 47, no. 2, 1993, pp. 95–114. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/1088579.The mediated ending of Sophocles’ Oedipus Tytannus, Felix
Budelmann, 40236302
Huston, J. Dennis. “A MESSAGE FROM CORINTH: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OFF-
STAGE WORLD IN ‘OEDIPUS THE KING.’” The Centennial Review, vol. 29, no. 4, 1985,
pp. 420–437. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23738540. Oedipus Tyrannnus: THE riddle of the
feet, Claire Catennacio, 43940190
Dyson, M. “Oracle, Edict, and Curse in Oedipus Tyrannus.” The Classical Quarterly, vol. 23,
no. 2, 1973, pp. 202–212. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/638175.
KANE, THOMAS S. “HUMAN SUFFERING AND DIVINE JUSTICE IN THE ‘OEDIPUS
REX.’” CEA Critic, vol. 37, no. 2, 1975, pp. 16–20. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/44378073.Self-Destruction in "Oedipus Rex", M. D. Faber. 23602607
WEIL, HERBERT S. “Oedipus Rex : The Oracles and the Action.” Texas Studies in
Literature and Language, vol. 10, no. 3, 1968, pp. 337–348. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/40755168.
Lattimore, Steven. “Oedipus and Teiresias.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity, vol. 8,
1975, pp. 105–111. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25010685.

61
62
 Paper-II : European Classical Literature
Unit-3(a) : The Brothers Menaechmus
Plautus

Contents:
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Objectives
1.3 Origins of Roman Comedy
1.4 About the Author
1.5 Summary
1.6 Themes
1.7 University Questions

Edited by: Written by:

Nalini Prabhakar Sambuddha Jash

63
64
 Unit-3(a)

The Brothers Menaechmus

Plautus
Sambuddha Jash

1.1 Introduction
The Brothers Menaechmus is considered to be the greatest play written by Titus Maccius
Plautus, a well-known Roman playwright. The original title of the play was Manaechmi,
which in translated version is known as The Brothers Menaechmus. The Brothers
Manaechmus is a comedy concerning the theme of mistaken identity, which tells a story of a
set of twins, Menaechmus of Epidamnus and Menaechmus of Syracuse. The play deals with
various Roman stock characters who have been used to highlight certain
characteristic including the parasite, the comic courtesan, the comic servant, the domineering
wife, the doddering father-in-law and the quack doctor who in distinct ways show particular
characteristic of their lives. Like most of Plautus’s plays the dialogues in this play have been
sung with musical notes in different places. Hence the play is very musical in nature that has
been mixed with laughter and comedy.
1.2 Learning Objectives
The objective of this Unit is to analyse the text of The Brothers Menaechmus through the
study of its background. It begins by providing a brief idea of the history of Roman drama
and the development of the genre of Comedy within that corpus. Through a short history of
Roman Comedy, the text of The Brothers Manaechmus will be studied. The history covers
the inception of the idea of Comedy and its various constituent elements while the text shall
show us how those various elements work in different ways within the plot. Since The
Brothers Menaechmus is one of the oldest surviving works it also gives us a glimpse of the
ancient Roman world and its contemporary culture. After going through this lesson students
will be able:
i) Have a better understanding of the text of The Brothers Menaechmus
ii) Get a clear knowledge of the main themes within the text
iii) Understand the importance of Comedy and its different elements
iv) Get a better view of the society that the author tries to depict in his play

65
1.3 Origins of Roman Comedy
The year of 240 BC is prominent year for Roman drama as during the same year Livius
Andronicus, translated Homer’s Odyssey into Latin. It is designated as the watershed moment
that launched the Romans into big world of stage and acting. During that time the only
available model of theatrical excellence was that of the Greeks and it is suitably so that early
Roman drama in a large way followed the themes of Greek theatre. A significant bunch of
early Roman drama was good adaptations of the Greek originals which was promoted to the
next level by Livius Andronicus. Livius Andronicus was a freed slave who had served in the
house of the Livii, a noble Roman family from where he got his name. Besides The Odyssey,
he had adapted from various plays by Sophocles and Euripides like Ajax, Andromeda, Danae,
Tereus and few others. Critics have often questioned the need of adapting the Greek theatrical
model within early Roman drama but the answer lies in the fact that Greek drama was
composed in such a grand scale that it became the only and obvious choice of imitation for
the Roman playwrights. Besides, it is a well acknowledged fact even today that the complex
yet coherent plots of Greek tragedy and comedy were the earliest prototypes of writing a play
which attracts millions of viewers and researchers till date.
1.3.1 Importance of Theatre
Theatre was the only available medium of engagement – both for the purposes of portrayal of
ancient history and entertainment. Plays written by the Greeks and Romans served purposes
of education and amusement, which were gradually grouped into two generic formulations –
the Tragedy and the Comedy. Early Roman tragedies and comedies on one side narrated the
lives of older legends they also provided criticism of the major societal norms and beliefs.
The tragedies were adapted following the plots of Greek drama while the genre of Comedy
was full of local colour and customs which were depicted with the effect of laughter and
didacticism. Roman plays were mostly performed as part of certain religious practices and
festivities known as ludi (games). Theatre was both the source of knowledge and weekly
leisure for the Romans as they would gather in huge numbers to watch the plays being
enacted. The ludi were festivals divided into different times of the year such as the Ludi
Romani, held every September in honour of Jupiter, king of the gods, and the Ludi
Megalenses, held in April in honour of Cybele (the Great Mother).
1.3.2 Plautus and Roman Comedy
Plautus is known as the pioneer of Roman Comedy and also the person who offered a variety
within the existent dramatic norms of the time. His plays were instantly popular as the plots
mostly revolved around the lives of common Roman people which Plautus had very keenly
observed and aptly helped in the enactment on the stage. Most of his plays depicted the stock
characters of his time that made his representative wholesome in every respect. The audience
could easily connect with the different Plautine characters which increased the scope for
Plautus within the already eminent field of Roman drama. The most important aspect of
Plautus’s comedies was the presence of the comic spirit within the stage did not always
require funny dialogues; rather it was the wit and sarcasm that made Plautus’s comedies so
66
appealing. His criticism often spoke of negative aspects of the society but they never missed
the subtlety of creative talent.
1.4 About the Author
Titus Maccius Plautus, (254 – 184 BC) who is commonly known as Plautus was a Roman
playwright. Plautus is known as one of the earliest pioneers of the genre of ‘Comedy’. His
works are amongst the oldest surviving instances of literary works composed in the Latin
language. It is believed largely that he was born in Sarsina, a small town in Emilia
Romagna in northern Italy, around 254 BC. Plautus worked as a stage-carpenter during his
early years. It is from this work and similar others that his love for the theatre and its
activities grew. His acting talent was eventually discovered, and gradually he came to be
known as ‘Maccius’ which means a clownish stock-character in popular farces and ‘Plautus’
a term that meant either “flat-footed” or “flat-eared”, like the ears of a hound. His famous
surviving plays are Amphytrion, Asinaria, Bacchides, Curculio, Epidicus, Persa, Poenulus,
Rudens, Truculentus and few others.
1.5 Summary
The Brothers Menaechmus is a comedy of mistaken identity, written by the Roman
playwright Plautus around the beginning of the second century BC. It is a combination of
hilarious comic action, producing both confusion and laughter. The plot is twisted with
virtuosic use of metre, and it also served a crucial role in the development of comedy as a
genre, inspiring later playwrights like William Shakespeare and Molière. It is among the
earliest instances that gives us an idea of comedy and its effects.
It begins with the character of Moschus, a merchant who lived in Syracuse, Sicily. He
had twin sons named Menaechmus and Sosicles. He used to take Menaechmus with him to
sell goods at Tarentum, where one day the boy is kidnapped by a rich, childless merchant
from Epidamnus in Greece. Moschus suffered from melancholy over his lost son and dies
thereafter. After Moschus’s death Sosicles is renamed Menaechmus, who for the purposes of
the play, is known as Menaechmus II in memory of his twin brother who is lost. There is a
parallel development with the lost brother who gradually inherits a lot of fortune in the city of
Epidamnus and is also married and settled with a rich woman.
The place of action now shifts to Epidamnus. We are informed that Menaechmus has
stolen a dress from his wife and wants the gift the dress to his lover, a woman of pleasure
named Erotium. He is also planning to host a grand banquet for her which will be managed
by his parasite, a kind of slave, named Peniculus. While Erotium’s cook starts preparing for
the feast, Menaechmus and Peniculus go to some other place for a different conversation. At
this point, Menaechmus’s brother who has been named as Menaechmus II arrives in
Epidamnus with his slave, Messenio, having travelled for six long years in search of his twin.
The brothers now stand facing each other, identical in their appearance and costumes which
ensues a time of confusion and chaos related to identity as all other characters find it difficult
to distinguish between the two.
67
 Menaechmus II is invited by Erotium and her cook and asked to join the feast that is
almost about to start. At first Manaechmus is confused whether to join the company of people
he doesn’t know, and also having been warned by Messenio of the dissolution and decadence
of Epidamnus. However in hope of finding his brother he decides to go and join the feast,
leaving Messenio to take care of the money that he was carrying. Hurrying back from some
other place, Peniculus mistakes the drunken Menaechmus II for his twin and is angry with
him since he feels that he has been excluded from the feast. In the turn of events Erotium
gives Menaechmus II the dress that his twin brother had stolen and asks him to get it altered.
Menaechmus II sensing more money for himself steals the dress again and plans to sell it.
Paralleling as the action of the plot unfolds, the real Menaechmus, who had been
abducted as a child undergoes a reversal of fortune. He is chided by his wife and Peniculus,
who order him to get the stolen dress by any means. When he asks Erotium to return the dress
she accuses him of trying to fool her blames him for taking away a gift that she felt was truly
hers. Menaechmus II in the meantime suddenly meets Menaechmus’s wife, who had called
her father to defend her and intervene within the confusion of the stolen dress. Menaechmus
II pretends to be mad to get rid of them, banking on the fact that they already think he is
losing his sanity, since he is failing so resoundingly to acknowledge he even knows who they
are. Menaechmus’s father-in-law thinks that the condition is serious and decides to bring a
doctor who would check the mental health of his son-in-law.
When he returns with the doctor, however, they end up examining Menaechmus himself,
who has no idea of the things that has happened in between. His exasperation is interpreted in
a different way by the doctor and father as early signs of confusion and insanity, following
which they rush off to get slaves, in order to apprehend him. As the slaves try to take him
away, Menaechmus is rescued by Messenio, who thinks he is his master. In return of this
great favour of having saved his life Menaechmus assures Messenio that he would free him
from his slavish life and grant him a new one.
Within these course of events, Messenio meets Menaechmus II, who denies that he had
never assured him of freedom and continues to treat him as his slave. Just as the knot of
confusion seems intractable, Menaechmus himself enters the stage. It is Messenio who
notices the resemblance and who realizes what has been happening all this while. The long
lost twins are reunited in the end marking a final closure to all the confusion that had been
created because of their identical appearance. At the end Messenio is given freedom from the
life of a slave and Menaechmus decides to sell his property and sail to Syracuse along with
his brother to start a new life which shall be happy and peaceful.
1.6 Themes
1.6.1 Mistaken Identity: This is the central theme of the play and the source of all confusion
and laughter. The twin brothers, Menaechmus and Sosicles (also known as Menaechmus II)
appear in different scenes and create confusion amongst the other characters for their
identical appearances and at times even their costumes. The women characters in the play get
very confused with this mixture of identities and presuming that it is Menaechmus, they try to
68
settle their parts with his brother who is completely unaware of the things that has taken place
earlier in the life of the real Menaechmus. Closly linked to the theme of mistaken identity is
the idea of madness as the women characters try to connect incomprehensibility to madness.
Whenever the brothers get confused since they do not know what had been happening their
behavior is labelled as the early signs of madness. The doctor within the play is also
introduced as the father-in-law of Menaechmus thinks that he is going mad and hence
requires medical attention. For a major part of the play, characters speak to each other
without fully knowing who the person is while they presume that the person in front of them
is the intended person. Menaechmus’s wife and Erotium create most of the confusion and fun
as they often fight with the other brother thinking him to be their husband and lover, while in
fact they had been talking to the other twin. The rebuke and hatred that Menaechmus faces,
which was mostly because of the factor of mistaken identity paves way for a change of mind
and a happy ending to the play.
1.6.2 Depiction of female characters: The representation of the women characters and the
way they have been portrayed is an important theme of the play. Compared to the male
characters the women characters – Erotium and Menaechmus’s wife have been portrayed in a
negative manner. Erotium has been described as a woman who is always in search of pleasure
and loves Menaechmus only for his money. She feels that Menaechmus should always gift
her expensive things and praise her leaving very less scope of her individual point of view.
Plautus has provided very less space for Menaechmus’s wife too as she is mostly seen to be
seeking her husband’s attention rather and spends most of her time doing in getting that
desired attention. Plautus’s depiction of the women characters are mostly done in comparison
with the male ones in the play with hardly any scope left for analysis of their individual
characters. They have been shown as companions to the males with very less individual
merit.
1.6.3 Use of Mythology: Mythology has always occupied the central importance within
Greek and Roman plays as it is through them that the dramatists get inspiration to compose
wonderful plays. The Brothers Menaechmus also follows this tradition. Mythology has been
used to provide historical relevance to the play and also a break from the madness and
confusion that had been taking place on the stage. For instance the reference to the Trojan
War allows the audience to relate to a time when Gods and humans competed with each other
for control over the Earth. Also, by referring to the Trojan War Plautus provides us a sense of
history that the play was composed at a time when the Trojan War had already taken place
and also takes the characters closer to history. Mythological references in the play have also
served as digression and some relief where the audience is informed through the stage what
other things have been going on in the world outside. We also find references to Dionysus —
the god of ritual madness when Menaechmus’s father-in-law thinks that he is going mad and
needs treatment that would be violent and instantaneous in the same time. Mythology
throughout the play is something that provides meaning to the contemporary world of the
characters.

69
1.6.4 Existence of Slavery: Reference to Slavery in the play has been both used as a practice
and a symbol – the former suggesting a practice where a certain section of people would
serve the aristocrats of the society and work under them while the latter suggest that each
character of the play is a slave of something. Slavery has been shown as a sad reality of those
times when slaves had to please their masters at any cost – even by doing things that were
entirely immoral and unnecessary. Slavery as a theme is present throughout the play as the
characters are slaves of someone or something. As a practical example of slavery we find that
Messenio is Menaechmus II’s slave and does whatever he commands him. Apart from him
the other characters are also slaves to something or the other. For instance Peniculus is a
slave to his appetite and wants to be invited to the feast by any means so that he can have as
much food as he wishes. At a point he even gets angry with Menaechmus as he feels that he
is not being allowed to the feast. The real Menaechmus is a slave to his social life and
responsibilities and is seen to be always anxious of maintaining his image as a wealthy
gentleman. Whenever his expectations are not met with, he feels that he should do something
and employs a twisted way to achieve that particular thing. He tries to balance his married
life and his life with Erotium to achieve perfection which makes him undergo a lot of anxiety
and confusion. His twin brother Menaechmi II is enslaved by his quest for the lost brother
whom he has been searching for six years and that has given him very little mental peace.
The women characters in the play are also enslaved either by their unwanted passion or greed
for commodities like a dress.
1.6.5 Check Your Progress
Answer the following:
i) How did the brothers get separated? Explain the event that was behind this
separation.
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
ii) What is the initial impression that you have within your mind when Erotium enters
the stage?
………………………………………………………………………………………......
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
iii) What, according to you, is the most important theme or idea that the play tries to
show? Answer with two instances from the text.
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..

70
iv) What was the reason behind the final union of the lost brothers at the end?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….

1.6.6 Glossary
Corpus: A collection of writings
Inception: The point of beginning/starting
Courtesan: A woman of pleasure with expertise in dance, songs and other entertainments.
Stock Character: A character in literature, theatre, films who can be easily related to people
in the society according to the qualities (both good and bad) of their personalities.
Quack: A harsh cry/sound
Genre: A category of study. Like a novel, a drama, a short story – all these are examples of
different genres.
Comedy: A play that has a laughter effect with a cheerful ending
1.6.7 Concluding Remarks
Plautus, along with fellow Roman playwright Terence are amongst the pioneers of the
Comedy genre and through their expertise of stage craft and character control have shown us
how to us elements of laughter through their different plays. The plots around which
Plautus’s plays have been developed are both intriguing and hold the interest of the readers.
In most of his plays he employs certain dramatic devices that evoked laughter and confusion.
Some of these devices are mistaken identity, portrayal of contemporary stock characters, tales
of comic romance and others. He also uses the elements of burlesque and coarse humour to
the effect of exaggeration. His plots often display role reversals and characters that
experience change through the plot of the plays. In different plays he discusses issuing that
had been troubling the contemporary society like young boys being duped by girls through
the guise of love, parents being ill-treated by their own children, the prevalence of the slavery
system and few others. His plays like Bacchides talks about the virtue of honesty which often
goes unrecognized, in Captivihe discusses the importance of loyalty and how the
contemporary society deals with it. In Amphitruo, another important play by Plautus he
depicts the frailty of character particularly amongst the young women of those times. The
plays of Plautus through the detailing of comic elements try to expose the inert hypocrisies of
the human society which mostly works under the façade of gentle manners and social
mobility. Stavros Frangoulidis in his essay ‘Menaechmi: Twin Helping Twin’ has observed
an interesting turn within the plot as he says ‘it can be concluded that Menaechmus I, who
has been abducted at a young age and is living in Epidamnus, is exploited by his family and
social milieu without perceiving it. Unbeknown to all, the arrival of his twin brother initiates
a change both in the plot direction and in his fortunes, leading to his removal from town.’

71
Plautus’s plays being the earliest surviving works of an ancient civilization hold much
relevance even today as they discuss experiences that are similar even today. The appeal of
Plautus’s plays, particularly The Brothers Menaechmus have been so immense that it is
thought be the prototypes behind the composition of Shakespeare’s famous plays The
Comedy of Errors (1594) and Twelfth Night (1601).
1.7 University Questions
A) The Brothers Menaechmus represents the contemporary Roman society in all respects.
Discuss with specific reference from the text.
B) What is the significance of Messenio’s remark that no woman is left undamaged after
entering the city of Epidamnus?
C) Discuss the major themes of the play through textual analysis.
Further Reading
 E F Watling. ed. The Pot of Gold and Other Plays. London: Penguin Classics. 2004
 McDonald, Marianne and Michael Walton. eds. The Cambridge Companion to Greek
and Roman Theatre. London: Cambridge University Press. 2009.
 Moore, Timothy J. Roman Theatre. London: Cambridge University Press. 2012.
 Harrison, George W.M. and Vayos Liapis. eds. Performance in Greek and Roman
Theatre. New York: Brill Publishing. 2013.
 Sear, Frank. Roman Theatres: An Architectural Study. London: Oxford University
Press. 2010.

72
 Paper-II : European Classical Literature
Unit-3(b) : Metamorphoses by Ovid

Contents
1. General Introduction
2. Tiresias, Book III
3. Bacchus, Book III
4. Philomela

Prepared by: Edited by:

Menka Ahlawat Dr. Seema Suri

73
74
 Unit-3(b)

Metamorphoses by Ovid
Menka Ahlawat

1. General Introduction
Learning objectives
 Familiarization with literary forms such as myth, elegy, epic;
 Learning about Ovid’s career and exile in Augustan Rome; and
 Understanding metamorphoses as a theme of the poem.

The Metamorphoses is an epic poem, composed in fifteen books, by the Roman poet Ovid, or
Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BCE - 17 A.D.) as he was known to his contemporaries, around 8
A.D. The poem is an encyclopedic collection of Greek and Roman myths which had been
passed down to Ovid’s times in various versions. In the ancient world, myths were not
considered separate from reality, unlike today, when the word ‘myth’ is often used to mean
the opposite of ‘verifiable fact’. The Greco-Romans believed in the existence of
anthropomorphic (human-like) gods and goddesses who had created the universe and all of
its various elements, and they believed human destiny to be in the control of these divine
figures. By telling these stories of the creation of the world, and the relationship of the divine
and the human, mythology provided a historical context and socio-politico-cultural values to
people.
Ovid named his poem Metamorphoses, which is the Greek word for transformation,
after observing that nearly all myths featured a change of form—divine into animal, human
into object, male into female, and so on. He used this as a unifying theme to link more than a
hundred stories about diverse subjects, including war and peace, gender and sexuality, poetry
and politics, art and nature, love, anger and desire, etc. In each one the reader can expect to
find the character(s) undergoing one or more transformation. These transformations are full
of different meanings and part of the pleasure of reading the poem is to try and understand
their significance.
The Metamorphoses is generally regarded as Ovid’s masterpiece and has been very
influential on succeeding generations of readers and artists. Though the subject matter of the
poem is not ‘original’, Ovid’s treatment of it has been noted for its experimental quality. In
other words, the way he told these old stories was new and interesting. To understand this
better we need to take a look at Ovid’s life and times, and familiarize ourselves with literary
forms such as elegy and epic.
Ovid was born in March, 43 B.C., to a wealthy family in Sulmo, a small town 90
miles from Rome. He was a brilliant student and was expected to make a political career in
the imperial service or the senate, but quit after a year to start a career as a poet, because

75
“…whatever I tried to write became poetry” (this is what he claimed in a later
autobiographical poem, Tristia). By the age of 30, Ovid was famous in the Roman Empire as
a writer of love elegy.
Latin love elegy is poetry written in couplets (two rhyming lines) made of a
hexameter (six-feet) line, followed by a pentameter (five-feet) line, about romantic/erotic
love and all its passion and troubles. Being about the lighter side of life and generally
involving witty and humorous verse, elegy was a comic form and was regarded as a ‘lower’
form of poetry, in comparison to epic poetry which had tragic and more serious themes.
The majority of Ovid’s writing before Metamorphoses was love elegy. Some of it was
quite mischievous in its discussion of love. Many scholars speculate that the risky themes of
these poems might have offended Emperor Augustus who had become a very powerful
dictator by Ovid’s time and was engaged in restoring Rome’s supposedly lost glory. As the
‘Pater Patriae’ (father of the country, a title he had been given) Emperor Augustus was
concerned about the lack of morality in the Roman upper classes, and had passed certain laws
to curb ‘immoral’ behavior. For instance, he had made adultery illegal and imposed
restrictions on those who did not marry. In such an atmosphere, Ovid’s work might have been
perceived as disrespectful, and the emperor banished the poet from Rome around 8 A.D. and
sent him to live in Tomas, a wild and relatively uncivilized town. His existing work was
banned publicly. We can understand this as a kind of censorship of the poet, who never
received forgiveness and died in exile around 17 A.D. It was in exile that Ovid finished the
Metamorphoses.
The Metamorphoses is an experimental poem. This is because it is an epic poem
which merges elegiac qualities in itself. Epics were written in hexameter (compare to the
form of elegy) and were regarded as the highest form of poetry by the Greco-Romans. Epics
were not just about a particular style but a worldview which was typically
patriarchal/masculine, represented through the story of a great hero and his adventures and
deeds in the world. Whereas elegy dealt with personal matters, often bringing the poet
himself into the picture, epic had a more historic tone, and dealt with matters of the public
world; such as war, history, death, conquests, foundation of states, etc.
In the prologue to the Metamorphoses, Ovid claims that the gods had finally
transformed him into an epic poet like his idol Virgil, but like most statements of Ovid, it is
cheeky, as it is Ovid who transforms the epic and gives it a new form by blending it with an
elegiac style and worldview. Just like an epic, the Metamorphoses claims to tell the history of
the world, and covers a vast scope: from before the beginning of Time, extending till the
Rome of Ovid’s day. But unlike an epic, there is no single hero or heroine in the
Metamorphoses, and there is no single link between the stories; they are connected in random
ways. Moreover, unlike the glorification of masculine heroes in epics, Metamorphoses forces
the readers to examine the negative consequences of heroism based on war and violence. The
heroes we encounter in Metamorphoses are not like the warrior-heroes of the epic but tend to
be feminine, and engaged in artistic endeavors, just like the poet himself. It is as if Ovid has
written an epic only to question some of its fundamental assumptions and bring us a new kind
of poetry.
76
[Note: All references to the text are from ‘Readings in Classical Literature,’ ed. Harriet
Raghunathan. (New Delhi: Worldview Publications, 2013)]
2. Tiresias, Book III
Learning objectives
 Understand the story through its summary; and
 Analyze the story based on its themes.

Summary
The god Jupiter, when he is drunk, makes a bet with his wife, goddess Juno, that women
enjoy sex more than men, while Juno says it is the opposite. In order to settle the light-
hearted dispute, they agree to ask ‘wise Tiresias,’ who has experienced sexual pleasure as
both.
We are then told the story of Tiresias’ sexual transformations: one day, while walking
in the dense forest, he accidentally disturbed the mating of two snakes with his walking stick.
For this violation, he is punished by being transformed into a woman. Seven years later, when
he came across the same snakes, he deliberately struck them: Tiresias knew that he would be
punished in the same manner for his transgression. In this way, he found himself changed
back into a man.
Coming back to the story of the bet, Tiresias sides with Jupiter, and this angers Juno,
who strikes him blind. We are not told why, but her reaction is said to be extreme. Although
Jupiter cannot reverse the curse, by way of compensation he transforms Tiresias into a highly
respected clairvoyant (someone who can see the future, also known as a ‘seer’).
Commentary
Tiresias is a recurring figure in Greco-Roman mythology and is said to have made many
significant predictions for gods and heroes. You may be familiar with him as the blind
prophet from Sophocles’ play Oedipus Rex, where he predicts the exile of King Oedipus.
Another prediction of his will be seen in the next story, ‘Bacchus.’ In some other versions of
the myth which Ovid has borrowed for his poem, Tiresias is also given the gift of life up to
seven generations, along with that of clairvoyance.
Note that Tiresias’ transformation is the only one in the Metamorphoses which is eventually
reversed i.e. where a character gains their old form back.
Thematic Analysis
Forbidden Knowledge
Tiresias’ knowledge about sexual matters is punished with his transformation into a blind
man by the goddess Juno. This suggests that he has ‘seen’ too much, and that gods like to
exert their control over what and how much humans know. In fact, Tiresias is punished twice
in the story for stumbling onto something which seems to be forbidden to mortals: first, the
mating of the two snakes (we are never told why this is wrong, but it might be a religious
77
mystery as snakes were associated with certain deities), and second, sexual knowledge in the
domain of women/gods. In both cases the transgressions are innocent, i.e. Tiresias doesn’t
break any rules knowingly, but is punished anyway. The dangerous consequences highlight
that knowledge functions as power.
After his transformation by Jupiter, Tiresias becomes a seer. In Roman times,
clairvoyants, seers, or augurs (those who could read omens in the behavior of birds)
performed an important role in the political and civic matters of the republic by declaring
whether it was an auspicious time to start something new (this included wars, state functions,
elections, public campaigns, official appointments, and so on.) In fact, one of the myths that
all Roman people knew was that the location of Rome was chosen by their forefathers by
lying down on the ground and looking up at the sky. The brother who saw more vultures got
to choose the hill on which Rome was built. No important decision could be taken without
the favor of the gods, and therefore even kings had to pay heed to the words of prophets. This
makes Tiresias the seer a powerful figure, and shows us that religious wisdom can check or
challenge political power.
The Tyranny of Gods
In the story we see the oppressive behavior of gods towards humans. Ovid has portrayed the
goddess Juno as vindictive, jealous and unjust and Jupiter as a joker who likes to drink and
make silly bets. Tiresias experiences two transformations in the story as punishments (once
into a woman and once into a blind man), one by his own choice (to turn back into a man)
and once as attempted compensation from Jupiter (blind man into clairvoyant).
His multiple transformations show how the world created by gods is unpredictable,
where humans do not have safe and stable identities. The injustice towards Tiresias is made
worse by the fact that the reasons are never made clear to him or to the readers. Ovid also
suggests that the actions of gods cannot be justified through any moral standards, but are
motivated by petty reasons such as bets, or an inability to control their ego or emotions. This
is different from the portrayal of gods in epics, where they are usually seen as great figures
whose authority is based on their wisdom or morality.
Paradoxical Figure
Tiresias is someone who is located between opposing categories, which makes him a
paradoxical figure. He is both blind and able to see the future; human and god-like; connected
to the natural and supernatural worlds; in the present and the future; both male and female.
This can make him/her a confusing figure, but he can be seen as a challenge to dominant
worldviews, for instance, to Rome’s patriarchal society, where men were seen as strong,
rational and capable, whereas women were seen as weak, emotional and undeserving of many
rights.
Having existed as both man and woman, Tiresias’ wisdom is unique; he has a special
understanding of different ways of looking at the world. In a dominantly patriarchal society,
where the feminine virtues were not admired, Tiresias is a repository of both male and female
qualities and a respected prophet.

78
Similarities with Ovid
Tiresias is quite similar to Ovid the poet. The word used for both poets and seers in Latin was
‘vates’ or, ‘divinely informed prophet’—someone who was chosen by gods to reveal the
truth. Ovid’s Metamorphoses and its stories can also count as a kind of knowledge and truth
about the world. Moreover, Ovid himself was a ‘paradoxical’ figure: he was an elegiac poet
writing an epic, and his poem has the features of both, by juxtaposing narratives of heroism
with stories of their victims. Thirdly, like Tiresias, Ovid also faced unexpected punishment
for his transgressive knowledge, when Augustus banished him from Rome and banned his
books (refer to General Introduction). Through this similarity we are encouraged to think
about the power-play between prophet/poet and kings, and how the latter could be unjust and
abuse their authority whenever it suited their whims.
3. Bacchus, Book III
Learning objectives
 Understand the story through its summary; and
 Analyze the story based on its themes

Summary
In the story we are introduced to Pentheus, the arrogant king of Thebes, who does not show
any respect to the gods and prophets of his country. After Pentheus insults Tiresias for being
blind, the prophet predicts that he will face an evil fate if he does not allow the worship of
Bacchus at the shrines. Pentheus ignores the warning. When it is time for the religious
festivities, he tries to halt the proceedings, questions the divine status of Bacchus, and orders
his capture. Though unable to do so, his slaves return with one of the god’s followers, a
humble sailor named Acoetes.
On being interrogated by Pentheus, Acoetes talks about his humble background and
narrates how, during the course of his voyages, his shipmates came across Bacchus one day
and failing to recognize the god, tried to kidnap him with the intention of looting or perhaps
molesting him. When Acoetes tried to intervene as the captain of the ship, one of his
shipmates tried to strangle him and throw him overboard. Bacchus, a young, pretty and drunk
boy, then took on his divine form, complete with a crown made of grapes and a wand covered
in ivy. He rescued Acoetes and unleashed his revenge upon the murderous men, transforming
them all into dolphins one by one and making them dance in the waters.
Rather than taking heed from this story, Pentheus remains stubborn in his rejection of
Bacchus. He orders Acoetes to be killed, and proceeds to the worshipping grounds. There he
tries to look at the Bacchanalian rites being conducted by the women devotees, though
religious laws did not permit this. In their frenzied state, his mother and aunts think he is a
wild boar, and try to offer him as a religious sacrifice. Pentheus confesses his fault and begs
for mercy, but they do not recognize him, and he is violently torn to pieces by the triumphant
women.

79
Character / Theme Analysis
Pentheus
Pentheus is the king of Thebes, introduced to the readers as ‘son of Echion.’ Pentheus is a
flawed character because his power and arrogance as a king have overcome his rationality
and self-control. In his quest for power, Pentheus has forgotten pietas. In Roman society,
pietas or devotion towards the father, ancestors, gods and country (the father-land) was a
fundamental moral quality required of every citizen. Instead of proceeding with humility and
wisdom, Pentheus approaches all situations as a military conqueror, making him a caricature
of the epic hero. For example, he not only questions Tiresias’ powers of clairvoyance, but
physically pushes the old man away on being warned that such an attitude will get him killed.
Pentheus also commits blasphemy by refusing to recognize Bacchus’ divinity and orders him
to be captured and chained.
Pentheus’ obsession with power ironically reflects his crippling fear of weakness,
which has driven him mad. This is also responsible for his negative attitude towards women.
He devalues femininity by perceiving it as weakness. In his speech to the citizens of Thebes,
he doesn’t address the women, although they are a part of the group. He shames the men for
their involvement in dance, music and religious devotion by questioning their manhood,
calling them mad, and morally condemns them for forgetting pietas, in not upholding the
warrior-like spirit of their Theban forefathers.
Descendants of the serpent’s race, children of Mars, what madness has robbed you of
your senses? Can brazen cymbals clashing, pipes with curving horns, trickery and magic have
an effect so great that men who faced the swords of battle and heard its trumpets,
undismayed, who were undaunted by the ranks of war with weapons drawn, should quail
before wailing women and tinkling tambourines, drunken madmen and disgusting
fanatics?(p. 144)
Pentheus speaks of the Bacchic festival as a military threat which must be routed as
such. The irony of his speech is that he ignores the advice of the founder of Thebes, Cadmus
himself, and instead glorifies the serpent which had killed his grandfather’s army.
At the end of the story, Pentheus is punished for his disrespect of gods and of women
which makes him break societal and religious laws. His death takes place exactly as Tiresias
has predicted. His mother and aunts are deluded into thinking he is a wild boar and he is
ironically sacrificed in the worship of the same god he had refused to acknowledge. An
important thing to note about the metamorphoses in this story is that it is not physical. Rather,
the madness of Pentheus and the Maenads distorts reality for them. Pentheus does not
recognize Bacchus and the Maenads do not recognize their son/nephew.
Bacchus/ Subversion of Patriarchal Values
To the Romans, Bacchus was the god of grape harvests, wine, religious ecstasy, and theatre.
Bacchus was also known as Liber (see text where he is called “Liber, son of Semele” p. 143),
or the liberator because he released his worshippers from oppressive societal rules and self-
consciousness, allowing them to celebrate and express themselves without inhibitions. He
80
carried a wand covered in ivy and honey, known as a thyrsus, with which he could both bless
and punish, and wore crowns of grapevine on his head. The animals associated with him were
goats, bulls, tigers, panthers and leopards (some are present in the text when Bacchus appears
in his real form on the ship). Bacchus was not usually represented in mythology as an adult
man but as a feminine/ child-like boy. This is why, in the text, Acoetes’ shipmates confuse
him for a young girl and would not have spared him if they had not realized he was male or a
god. It is also why Pentheus dismissively calls him an ‘unarmed boy’ …
…one who takes no pleasure in war, its weapons and its cavalry, but delights in
tresses [hair] dripping myrrh [perfume], in fresh garlands and garments embroidered
with purple and gold. (p. 145)
Pentheus and Acoetes’ shipmates underestimate Bacchus because, in a patriarchal
society, only warriors and masculine men are considered relevant or powerful. But Ovid is
trying to show us that godly/heroic status may not always depend on military prowess or
domination. There can be power in other realms, such as religion, which Pentheus associates
with women or ‘mad people’. For example, note how inequalities in society, based on
gender/age/rank dissolve in Thebes during the Mysteries (religious festivities) dedicated to
Bacchus. Each citizen, whether child or adult, man or woman, rich or poor, is coming out and
celebrating, carrying wands like his, and indulging in wine-drinking and dancing to music
(produced by drums, pipes and cymbals). These activities were meant to drive worshippers
into a religious frenzy, akin to madness, and allow them to forget their identities temporarily.
In such ecstatic celebrations, a space was created for creativity and healing, which posed a
challenge to state-sanctioned ways of interaction and social conduct (for example, the higher
classes of Roman society could be penalized for marrying into the lower classes).
Because Bacchus released them from such constraints, he was most popular among
people in socially inferior positions, such as women (his female followers were called
Maenads, the mad ones) and slaves. He was considered a threat by tyrants and bullies. See
how in the text he not only punishes Pentheus for being a tyrant, but rescues the scared
Acoetes from his cruel shipmates.
Acoetes/ The Sensitive Artist Figure
Acoetes is a priest of the Bacchanalian mysteries. He tells the story of his religious
conversion after being captured by Pentheus’s slaves. Acoetes emphasizes that because his
father did not leave him land or cattle, his only wealth was his craft (of fishing/navigation.)
His fisherman’s skill was all his wealth. This he passed on to me, saying, “Take such
riches as I have, be my successor and heir to my craft.” So he died, leaving me
nothing but the waters. These alone can I call my inheritance. (p 146)
By elevating art/craft to the status of wealth, Acoetes represents a challenge to
traditional class hierarchy. Because Acoetes tells a story, which is supposed to serve as a
warning to Pentheus, he can be compared to Tiresias, and even Ovid, both of whom
possessed special knowledge of the same kind. Ovid’s ‘craft’ was of story-telling, and this
story again places the sensitive artist figure in opposition to the powerful tyrant.

81
 Acoetes tries to protect Bacchus from the violence of his shipmates. However, he is
physically defeated by them just as he has been chained by Pentheus. Acoetes is not a warrior
figure, and even starts crying on the ship because of his powerlessness. It is his faith in
Bacchus which rescues him in both cases.
It can be noted that Bacchus does not attack the sailors who are taking him away but
“sports” or plays with them by pretending to be plead with them and panic at his situation.
Bacchus represents the spirit of theatre and fiction rather than war, and it is with these that
Acoetes too aligns himself. The transformation of Acoetes’ shipmates into dolphins or
“monsters” (p 148) can be seen as a caricature of their actual monstrosity. Bacchus makes the
dolphins throw about their bodies like a group of dancers, which mocks the failure of the
men’s aggressive and villainous intentions.
4. Philomela
Learning objectives
 Understand the story through its summary; and
 Analyze the story based on its themes.

Summary
Tereus, the rich and powerful king of Thrace, has married Procne, an Athenian princess,
despite many ill-omens which suggest that their marriage will end in tragedy (eg. rather than
goddess of marriage Juno, it is goddesses of revenge, the Furies, who preside over the
wedding ceremonies). From this union, they have a son named Itys. After a few years, Procne
expresses a desire to see her sister Philomela, and appeals to Tereus to either let her go or
bring her sister for a short stay with them.
Tereus sets sail for Athens to convey the message to his father-in-law, King Pandion.
However, when he sets eyes on his sister-in-law, the beautiful Philomela, he is overcome
with lust and evil intentions. He cunningly convinces the king to send her back with them to
Thrace for Procne’s sake, assuring the old man that he will take care of her like a father. But
on reaching his kingdom, he leads the innocent girl deep into a forest, locks her in a high-
walled steading (farmhouse) and rapes her.
Philomela is traumatized not only by the violation of her body but also because she
has been forced to sin against her sister in an adulterous union. She immediately lashes out
against Tereus’ cruelty and betrayal, and pledges to make his crime public so that he maybe
duly punished. This threat frightens Tereusand he cuts off her tongue. The poet reveals that
Tereus keeps Philomela locked in the farmhouse for a year and rapes her repeatedly. He lies
to Procne that her sister has died in an accident on the way.
One day, Philomela is struck with an idea and weaves a tapestry depicting what has
happened to her and manages to send it to her sister. Procne turns speechless from shock. She
devises a plan to rescue her sister in the guise of a frenzied Maenad during Bacchanalian
festivities. When the two sisters are united, Procne is overcome with rage and decides to
avenge the injustice done to them. She is struck with an idea on spotting her son, Itys.

82
Leading the child away, just as Tereus had done with Philomela, Procne murders and then
beheads him.
Then the two sisters cook the body of the child and offer the dish to the unsuspecting
Tereus, who consumes it. In this way Tereus is forced to commit the sin of cannibalism
(eating flesh of one’s own kind) and is deprived of his heir. When Philomela brings Itys’
head before him, Tereus realizes what has happened and rushes towards the sisters in a rage.
At this point, the characters are transformed into birds: the sisters into a nightingale and a
swallow and Tereus into a hoopoe.
Character/Theme Analysis
Unnatural Rape and Enforced Silence
The Metamorphoses is replete with stories of gods committing sexual crimes on women, but
Tereus’ rape of Philomela is exceptionally violent. It breaks many societal taboos, making it
one of the most disturbing in Ovid’s poem.
For one, Tereus is compared to Philomela’s father in the text, and this makes his
desire of her incestuous:
When he saw her embrace the king, how he wished that he were her father! Yet even
had he been so, his desires would have been equally wicked. (p. 157)
A similar moment occurs when Pandion hands his daughter to the tyrant and asks him
to watch over her “like a father” (p. 157). Tereus is also related to her as a brother-in-law,
which adds to the incestuous angle and causes Philomela to feel guilty for aiding, though
unwillingly, Tereus’ adultery against Procne. There is an extreme level of violence in the rape
as it involves mutilation. Moreover, rather than a crime of passion, it is committed over a
long period of time, systematically isolating and silencing the victim, without any remorse or
guilt on the perpetrator’s part. Tereus actually commits multiple crimes through his
systematic rape of Philomela.
The cutting of Philomela’s tongue symbolizes both the historical silence of women
and the enforced silencing of rape survivors who have to undergo repeated trauma in a
patriarchal society where their stories are not believed, especially if they incriminate a man
with social prestige and power. The power equation between Tereus and Philomela is skewed
in his favour as he is older, male, and a king. Unable to express her emotions, protest against
Tereus’ actions, or gain anybody’s attention, Philomela’s plight is made worse and her
trauma increases manifold. As it deprives her of a voice, the mutilation has been interpreted
as a metaphorical rape.
Procne too loses her speech when she first comes to know about the crime her
husband has committed. On the other hand, Tereus is full of false words that he uses for his
advantage; by lying to Pandion about his intentions and then by lying to Procne about
Philomela’s death. The contrast between the sisters’ speechlessness and his deceitful speech
can be noted, as it will be reversed in the metamorphoses at the story’s end. Philomela and
Procne transform into a nightingale and a swallow, birds known for the beauty of their songs,
83
whereas Tereus transforms into a hoopoe, a bird that can only imitate the calls of other birds
and does not have a melody.
Psychological Trauma
Many readers have felt that Ovid’s depiction of Philomela’s plight accurately
represents the psychological state of rape survivors, which involves fear, shame and
misplaced guilt. Modern psychology has corroborated that rape survivors display these mixed
emotions in trying to deal with their trauma, for which they may partly hold themselves
responsible, especially if societal support and justice is lacking.
Philomela’s helplessness and terror add to the tragic dimension of her story by
evoking pity in the reader.
…vainly she called to her father, to her sister and above all to the gods, for help. She
was quivering with fear like some timid lamb which has been mauled and cast aside
by a grey wolf… or like a dove, its feathers matted in its own blood… (p.158).
Her ‘disordered hair’ and ‘clawing at her arms’ are physical manifestations of her trauma and
sorrow. She struggles with suicidal thoughts,
…why not take my life from me…before I was forced into that unspeakable union!
Then my ghost would have been guiltless. (p. 158)
Philomela internalizes the blame for the events, especially as they have caused her sister’s
marriage to break down. This can be seen in her downcast manner with Procne when she
comes to rescue her:
Procne flung her arms around her, but Philomela did not dare lift her head or meet her
sister’s eyes, considering herself the cause of the other’s sorrow… her gestures
conveyed what her voice could not: for she was eager to swear by the gods that she
had been forcefully assaulted and disgraced.(p 160-1)
Despite these conflicting emotions, Philomela is not a passive victim. In spite of the
frightening circumstances of her rape she immediately lashes out against Tereus. It would
have taken great courage to do so, since historically women were deprived of a voice,
especially in front of powerful men like him. But Philomela fearlessly names the crimes he
has committed: against her father Pandion who trusted him, against his wife Procne by his
adultery and against Philomela herself by violating her innocence. She pledges to reveal them
before the citizens of his kingdom, putting her faith in nature and gods as witnesses to the
crime.
If I have the chance I will come forward before your people and tell my story. if I am
to be kept shut up in the woods, I shall fill the forests with my voice ... (p.159)
Tereus’ cutting of her tongue is motivated by his fear of being caught and also anger that the
spirit of his victim refuses to be dominated.
While some readers believe Ovid was being compassionate in trying to present the story
of a woman’s plight in a universe where male gods and heroes often earned their status by
84
treating women as sexual conquests, others disagree and feel that Ovid as a male-writer is
adding to the objectification of Philomela. They also feel that his depiction of the rape is too
graphic at times; forcing the reader to participate in the rape as a voyeur. This means that
whether we read out of curiosity, dismay or pity, we have the power to watch Philomela as
she is objectified and humiliated against her will.
In some universities there have been appeals to remove Ovid’s stories from the syllabus
as they are filled with rapes by gods, the depiction of which is done in a very casual manner
and can seem to appear normal. This is felt to be unacceptable in the 21st century. Many
readers have also asked that Ovidian stories of rape carry ‘trigger warnings’ for those
students who may wish to avoid reading such stories in case they feel uncomfortable or have
faced sexual trauma in the past.
Censorship and Art
Mutilated after her rape, Philomela is forced to be silent for a year, locked in a prison which
is closely guarded. Her suffering forces her to find an alternate way to express herself.
Therefore, she sets up threads on a loom and weaves the truth of the devastating crime that is
being committed against her into a tapestry. She depicts the crime in red (“scarlet design”) on
a white background; the red symbolizing violence or blood and the white symbolizing her
innocence. She cleverly manages to send this to her sister through the hands of a servant who
doesn’t understand what she is passing on.
In this way Philomela moves closer to justice through creating beautiful art and
overcoming her suffering. The tapestry or artwork is created in such a way that not everyone
can understand it; it is a coded way of talking. The story highlights the crucial importance of
story-telling and art in a world where it is the powerful who control truths and decide what
can be seen or heard, and have the ability to force their victims into silence.
You would perhaps notice a similarity with Ovid who was censored by Augustus and
sent to live away in a wild place just like Philomela. ‘Weaving tales’ is often a metaphor for
storytelling and both Ovid and Philomela have to overcome great obstacles to express their
voices and visions to the world.
In the end, Philomela turns into a songbird; it could be the nightingale, a bird that is
synonymous with art and eternity, or the swallow, known for its many different calls and
songs and musical twittering. In this way Philomela’s voice is returned to her so that she can
“fill the forests” with it, as she had pledged to do.
Cycle of Violence
Philomela is able to get revenge on Tereus with the help of her sister Procne. While
they are uncertain at first how to go about it, Procne looks at her son Itys and is reminded of
how much he looks like his father. Killing the child seems to be a revenge of the women
against not only Tereus, by forcing him to eat his own son, but also against the entire male
lineage, making it a war of the genders.

85
 The two sisters cook the child into various dishes which Procne presents to her husband
as a special meal of her own country. She pretends that it is a sacred ritual and with this
excuse isolates her husband from all his servants so that he is alone when Philomela
triumphantly appears with the severed head of Itys. This is how Tereus finds out that he has
eaten his own son and why he cries,
…I have become the tomb of my own son! (p. 162).
Although the women feel victorious, Ovid does not present these events as justice, but rather
as a bloody revenge carried out by women who have gone mad from anger and suffering.
This is why the poet says that the story “confounds the issues of right and wrong” (p. 160). It
makes it difficult for us to judge the actions of the women as entirely justified though we may
sympathize with their plight. Instead, we are confused about what is wrong and what is right.
You would have noticed that there are many similarities in the first crime committed by
Tereus, and the second crime committed by the women. Let us look at these similarities and
what they mean.
When Tereus first spots Philomela, we are told that his passion was uncontrollable, that
he was ready to do anything, even go to war and lose his kingdom, to fulfill his sexual
fantasy. Similarly, when Procne meets her sister after she has been violated, she is also shown
to be mad with anger, and admits that to get revenge on her husband, “I am prepared to go to
any lengths of crime, my sister…” (p 161) including burning down her own house or cutting
off the limbs of her husband. It becomes hard for us to feel sympathetic to the women
because they are acting exactly like the tyrant Tereus.
There are many more similarities: Tereus leads Philomela away ‘like a wolf’ and
commits additional violence by cutting off her tongue after raping her. Procne leads her son
away “like a tigress” and cuts his head even after killing him. Itys represents a part of Tereus
and killing him is like mutilating Tereus, so that the same crime is being repeated. Tereus’
crime of rape is represented as unnatural because he is like Philomela’s father; similarly,
Procne acts in an unnatural way by killing her own son. Tereus’s crime forces Philomela to
commit the sin of adultery, and Tereus is forced to commit the sin of cannibalism. Finally,
Tereus shows no remorse over what he has done but acts in an ‘audacious’ (shameless)
manner; the women too, make a joke about their crime when Tereus calls Itys by saying he is
already inside (not the room but Tereus’ stomach).
In the end, Tereus chases the women in fury and we see no understanding, forgiveness
or peace between them. Rather than ending with reconciliation or a lesson, we can see that
the story proceeds through cycles of violence. This is significant as it forces us to recognize
that hatred and injustice can propagate more of the same till eternity, and victims turn into
victimizers when they get the chance, unless some significant measures are taken to change
the structures which allow such violence to take place.
Activities
Q1. The Metamorphoses was not just popular in its own time, but has been a classical text
for succeeding generations of readers. Many artists including playwrights, painters,
86
 sculptors, poets have taken material from it to create their own work. Your task is to
find some of these works and trace the stories back to Metamorphoses. Also discuss
the differences between the original and the new. (Hint: You can explore Geoffrey
Chaucer from the Medieval Ages, playwright William Shakespeare, sculptor G.L.
Bernini and painter Caravaggio from the Renaissance, and poet Ted Hughes from the
Modern era.)
Q2. Do you find similarities between Bacchanalian festivities and the religious festivals in
India which can offer a positive space to forget rules and regulations for a temporary
while? What are the possibilities of such spaces? (Hint: Holi is a festival like this
where identities can be blurred through face colors.) When and why do they turn
negative and violent?
Q3. Look up different representations of Bacchus in painting and sculpture. Try to
recognize the various symbols and animals associated with him.
(You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacchus_(Caravaggio)#/media/File:Ba
co,_por_Caravaggio.jpg)
For a documentary on Bacchus, click: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x9g2zHAx0

87
88
 Paper II – European Classical Literature
Unit-4 : (i) The Book of Job
(ii) The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter V

Contents:
Part I: The Book of Job
 Introduction to the Bible
 Keys to Job
 Structure of the Book of Job
 Outline of Job
 Critical Analysis of the Text
 Glossary
 Discussion of a Few Topics
 Select Bibliography
 Self-Check Exercise
 Some Important Questions
 The History of the Jews

Part II: The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter V

 Introduction to the New Testament
 A Survey of the Text with Emphasis on a few Conspicuous Events and their
Significance

Prepared by:
M. Samuel

89
90
 Part I

The Book of Job

Introduction to the Bible

You all know that the Bible is the sacred books of the Christians and accepted as the chief
authority for Christian belief. To Christians it is always the Holy Bible. The word Bible
comes from the Greek word ‘biblion’. It means book. “Men moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke
from God”. We may call it divine inspiration– “God breathed”.
In the beginning people did not have books, but relied on their memories. Exciting
stories such as that of the Garden of Eden, the flood, and the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt,
were handed down by word of mouth, from generation to generation and they became deeply
impressed on the minds of people. As time passed, people learned to write and after passing
through several stages of writing on stones, tablets of clay, papyrus etc., the Bible became
available to people beautifully printed and bound as you see it now.
The Bible is divided into two parts – the Old Testament and the New Testament–because
it contains the record of God’s revelation to mankind under two dispensations (periods of
time), first through the Hebrew race; later through Jesus Christ and his Church. Testament
means ‘covenant’ or mutual understanding and here it refers to two covenants made between
God and His People. The meaning becomes clearer if we call the two parts of the Bible, the
old and new covenants instead of testaments.
The inspired literature of the Jews is found in the Old Testament. The New Testament
records the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the acts and epistles (letters) of his earliest
apostles. Throughout the Old Testament occurs the promise that God would send to His
people a deliverer or Messiah (anointed one). Christianity teaches that these promises were
fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. It is this that forms for the Christians the
link between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Originally, the Bible was written in three languages. The Old Testament was written
mostly in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. Aramaic appeared in only a few places.
Some sections of the Bible were composed in Arabia, others in the dungeons of Rome. Some
portions were written in the times of Pharaohs, others in the eras of the Caesars. In later Old
Testament times, Aramaic more and more displaced Hebrew as the language of Palestine and
was the common language of Palestine in the time of Christ. Likely this is the language Jesus
himself used.
All books of the New Testament have come down to us in Greek, though the original of
Matthew may have been in Hebrew. The Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek at
Alexandria (285-246) B.C. in order to provide for the famous library there, and as a service to
the many Greek speaking Jews. It is known as Septuagint, a word that suggests the seventy-
two scholars who, it is thought, were engaged to make the translation.
In the early Christian centuries, the Greek New Testament was translated into Samaritan
and Syriac languages of the Palestine area and later into Latin. This was because as
Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, more and more converts wanted to learn
its message and pass into it on to others. So Latin translations began to appear. Of the Latin
versions, the most celebrated is the Vulgate (language of the common people) of St. Jerome,
91
one of the brilliant scholars of his day.
The first whole Bible in English was translated by Wycliffe from the Vulgate in 1380,
aided by Nicholas who translated a large part of the Old Testament. This was followed by
another version by William Tyndale in 1530.
The Authorized (King James) Version was published in 1611, the product of forty-seven
scholars appointed by James I. Seven years were spent on this classic which has exerted a
great influence on the English language and literature. In fact, The King James Version
became “the Authorized version” of the English speaking people. The King James Version
has with good reason been termed “the noblest monument of English prose”, its reviewers in
1881 expressed admiration for “its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of
expression, the music of its cadences and the felicities of its rhythm”.
The Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1952), is an authorized revision of the
American Standard Version published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James
Version of 1611. A major reason for the revision of the King James Version which is valid
for both the Old Testament and the New Testament is the change since 1611 in English
usage.
Literary Value of the Book
Considered merely as literature, “the Bible has no equal in the simplicity of its prose, and
beauty of its poetry, the vividness of its descriptions, the fast tempo of its annals, the fervor of
its devotions”. It is said, the Bible is really a library rather than a single book for it is a
collection of 66 separate and distinct writings. The Old Testament contains 39 books and the
New Testament 27 books. “Almost every phase of life and thought is dealt with in its pages,
in every variety of literary form – poems, biographies, histories, prophecies, stories, letters,
speeches, prayers, hymns, sermons”.
The Book of Job
The Book of Job stands unique among the books of the Old Testament. It is perhaps the
earliest book of the Bible although it is placed almost in the middle of it. The book is
anonymous, but is named for its central character, Job.
The most sublime treatment of the great mystery of human suffering is given in the Book
of Job. The central character is a wealthy chieftain of Uz, by name Job. He belongs to the
days before priesthood and organized religion. He is noted as a God fearing and upright man,
blameless and who ‘shunned evil’. But to test whether his righteousness and faith in God will
remain strong in suffering as in prosperity, God allows Satan to inflict upon Job a series of
terrible misfortunes and afflictions. As a result, in a matter of minutes, Job lost all his
material possessions, his children and his health.
There follows a debate between Job and his friends who have come to comfort him. As
they tussle with the problem of Job’s suffering, they accused him rather than consoled him.
They say if Job suffers he must be a wicked man and that his suffering has come through sin.
But Job refuses to believe it and he affirms his innocence. So the argument goes back and
forth neither side shifting position, until they reach complete impasse. Job cries out to God
for some other explanation. Filled with pain and doubt as Job is, he still has not lost his faith
in God. “I know that my Redeemer liveth” he says. At last God intervenes, speaking out of a
whirlwind. He does not answer Job’s questions: but seeing God, Job is satisfied. If his
friends’ theology has been too narrow and rigid, his concept of God had been too limited. Job
92
bows in submission, acknowledges the sovereignty of God in his life realizing that the great
mysteries of life are beyond man’s understanding. God blesses him abundantly. He restores
back his health, wealth, children and all lost possessions more than he had before his trails.
A critic says, “Throughout the ages, a strange magnetism about the Book of Job has
pulled people to its pages. Certainly many individuals have discovered a degree of solace by
identifying with Job, whose distresses were agonizingly prolonged; manifestly unfair, as is all
suffering for righteousness’ sake: and unbelievably intense”.
The book’s subject –unjust human suffering, the universal mystery of misery unmerited–
makes it an appealing book. The subject is as old as the hills and as modern as the space age.
“Job was blameless, upright and fearing God and turning away from evil”. Could any tragedy
be more unmerited?
The Author
There are several surmises as to who wrote this book. Because of several similarities between
Job and Genesis and because of Moses’ familiarity with the desert, Jewish tradition says that
Job was written by Moses. Other scholars argue for Solomon as the author because of his
interest in poetic literature. However, the author cannot be identified with certainty. The land
of Uz (1:1) is adjacent to Midian, where Moses lived for forty years and it is conceivable that
Moses obtained a record of the dialogue left by Job or Elihu.
Verse and Chapter In the Bible, all the sentences/lines whether in Prose or Poetry are
numbered. Sometimes, two or three sentences are clubbed together and have only one
number against them. Note that these numbered sentences or lines are called Verses. A
number of verses together constitute a Chapter. For example if we write Book of JOB, 3:10,
it means Chapter 3, verse 10. Also note that while referring to the text JOB, the word will be
in Italics.
Regarding the pronunciation of the name JOB you may Pronounce it as you pronounce
‘Robe’ or ‘Road’, using the vowel sound for ‘O’ JOB.
Different names for God used in the Bible are, ‘Yahweh’, ‘Lord’, ‘Elohim’, ‘EL’, ‘Adon’ etc.
Keys to JOB (from the Open Bible – The New King James Version)
Keyword: Sovereignty
The basic question of the book is, “why do the righteous suffer if God is loving and all-
powerful? “Suffering itself is not the central theme rather the focus is on what Job learns
from his suffering the Sovereignty of God over all creation. The debate in chapters 3-37
regards whether regards whether God would allow this suffering to happen to a person who is
innocent. The oversimplified solutions offered by Job’s three friends are simply inadequate.
Elihus’ claim that God can use suffering to purify the righteous is closer to the mark. The
conclusion at the whirlwind is that God is sovereign and worthy or worship in whatever he
chooses to do. Job must learn to trust in the goodness and power of God in adversity by
enlarging his concept of God. Even this “blameless” man (1:1) needs to repent when he
becomes proud and self-righteous. He has to come to the end of his own resources, humble
himself and acknowledge the greatness and majesty of the Lord “of those in heaven, and of
those on earth, and of those under the earth”. He is omniscient, omnipotent and good. As
such, His ways are sometimes incomprehensible to men and women, but he can always be
trusted. Without the divine perspective in chapters (1 and 2) and in (38-42) chapters (3-37)
93
are a mystery. Job does not have access to chapters (1 and 2), but he is responsible to trust
God when all appearances are contrary. Suffering is not always associated with sin; God
often sovereignly uses it to test and teach.
Key Verses: Job (13:15, 37:23, 24) “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him. But I will
maintain my own ways before Him” (13:15).
“Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power and in judgement,
and in plenty of justice; He will not afflict. Men do therefore fear him: He respected not any
that are wise of heart” (37:23, 24)
Key Chapter: Job 42- The last chapter of the book records the climax of the long and
difficult struggle Job has with himself, his wife, his friends, and even his God. Upon Job’s
full recognition of the utter majesty and sovereignty of the Lord, he repents and no longer
demands an answer as to the “why” of his plight.
Structure of The Book of Job
Focus Dilemma Debates of Job Deliverance of Job
of Job
Reference 1:1 3:1 15:1 22:1 27:1 32:1 38:1 42:17
Division Controversy First Second Third Final Solution of Controversity
of God and cycle cycle cycle of defence Elihu of God with Job
Satan of of debate Job of
debate debate
Conflict Debate Fepentance
Topic Prose Poetry Prose
Location Land and Uz (North Arabia)
Time Patriarchal Period (c. 2000 B.C)

The Book of Job divides into three parts: the dilemma of Job (1 and 2), the debates of Job and
his friends (3-37); and the deliverance of Job (38-42)

Names and Order of The Books of The Bible

with standard abbreviation in brackets
Old Testament
Genesis (Gen.) Ecclesiates (Eccl.)
Exodus (Ex.) Song of Solomon (Song)
Leviticus (Lev.) Isaiah (Isa.)
Numbers (Num.) Jeremiah (Jer.)
Deuteronomy (Deut.) Lamentations (Lam.)
Joshua (Josh.) Ezekiel (Ezek.)
Judges (Judg.) Daniel (Dan.)

94
Ruth Hosea (Hos.)
I Samuel (I Sam.) Joel
II Samuel (II Sam.) Amos (Am.)
I Kings (I Kgs.) Obadiah (Obad.)
II Kings (II Kgs.) Jonah (Jon.)
I Chronicles (I Chron.) Micah (Mic.)
II Chronicles (II Chron.) Nahum (Nah.)
Ezra (Ez.) Habakkuk (Hab.)
Nehemiah (Neh.) Zephaniah (Zeph.)
Esther (Esth.) Haggai (Hag.)
Job Zechariah (Zech.)
Psalms (Psa.) Malachi (Mal.)
Proverbs (Prov.)

NEW TESTAMENT

The Gospelsq II Thessalonians (II) Thess.)

Matthew (Matt.) I Timothy (I Tim.)
Mark (Mk.) II Timothy (II Tim.)
Luke (Lk.) Titus (Tit.)
John (Jn.) Philemon (Philem.)
The Acts (Acts) Hebrews (Heb.)
Romans (Rom.) James (Jas.)
I Corinthians (I Cor.) I Peter (I Pet.)
II Corinthians (II Cor.) II Peter (II Pet.)
Galatians (Gal.) I John (I Jn.)
Ephesians (Eph.) II John (II Jn.)
Philippians (Phil.) III John (III Jn.)
Colossians (Col.) Jude (Jd.)
I Thessalonians (I Thess) Revelation (Rev.)

The following outline of the book of Job in detail will guide you in your study of the text.
I. The Prologue which includes the dilemma of Job -(in prose) (Chaps 1-2)
A. Job’s character (Chap 1 :1-5)
B. Job’s calamities (Chap 1 : 6-2 :10)
C. Job’s comforters (Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar) (Chap 2 : 11-13)

95
II. Dialogue (in Poetry) (Chap 3:1-42 :6)
A. Job’s lament -curse (Chap. 3)
1. He wished he had not been born (Chap 3 :1-10)
2. He wished he had died at birth (Chap 3 :11-19)
3. He wished he could die then (Chap 3:20-26)
B. The first cycle of speeches (chaps. 4 -14)
1. Eliphaz’s first speech (chaps. 4-5)
2. Job’s first reply to Eliphaz (chaps. 6-7)
3. Bildad’s first speech (chap. 8)
4. Job’s first reply to Bildad (chaps. 9 -10)
5. Zophar’s first speech (chaps. 11)
6. Job’s first reply to Zophar (chaps. 12-14)
C. The second cycle of speeches (chaps. 15-21)
1. Eliphaz’s second speech (chap. 15)
2. Job’s second reply to Eliphaz (chaps. 16 -17)
3. Bildad’s second speech (chap. 18)
4. Job’s second reply to Bildad (chap. 19)
5. Zophar’s second speech (chap 20)
6. Job’s second reply to Zophar (chap. 21)
D. The third cycle of speeches (chaps. 22-31)
1. Eliphaz’s third speech (Chap. 22)
2. Job’s third reply to Eliphaz (chaps. 23-24)
3. Bildad’s third speech (chap. 25)
4. Job’s third reply to Bildad (chaps. 26-31)
E. Elihu’s four speeches (chaps. 32-37)
F. God’s confrontation (chap 38:1-42:6)
1. God’s first speech (chap 38:1-40:2)
2. Job’s first reply to God ( chap 40:3-5)
3. God’s second speech (chap 40:6-41:34)
4. Jobs second reply to God (chap 42:1-6)
III. Epilogue (In prose) (chaps 42:7-17)
(a) God and Job’s friends (chap 42:7-9)
(b) God’s blessings and Restoration of Job (chap 42:10-17)

96
Critical Analysis of the Text
I. Prologue (chaps. 1-2)
In the prose prologue of Job, Job’s spiritual character, his family and possessions, Satan
accusations and attacks on Job, Job’s reactions, and the arrival of his friends--all are set
before us swiftly in tense words. By contrast, the pace of the dialogue that follows is slow.
The prologue is necessary background told in rapid narrative style in order to make the reader
understand quick to Job’s agonizing confrontation with his friends and God.
Job’s character, his faith and prosperity described
The narrative opens in epic style, ‘there lived’. In brief but pointed phrases Job is described in
the first verse in the book. He is introduced as a citizen of Uz. Like the date and author of
Job, the location is uncertain. Whatever be the location, several views put together, seem to
agree that it was outside Palestine, east of Edom, in northern Arabia. There is no specific
reference to the time when Job lived. The author thereby masterfully composes a literary
piece in which Job is the representative of all who suffer.
Four statements summarize Job’s qualities as a man in the eyes of God. Job was more
than a good man. He was “blameless”, which means he was a man of untarnished character.
The blameless person is one who walks in close fellowship with God.
Secondly he was “upright” meaning “straight” in the sense of not deviating from God’s
standards. He had good relationship with other human beings which was due to his having a
right relationship with God. Job treated others including his servants fairly and justly.
Thirdly, Job was a man who feared God. “Fearing God” means “aware of, revering and
submissive to God’s majesty’’. The scriptures say, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom”. This fearing describes Job’s devout faith in God. The wisdom literature places the
highest value on fearing ‘Yahweh’ (God) asserting that it is the very foundation for true
wisdom.
Job was a man who turned away from evil and shunned it. The combination of these four
traits and his vast wealth bore witness in his culture that Job excelled in wisdom. In short, Job
was a man of deep moral and spiritual character and God said of him to Satan, ‘There is none
like him’. It shows that Job’s friends were totally, wrong in accusing him of being a wilful
sinner.
Job’s family and his prosperity
God richly blessed his faithful servant Job. The author uses the numbers three, seven and ten,
all symbolic of completeness to demonstrate that Job’s wealth was staggering. Job was also
blessed with seven sons and three daughters. He had enormous herds, seven thousand small
cattle, sheep and goats. His holdings included three thousand camels, 500 yoke of oxen, five
hundred asses etc. As would be expected, Job had a large staff of male and female slaves for
the work of his vast estate. In all respects, Job’s wealth surpasses that of any other Sheik of
the East. In short, Job was wealthy as well as godly – two characteristics not often found
together. Job was a remarkable man, indeed.
Job’s godly character is seen in his concern for the spiritual welfare of his grown up
children. After each year’s round of birthday parties given by each of his seven sons, Job
would offer burnt offerings for forgiveness of any sins committed by them unknowingly or
otherwise. In every way, Job was capable and exemplary – in his ability to amass wealth, in
97
his concern for his family, in his godly piety before God. Those sterling qualities make Job’s
adversities, by contrast all the more severe.
Job’s calamities (1:6-2:10)
One day, the sons of God (angels), presented themselves before God to report on their
activities. Satan also came and reported that he was roaming and walking on the earth,
apparently looking for those whom he could accuse and trouble. Knowing Satan’s searching,
the Lord mentioned Job as his supreme example of piety: “there is no one like him on the
earth” and he called him, “My servant” and affirmed that Job was truly a righteous man.
Satan’s response attacked Job’s motives. He challenged God, saying that Job’s piety and
goodness is not without reason and that it springs out of selfish motive. Because God had
blessed him abundantly and protected him from all harm, he remains faithful to him. He
argued that if ‘Yahweh’ would stretch out his hand and strike all that Job had, he would then
surely curse God to his face. Then the self serving basis of Job’s loyalty would be revealed.
Confident of his servant Job, God accepted Satan’s challenge. The issue at stake was
Job’s motivation for his upright behaviour and his fear of God. Here a question arises why
God allowed Satan to buffet Job. Why does he need to test him to find out his motive? Surely
God knows of Job’s selfless worship but he used Job as a demonstration to silence Satan. In
addition, He perhaps wanted to deepen Job’s spiritual insight.
Job’s tragic misfortune (1:13-22)
Since no one on earth was aware of the challenge between God and Satan, all things at Job’s
household continued as usual. The atmosphere was peaceful. His sons and daughters had
joyfully begun a new round of feasting at the house of the eldest.
Having gained permission, Satan lost no time in his assault on Job. He was able to move
both human and natural forces to destroy Job’s possessions and children – first, it was a
Sabean attack. The Sabeans stole the 1,000 oxen and 500 donkeys and slaughtered the
servants. Second, the fire of God which “fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the
servants” may have been caused by lightning. Third, a Chaldean raid. The Chaldeans who
attacked in three companies from three sides, stole the 3,000 camels and slaughtered the
servants, were fierce. They possibly came from the north in contrast with the Sabeans who
had come from the south. Obviously, the raids by those two groups were surprise attacks.
The great wilderness wind that “struck the four corners of the house” suggests a tornado
or whirling wind. The wind toppled the house causing it to fall on Job’s ten children while
they were feasting and killed them.
Thus Job lost all his wealth and children. His live-stock had been stolen; all his servants
had been murdered (except four messengers who had escaped to report) all his children had
been killed. Job while reeling in shock from the news of one loss, was stunned with another.
In a few minutes, Job had fallen down from wealth and prosperity to grief and pauperism.
Job’s reaction to the first assault
Grieving deeply Job stood up, tore his robe (an outer garment worn over the tunic)
symbolizing inner turmoil, and shaved his head, depicting the loss of personal glory. Then he
dropped to the ground, not in despair, but in obeisance to God, Job worshiped God. As his
face touched to the ground, his body conveyed the attitude of his heart-submission before
God in humble worship. In other words, Job acknowledges God’s lordship over all his
98
possessions and sought consolation from the Almighty. Jobs resignation to the divine will is
exemplary-verse 21.
“Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return thither: The Lord
gave and the Lord hath taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord”. With two aphorisms,
Job acknowledged God’s sovereignty over his entire life both for good and for ill. God who
had given him all this wealth has the right to take it away even before his death. In short, in
sorrow as well as in blessings, Job praised God’s name. How many people today would react
as Job did if they encountered the blows he experienced?
Job’s worship of God and surrender to him even at the moment of extreme loss and
intense grief verified God’s words about him. Job’s amazing response showed Satan to be
utterly wrong in predicting that Job would curse God if his wealth was snatched away. Thus
Satan lost in his first test.
However, Satan did not give up his challenge. Back in heaven, Satan implied that Job
was still worshipping God as he has preserved his body and his life. “Skin for skin” yes, all
that a man has he will give for his life. He meant that if God touches Job’s body with disease,
then with no further reasons for worship, he will curse God.
Receiving permission from God to touch Job’s body, but not to take his life, Satan
immediately caused Job to have “sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his
head”. It may be noted here that the first test involved Job’s wealth, the second one involved
his health.
Job’s affliction which caused painful ulcerous sores, itching, worms in the boils,
hardened skin, dark eye lids, foul breath, loss of weight, depression, fever, sleeplessness and
excruciating pain throughout his body must have lasted for several months. The after effect of
this second assault may he said to be three happenings – Job’s separation from the city,
temptation by his wife and his submission to God.
Humbled Job went outside the city walls and sat among the ashes, that is, on or near the
pile of dung ashes and garbage. Beggars, outcasts and dogs were present. In other words, Job
was totally isolated from the community’s life as he mourned his terrible fate in silence. How
indignant and humiliating for the one who had sat at the city gate as a local judge, now to be
outside the city walls with beggars, scraping his itching, running sores with a piece of broken
pottery!
Job’s wife enters the scene for the only time. She could not understand Job’s silent
acceptance of his bodily affliction. Her entrance portrays another dimension of Job’s trial,
namely the alienation that his affliction caused between him and his wife. She asks, “Do you
still hold fast to your integrity?” She urged him to forget his integrity, curse God and die. In
response, be called her a foolish (spiritually ignorant or nondiscerning) woman. Her
suggestion that he curse God was exactly what Satan had twice said Job would do (1:11;2:5).
At the moment when he needed comfort from her, be received another terrible blow –
evidence of her bitterness towards God.
His wife’s appeal was more trying to Job than the losses themselves, for she spoke out of
the strong emotional, marital bond between them. She put into words the essence of her
husband’s temptation: it is folly to adhere staunchly to one’s integrity in the face of such
tragedy. But Job turned his back on finding a false way of escape from his suffering and
expressed his unwavering allegiance to God.
99
 Note here that Job’s willingness to receive blessings as well as adversity from God
without complaints, shows that he did not serve God for personal gain. The affirmation “In
all this Job did not sin with his lips” proved wrong. Satan’s predictions that Job would curse
God, and it vindicated God’s words. Job had come thus far through his trial unscathed by any
wrong doing.
The Arrival of Job’s three Comforters (2:11-13)
On learning of Job’s affliction three beloved friends - Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar - came each
from his own place. Their purpose was to sympathise with Job and comfort him. A fourth
friend, Elihu was present though he is not mentioned until later (chap.32). When the friends
caught sight of Job, they were aghast. Job was scarcely recognizable, his body being
disfigured from disease. Overcome with grief, shock and helplessness they wept, tore their
robes, and threw dust over their heads to the sky. They sat in silence with him for a week
mourning over his death-like condition. In this way they followed the custom of those days
and allowed the grieving person to express himself first.
The prologue implies at the start that the friends were wrong in their view that Job’s
suffering was the result of his sin. The reader is told something that Job and his comforters
themselves did not know – that Satan was the instigator of Job’s trouble and one of the
purposes of his suffering was to answer Satan’s question whether a man would serve God and
worship him without any gain in return.
Job’s Curse – Lament (Chap 3:1-26)
The silence of Job’s friends was broken when words gushed forth from the agitated soul of
Job. The words he spoke were in shocking contrast to his former expression of calm
submission. In his “Niagra of anguish” Job regretted his birth (3 : 1–10) wished he had been
born dead (3 : 11–19) and longed to die then. (3 : 20–26)
Job laments his misery when he says he wished he had not been born, but the only way
that such a wish could be realized would be to have the day of his birth removed from the
calendar. Since the day of Job’s birth had already been created, the only way that Job might
vanish would be to have that day returned to primordial chaos. If no light had shone on that
day, there would have been no life, no birth particularly Job’s. With this spell Job seeks to
become totally nonexistent. In other words, Job curses the day of his birth.
Job wished he had died at birth. He preferred that to his present condition. After cursing
his birthday, Job seems to have subsided into a quieter reflection on the trouble-free condition
he would enjoy had he been still born. Job then again stated how much better he would be
had he died at birth as death would bring rest, whereas in life he was experiencing terrible
misery. His condition in death as an infant would have given him an enviable position with
exalted personalities: kings, rich princes, counsellors. Job again referred to the restful
condition he could have had in Sheol. There the wicked no longer rage in their restless sin
and rebellion; the weary rest; prisoners are at ease; the small and the great are together; and
the slave is free. Job weary with agony would be at rest in death; he would no longer be a
captive to his disease; he would be free from his slavery to trouble. All who suffer intensely
like Job can appreciate his longing for release through death.
For the third time in his soliloquy, Job expressed his longing to die then. Referring once
again to the subject of light and darkness as indicative of life and death, he asked, “why is
light given to him who suffers, and life to the bitter of the soul? He then stated neither the
100
quiet waiting nor the anxious effort to die does any good. Death does not come, and like
buried treasures it is not found. When sufferers finally do find the grave, Job said, they
“rejoice greatly’’ because death releases them from pain.
Job’s suffering was physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual. In his dramatic
monologue, Job vented his despair, voiced his bitter complaint and craved for the grave.
Although bitter, he did not rail. Though accusing God of hedging him in and being
responsible for his plight, Job did not curse God as Satan had predicted, nor did he
contemplate suicide. Suicide is not acceptable to the person of faith because it signifies that
one has lost all hope in God. Note that Job’s cry was a cry of pain and despair, not a cry of
defiance. Job laments his misery, but does not complain of injustice, or lament his integrity.
Job’s yearning for death emphatically underscores the extremities of his pain. His cry
was only a desire to get relief from life’s woes through the gate of death. Did Job sin in
uttering a curse on his own life? No, it is only due to pain. Though Job approaches the brink
of cursing God, he does not. He survives the darkest hour, since he neither curses God nor
takes his fate into his own hands.
The Dialogue (4 : 1–27 : 23)
The three companions of Job--Eliphaz Bildad and Zophar had come to him with the honest
intention, “to sympathise with him and comfort him”. Their week-long silence expressed
their sympathy as well as their bewilderment and grief. Then when Job broke the silence with
his out cry of anguish and death-desire, the three felt compelled to speak. Each friend spoke
and was in turn replied by Job. The cycle of speeches occurs three times, with one variation
in the third round the third friend Zophar did not speak a third time.
The first cycle of speeches (Chaps. 4–14)
Eliphaz’s first speech (chaps. 4–5) This speech falls into five parts:
(a) His rebuke of Job ( 4 : 1–6)
(b) His reasoning about suffering (4 : 7–11)
(c) His report of a vision ( 4 : 12–21)
(d) His recommendation to Job (5 : 1–17)
(e) His reminder of God’s blessings (5 : 18–27)
His rebuke of Job
First, Eliphaz commended Job for his uprightness and numerous deeds of mercy and
instructing many, strengthening feeble hands and encouraging the unhappy, emotionally and
spiritually by his counsel. But that compliment had in it a rebuke as Job was unable now to
take his own medicine when tragedy has caught him now by surprise. He had advised others
to be patient under trial, but now he has become impatient when he himself has become a
victim of misfortunes. Job had been a great encourager, but he could not encourage himself.
What Eliphaz failed to realize is that one who is suffering cannot easily encourage himself.
The Doctrine of Retribution (3 : 7–11) or his reasoning about suffering
Here, Eliphaz made a classic statement on this theory of suffering: the innocent do not perish,
the upright are not destroyed, but the person who does iniquity and sows trouble will be
punished and the wicked perish under God’s anger. What Eliphaz implied was that Job was a
101
wilful sinner in need of repentance.
His report of a vision: (4 : 12–16)
Eliphaz sought to add authority to his theological viewpoint by relating his experience as if it
had occurred in a dream. It is questioned whether the words he had heard in his dream were a
revelation from God or not. Whatever the case may be, Eliphaz seems to be wrong in
applying those words to Job as if he were a wilful sinner. To say “The reason you are
perishing, Job, is that you are mortal and unclean; there is no hope for you” runs counter to
God’s evaluation of Job’s character. The dream report seems to be nothing more than another
way for Eliphaz to say Job is getting what he deserves.
His recommendation to Job (5 : 1–17)
In the light of his cause-and-effect view of sin, Eliphaz advised Job to appeal to God because
God is majestic, powerful, benevolent, sending rain on crops, encourages and helps down
cast, frustrates the shrewd and delivers the poor and helpless. Although that advice was not
wrong in itself, Eliphaz was wrong in basing his advice on the assumption that Job had
sinned deliberately. Even so Job did seek to present his cause to God. Eliphaz also wrongly
assumed that Job’s afflictions were disciplinary in nature. His advice to Job, then, was to
endure the discipline and not despise it.
His reminder of God’s blessings (5 : 18–27)
Eliphaz reminded Job that if he would acknowledge his guilt, God would bless him. Coming
to the grave in full vigour “like the stacking of grain in its season” beautifully pictures a life
lived to the full and ready to be ended.
Eliphaz’s speech may be summed up with the following point: (a) Job’s suffering is the
result of his sin (b) man has no chance before God of being pure (c) man is mortal (d) trouble
is not accidental, but retributive or disciplinary (e) God is transcendent (f) submitting to
God’s ways will bring blessings. Although points c, e and f are true, Eliphaz was wrong in
assuming that Job had deliberately turned from God.
Job’s first reply to Eliphaz (Chaps. 6-7)
In his reply to Eliphaz’s speech, Job addressed all three men, not just Eliphaz. In 7 : 12-21 he
addressed God directly for the first time in the discourses.
Job’s defence of his complaining 6 : 1-7
In these first seven verses, Job expressed his reason for complaining. He complained because
his grief had been heavy: Even the sand of the seas would not be as weighty as his afflictions.
What a picturesque way to express his burdens, for wet sand is unusually heavy.
Job justified his seemingly reckless previous words (chap.3) by suggesting that his words
were nothing compared to his suffering.
Like Eliphaz, Job believed that his distresses came from God. Eliphaz said they were
caused by Job’s sin, whereas Job denied that connection. “The God that he had known and
the god he now experiences seemed irreconcilable” Does that not give Job cause for
complaint? Job felt that he was alienated from God, from himself and from his friends.
Job’s despair in his suffering (6 : 8-13)
Job believed that God was the sustainer of his life, although he knew that God was the source
102
of his trouble. Therefore he voiced his “request” and “longing” that God would crush him,
remove his hand from sustaining his life and cut him off. In fact he could endure deep pain if
he knew he could die soon.
Then Job stated that he had no help in himself and no resources or strength to endure the
misery. Certainly Job was desperate – no hope for which to live, and no strength by which to
live.
Job’s disappointment in his friends (6 : 14-23)
Eliphaz had disappointed him by not showing kindness to him in his despair. His friends had
been like a riverbed. In the rainy season, a wadi is filled with rushing, raging water, but in the
summer it vanishes or dries up just when it is most needed. So his friends, Job says, have
acted “deceitfully” pretending to help but offering no help at all (6 : 15). They have become
like a mirage.
Job’s plea to the three counsellors (6 : 24–30)
After expressing his disappointment in his friends’ lack of friendship, Job pleaded with them
to tell him where he had gone wrong, to give him evidence of his sin. He emphasized the
sincerity and truth of his words and pointed out that they should not be “unjust”.
Job’s pattern of misery (7 : 1–6)
Job expressed another bitter complaint of his miserable condition. He said that man’s
existence is servitude, in which he is subject to continual toil and misery, and in which he
hopes for some slight respite. Although Job’s experience was similar to that of the slave and
hired workers, his condition was worse as his nights were filled with trouble.
Job’s prayer to God
Job first spoke of the brevity of life. Death to Job would be a release from the haunting eyes
of God. Job again expressed his desire to end his misery by death. In short this prayer to God
is a cry of bitter dispair: Job felt that he was constantly harassed by God, but he would soon
be gone. There is bitterness in both life and death.
Bildad’s first speech (chap. 8)
Bildad is the second friend to speak. Like Eliphah he held the view that man’s calamities are
the consequence of his sins. Also like Eliphaz, Bildad pointed out to Job that there was the
possibility of restoration of his prosperity and happiness if he would acknowledge his
iniquities or sins.
Whereas Eliphaz had begun politely, Bildad began abruptly. Job’s words in which he
sought to justify his complaints according to him were nothing but a “big wind” blowing
wildly, noisily, rashly and purposelessly with damaging results. With thoughtless cruelty,
Bildad said Job’s children were destroyed as they sinned against God – Job’s punishment was
what he deserved for his hidden sin. God has not perverted justice. He also said that god
would restore his “righteous estate”, if Job would seek God, implore the compassion of the
Almighty and be true and upright. He also pointed out that the truths found by the forefathers
of many previous generations would confer Bildad’s view. He placed the validity of his
arguments that God does not pervert justice on three illustrations from nature (11–19), the
fate of the papyrus (11–13), the frailty of the spider’s web (14–15) and the ability of a garden
plant to grow despite great obstacles (16–19). The first two pictures show that the godless
103
perish, that last one demonstrates that the righteous can prosper though confronted by great
obstacles.
Note here that although Bildad offers a measure of hope of Job in his speech, it missed
the mark: It failed to bring comfort and to evince the confession of sin – Bildad has not yet
decided whether Job is righteous or not. His backward look to tradition and history was of no
help to Job for Job’s experience was the opposite of forefather’s wisdom. Moreover, Bildad’s
use of illustrations from the present were in conflict with Job’s righteous state; and Bildad’s
prospect of relief in the future failed to console Job in the present. Sadly, Bildad fails to stand
with his friend during the time of his greatest need.
Job’s reply to Blldad (chaps. 9–10)
In his first reply to Bildad, Job reasoned that he had not forsaken God and so why he should
be perishing. This is the dilemma Job has been facing. This dilemma raises in his mind
several questions. Because God had tormented Job, an upright man, how he reasoned, could
any man stand righteous before God? What hope could there be before such an almighty,
arbitrary God? Job then delienated several reasons why it seemed useless to present his case
to God.
He accuses God to be arbitrary, an unjust God who destroys both the innocent and the
wicked (9 : 20–24). He could not plead with him; his only hope would be to implore the
mercy of God, his judge.
Job then reached another point of despair, when he says, “I do not take notice of myself”.
It shows he hated his life (9 : 21). He also says it makes no difference whether he is innocent
or not. “He destroyeth the perfect and wicked”. Enraged at such unjust way of dealing, Job
cried out” If it is not He, then who is it? (9 : 24).
Job spoke all these words in protest against the friends’ notion that God blesses the good
man and punishes the wicked – Job’s own experience as a blameless person suffering at
God’s hand refuted their misconception of God’s justice. This has not consoled Job, but it
only added to his own despair.
Although Job said earlier man cannot challenge God and get away with it, he now
challenged God asking several questions. By his first question, he implied that God was
wrong to oppress and reject him, His own creation, while favouring the wicked (10 : 3). Then
Job reaffirmed his innocence, “I am indeed not guilty”. And yet God continued to oppress
him (10 : 7) After slashing out again at God for pursuing him as if he were a lion being
hunted, Job expressed a desire for death (10 : 18–22). If God would only let him alone he
could be cheerful for a little while before he would die, never to return. Job then called death
a “land to darkness and deep shadow’’. Here four different words for ‘darkness’ are used to
depict the horrible prospect of death which is considered by Job now as better than life with
its miseries. So far, each of Job’s speeches has ended on a gloomy note, with reference to
death.
Zophar’s first speech (chap.11)
Zophar is the third friend to respond to Job’s lament. Unlike Eliphaz, Zophar does not appeal
to a mystical experience, and unlike Bildad, he does not recall the tradition of the forefathers.
Instead his basis is reasoned theology. He considers it his task to convince Job to leave off his
wild statements claiming personal innocence.

104
 Zophar brings out three points in his speech (1) an accusation against Job (11 : 1–4)
God’s wisdom (5–12) and a call to repentance (13–20).
Zophar rebuked Job for being talkative, scoffing against God because Job was justifying
himself. He accused Job of being stupid as he did not understand the wisdom of God.
Secondly Zophar elaborated on God’s inscrutable wisdom. He says “the depths and
extremities of God – his infinity – are beyond man’s reach in all dimensions: higher than
heaven, deeper than Sheol longer than the earth and wider than the sea”. (11 : 7-9). This may
be true theologically, but Zophar’s application of it to Job in the verses that follow is wrong.
If God’s ways are unknowable, how could Zophar say that God was overlooking some of
Job’s sin? To stress Job’s stupidity, Zophar quoted a proverb (11 : 12)
Thirdly, like Eliphaz and Bildad, Zophar assumed Job’s sin and recommended that he
repent through proper conduct, prayer and renunciation of sin. Then God would restore him
to his final happiness and prosperity.
It may be noted here that all the three friends concluded their speeches in the first round
with the assumption that Job had hidden sin and that he would be restored to his former
health and wealth if he would repent. Bildad had ended his speech by saying the wicked will
be destroyed (8 : 22) and Zophar rounded off his merciless tirade with a similar warning (11 :
20).
Job’s first reply to Zophar (chaps. 12 – 14)
In his response in chapters 12-14, Job castigated his friends and their view of God, turned
once again to challenge God at God’s apparent injustice but then again sunk into dejection
over the death of man.
Job repudiated his friends in (12 : 1–13:19). He cleverly attacked their supposed
monopoly on wisdom by pointing out that their views were common knowledge – everybody
knew what they have said (12 : 3). However Job explains that their inflexible approach to
Justice does not fit the facts known and experienced. First he cited his own case. In the past
he called on God and he was just and blameless yet God had let him be laughed at (12 : 4).
Second, he mentioned the case of destroyers and God haters who prosper and are secure (12 :
6). Third, he noted that even animals know that calamities come from God’s hand. By telling
Zophar to learn from animals, birds, earth creatures, and fish, Job was no doubt replying to
Zophar’s uncouth comment about Job being more stupid than a wild donkey in several ways.
Sarcastically acknowledging their alleged wisdom, Job says “Truly then you are the people,
and with you wisdom will die (12 : 2).
Job then recounted numerous instances of God’s “wisdom and might”. His counsel and
understanding’’ (12 : 13). “In hymnic majesty Job enumerates the outrageous acts of God as
the true signs of his mysterious wisdom and spectacular power”. He said, “God’s destructive
powers are irreversible. If He tears down, it cannot be rebuilt” and if He imprisons someone,
He cannot escape, (12 : 14) when He holds back waters, there is drought, and if He releases
the waters, they flood the earth, (12: 15) Captives and captors alike are both under His
control. (12–16). He conquers, puts down, and reverses the fortunes of counsellors, judges,
kings, priests, “the secure ones”, “the trusted ones, elders, nobles, and the strong (12 : 17–21)
those who are “the very foundations of justice and order in government, court and temple”. In
addition to being wise and powerful over individual leaders, God is also sovereign over entire
nations. He makes them great and destroy them; He spreads them out and leads them away.”
105
All the human leaders are supposed to give light and security to others by their counsel and
leadership. But in contrast to God, they are in darkness only. He can reveal mysteries from
the darkness and bring to light what is in deep darkness (12 : 22).
Job’s response to Zophar’s question “Can you discover the depths of God?” is that he
cannot comprehend the infinite ways of God, but neither can Zophar. If man is ever to
understand anything of what is incomprehensibly dark, God must take the initiative in
revealing to him.
In this way, Job demolished his counsellor’s counsel. If their theological system were
followed then all the world’s authorities ought to be blessed by God. But history destroys that
logic, as Job has just shown (12 : 13–25). Job affirmed that his knowledge of God exceeded
the indiscernible form in Eliphaz’s dream ( 4 : 16) and the indirect tradition of past
generations to which Bildad appealed (8 : 8). Though his friends pretended to possess
superior knowledge of God’s ways, he knew what they knew.
Job then prepared to present his case to God directly (13 : 3). His counsellors were
representing him falsely; Job would have to be his own attorney. Job lashed out that his
friends are useless as their words fail to console him. Presumably, if God would only talk
with him, some explanation for his agony might be forthcoming.
Job knew that he was putting himself in a dangerous position by speaking directly to
God, but he was determined to take the risk, even to the point of losing his own life. “Though
he slay me, I will hope in him” (13 : 15a) is a beautiful expression of faith, widely quoted and
familiar to many Christians. If Job could argue his case with God, he said that he would be
vindicated. He was certain that God being just, would acquit him. He could dare to challenge
God because of his clear conscience, for “a godless man many not come before His
presence”.
Thus far in this speech (12 : 1–13 : 19) Job has moved from a daring, head-on
repudiation of his alleged consolers through a delineation of the arbitrary, mysterious ways of
God, to a bold readiness for direct confrontation with God. The next nine verses (13: 20–28)
include that presentation of his case to God.
Having received no response from God, Job proceeded to speak first. He asked God to
enumerate his sins (13 : 23) using three different words for sin. But even then, no response
came from God, only silence. The silence from the heavens led Job to ask why God would
hide his face and treat him like an enemy (13 : 24). Job then began to sink back into despair
as he expressed the words, “He is decaying like a rotten thing, like a garment that is moth-
eaten” (13 : 28). Job felt that God was unjust in imprisoning the steps of one who was feeble,
decaying and worthless.
Later Job despaired of hope (chap. 14). In his sudden shift of mood, Job turned from
overconfidence to a melancholy lament over the brevity of life (14 : 1–6) the finality of death
(14 : 7–17), and the absence of hope (14 : 18–22). In short Job languished back to a
melancholy elegy over life’s futility and death’s certainty.
Turning from the futility of life to the futility of death, Job made a contrast between man
and trees and then a comparison between man and water. Job then said, if resurrection were
possible he would look on his time in Sheol as a time of hiding. Sheol, the locality or
condition of the dead, was where man would either suffer or rest.
In a flash of hope, Job longed for the possibility that Sheol would become a hiding place,
106
that God would conceal him until His anger would no longer be extended to Job. “If a man
dies, will he live again” (14:14a) By this inquiry, Job reached out wistfully and longingly for
the possibility of life after death, thus voicing man’s universal desire.
“Job ended this speech on a sullen note of death, a morose tone of despondency. Each
speech by Job in the first round concluded with a mournful reference to death. In this final
speech of the first round Job had refuted the worth of his friends’ counsel, acknowledged the
arbitrary power of God, dared to present his case boldly and directly to God, had his hopes
dashed by God’s unexplainable silence, longed for the possibility of post death life, and
succumbed to hopeless despair, for only death awaited him.”
The second cycle of speeches (chaps. 15-21)
In the second round of discourses, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar clung to their beliefs about
suffering in relation to sin. The monotonous repetition with which they insisted on their
views shows their inability to understand Job’s dilemma.
In their second speeches, the friends were less friendly and more fierce than in the first
speech. They were more abusive and less tolerant with their arguments. Perturbed by Job’s
refusal to repent and his readiness for confrontation with God, the three friends attacked him
with a venomonsly hostile spirit. They no longer held out to Job the challenge to repent and
wait for God’s blessings.
The theme in the second round of talk is the fate of the wicked, each friend stressing a
slightly different aspect of the subject. In other words, the second round moved from
suggestion to insinuation.
Eliphaz rebuked Job’s attitude to God. He accused Job of irreverent talk (15:1-6) and of
an assumed wisdom and piety (15:7-16) He said that the wicked are in distress and are
endangered. This was an insinuation against Job. Eliphaz’s insinuations were unfair, for Job
had claimed no such thing. He had simply claimed intelligence on a par with the three.
Outraged by Eliphaz’s cruel attack, Job retorted with scorn and bewailed his painful
sense of isolation from God. Job was disgusted with his friends and their “windy knowledge”.
He declared all the three men sorry comforters. Job stressed with pain and torment his
distress at the hand of God. He could not bear that his affliction was seen by his friends as
evidence of his having sinned and his lean body, emaciated by diseases testified against him
in the same way. To Job, his ordeal was unaccountable as he had always maintained a life of
devotion before God with pure motives and a clear conscience. Even though God has worn
him out with suffering and the cruelty of his fellow men, he cannot believe God is unjust. He
desires for a representative in heaven who will plead his cause in heaven. But if his case rests
till he is dead what hope is there? (17:13–16).
Bildad in the second round (chap. 18) lashed out impatiently at Job’s angry rejection of
their advice. He continued the theme of the fate of the wicked. His ruthless account,
obviously intended for Job, included the harassments of the ungodly person with material,
physical and emotional losses during his life and no remembrance of posterity after death.
Note here that Eliphaz observed that the wicked man is destroyed by God, whereas
Bildad stressed that the wicked brings about his own downfall. Job, however knew that he
was innocent and Bildad’s attack had· no effect.
In his second reply to Bildad (chap. 19), Job, the suffering saint rose from the depths of
107
his broken spirit to the heights of renewed confidence in God (19:23-29). It is said chapter 19
is a sky scraper among the forty–two chapters of the book of Job that form the beautiful line
of this poetic masterpiece. Here there is profound assurance that his Redeemer lives and that
he will see God.
Earlier in his reply Job had bemoaned the hostility from his friends, relatives, house,
servants, his wife and above all from God. Added to all this was his emotional anguish,
physical pain. “My bone clings to my skin and my flesh”. He was alone in his misery with
not even one person to console him, to lend support by saying “I understand”. Yet, even in
his darkest moments, faith and hope still well up inside him. He is certain of vindication by
God. One day God himself will take up his case and clean him and he will be there to see it
(19:25-27). Then those who have maligned him will find themselves answerable to God.
Zophar’s words (chap.20) in the second round of talk are the most stinging and
venomous of the three friends’ speeches so far. He stressed that the wicked loses his wealth.
He elaborated that God would attack the wicked man as with an army, so his death is
inevitable. Zophar also denied the possibility of any one defending Job in heaven. He
concluded indirectly that Job was the wicked man whom Zophar had been speaking and Job
cannot escape punishment from heaven.
In his reply to Zophar’s speech (chap. 21) Job countered the view of the three about the
destruction of the wicked. He pointed out that their theology was limited, shallow and did not
hold good in the face of experience. Instead of all wicked men dying suddenly at the height of
their prosperity, Job observed that this fate holds true for only some of the wicked. He also
said one’s character cannot be determined by his lot in life. The condition of Job, the good
man, is pitiful. More often than not, evil men flourish, live happily and die peacefully (7-18).
In view of all these observations, Job says that their comfort was vain (empty) and their
answers faithless (21:34). The friends had been of no help or comfort to Job in his affliction.
The Third cycle of speeches (chaps. 22-37)
Eliphaz speaks for the third and last time to Job. In his third assault, Eliphaz was openly
discourteous to Job.
Eliphaz asserted God’s disinterest in Job (22:1-5). He argued that uprightness could not
please or benefit God. It was only because Job had sinned that God punished him. Here
Eliphaz, was making an attempt to explain God’s silence but in that process, he mixed error
with truth. God does judge iniquity, but that is not the only occasion for communication with
man.
Eliphaz then openly charged Job with several social evils, without any evidence
whatsoever. In fact, Eliphaz fabricated a list of crimes typical of man in position of power
and influence and accused Job of those evils (22:6-11). To add insult to injury, Eliphaz
ruthlessly said that behind these social inequities, Job suffers from the guilt of an attitude of
insolence against sovereign God (22:12-20). Again Eliphaz concoted a falsehood, for Job had
never questioned God’s omniscience. Yes, His justice, but not His knowledge. Further Job
had not questioned God’s ability to judge, he challenged God’s failure to judge. By his
reference to the Flood, Eliphaz cruelly categorized Job with the wicked generation of Noah’s
day.
After accusing Job harshly for so many sins, he appealed to Job to repent (22:21-30).
Eliphaz’s only explanation to Job’s suffering was that he was guilty of sin, the only solution
108
was to repent. However, Eliphaz could not prove that Job was a sinner. So his pleas were not
welcomed by the frustrated sufferer among the ashes.
Job’s third reply to Eliphaz (Chaps. 23-24)
In his reply, Job turned to reflect in bitterness on two problems that continued to plague him –
his own injustices and the injustices in the world. His own injustices caused him to· long for
an opportunity to present his case to God (23:1-7) but God remained inaccessible inspite of
Job’s repeated claim of innocence (23:8-1). However Job felt that God, in response to the
obvious wrong doings of others remained strangely inactive (24:1-25). Job affirms that his
suffering was undeserved, whereas others who did deserve punishment went scot-free. Both
the cases of iniquities were met with divine silence, according to him.
Job expressed his longing to present his case before God as he was so confident of his
purity and innocence. If God would appear in court and try Job’s case, Job was sure that he
would pass God’s test and emerge as shining gold. Verses 11 and 12 affirm his faithful walk
before God – again a refutation of the charges conjured by his garbage heap grand jury. At
the same time, Job’s sense of God’s mysterious uniqueness and irresistable ways led him to a
sense of dismay, terror and faint-heartedness (23:15-16).
In chapter 24, Job reflects upon what goes on in the world. Life is neither fair nor just.
God delays judgment and those who trample the helpless and commit secret sins in the dark
like murder, adultery, burglary seem to get away with it. This was seeming injustice. The
friends had declared that the wicked were cut off immediately but Job’s experience and view
of reality did not confirm their doctrine.
The final verse in this speech (24:25) was Job’s challenge to the three friends to prove
him wrong and an emphasizing of the certainty of his view.
Bildad speaks for the third and last time in chapter 25. His brief speech seems to indicate
that he is running out of arguments with which to respond to Job. He does not now harp on
the downfall of the wicked. Instead, he accentuated the insignificance and iniquity of all men.
This does not help Job.
“By calling attention to God’s majesty and to the moon, man, and maggots, Bildad
sought to get Job to face up to the reality of his own worthlessness. Job of course had no
quarrel with the majesty of God, but the rest of Bildad’s ·speech was pointless, because it
gave no hope for vindication, which Job craved and no hope for purification, which Job had
already said he did not need .” “On this digusting and hopeless note the words of Job’s
friends end”.
Job’s third reply to Bildad (Chap. 26-31)
These chapters constitute Job’s longest speech,” Chapter 26 is a reply to Bildad but it is clear
that in chapters 27-31, Job replies in a grand finale to all three comforters.” In this
concluding, response Job includes a disclaimer of Bildad’s wisdom (chaps. 26-27) and a
discourse on God’s wisdom (chap.28), and he then climaxes his speech with a desire for his
past glory (chap.29) a dirge regarding his present misery (chap.30) and a declaration of his
innocence (chap.31).
Chapter 26 is in two parts: Job’s rebuke of Bildad’s attitude (26:1-4) and Job’s statement
of God’s greatness (26:6-14). In stunning fashion Job turned both aspects of Bildad’s
argument against him. To Bildad’s statement man, including Job was puny and corrupt, Job
109
retorted that Bildad was the puny one (26:2-4). Also Bildad had stated that God was majestic;
Job responded with statements about God’s majesty that were far more majestic than Bildad’s
(26:5-14). In chapter 27, Job repudiated Bildad’s ‘’worm analysis” of man by reaffirming his
own innocence. He also enlarged on Bildad’s view of God by declaring that God would in
time, destroy the wicked (27:7-23). Thus Job in sarcastic indignation, fired back at Bildad.
Job affirmed that no man can fully comprehend God’s activities or his power. Surely Job’s
awareness of God’s awesome nature exceeded Bildad’s sense of God’s power.
Job’s discourse on Wisdom (chap. 28)
In his discourse on wisdom, Job affirmed that it is not possible for man to presume that he
can discern the inscrutable mysteries of the majestic God. As J.D.Michaels in his
“Interpretation of the Twenty Eight chapter of Job” states so clearly: “But to man this
wisdom (by which God made and governs all things) must remain inscrutable. To him God
said: Trouble not thyself with inquiring how I govern the world: why I permit the tyrant to be
victorious, or innocence and truth to be oppressed: decide not what evil I can or cannot suffer
to exist in the world. This is too high for thee: let thy wisdom consist in fearing me, upon
whose will all things depend ... “
Although man is impotent to discover or purchase wisdom he can know its very essence,
for God has unveiled what otherwise would remain “hidden from the eyes of all living”
(28:21). The essence of wisdom is two fold, “the fear of the Lord” and “to depart from evil”.
All man’s scientific investigations, technological advances and intellectual achievements
remarkable as they are, whether in Job’s day or the present, fail miserably to provide “a full
explanation of God’s government or to disclose all that we would wish to know about God.
Instead, real wisdom consists in establishing one’s life in submissive veneration before God,
in revering God in an attitude of confidence that He does all things right. True wisdom also
consists in a rejection of evil, in regulating of one’s conduct in paths of piety and in actions
and attitudes that accord with God’s standards of holiness and godliness. Fearing God and
turning from evil may be summarized as adoration of God and obedience to God. Thus the
truly wise man is the one whose life is centered on God, not self, and is regulated by God.
Man in right relationship to God, worshipping him, serving him, obeying Him-that is wisdom
and understanding.”
“This chapter may be seen as Job’s rebuke to the short sighted wisdom of his friends, an
effort to demonstrate that their limited theological outlook was false. They were mistaken in
their demand that Job must begin to revere God and repent of sin. Chapter 28 argues that he
had been fearing God and hating evil, but they had not seen in this way, the final verse of the
chapter becomes “one of the great, climatic moments in the Book”.
The closing verse of chapter 28, “Behold, the fear of the lord that is wisdom, And to
depart from evil is understanding” serves as an apposite link to chapters 29-31. In chapter 29,
Job rehearsed his past virtues – evidence that he feared God, and in Chapter 31, he recounted
his innocence with regard to numerous sins, evidences that he turned from evil. Note that in
the three final chapters of Job’s last speech, Job gave a concluding summary of his case, as if
he were in court. In chapter 29 Job expressed his longing for his former days of prosperity
and happiness (29:1-11) and then spelled out his reasons for having enjoyed those blessings
(29:12-25). In chapter 30, Job turned to his present state to describe an almost incredible
reversal of attitude and experience. Chapter 29 speaks of what the Lord gave to Job and
chapter 30 speaks of what the Lord took away. He was disregarded by God rather than
110
blessed by Him then and he was despondent in his intense physical and emotional pain. “
Chapter 30 is a poignant cry of one who was acutely miserable socially, spiritually,
emotionally and physically. Having had “the respect of the most respectable,” he now had
“the contempt of the most contemptible”.
The memories of his past glory (chap. 29) followed by the painful recital of his present
miseries (chap. 30) are followed logically by an oath of innocence in chapter 31, designed to
demonstrate that the miseries of the present are undeserved. The words in this chapter
constitute Job’s final effort to extricate himself from the false accusations made by his
assailants and from his injustices at God’s hand. He longed for some one to hear him. “Oh
that I had one to hear me?” This cry probably refers to his desire for God to listen.
Wisdom for man Mankind (28 : 28)
(From the Book of Job by John E. Hartely).
“And unto man he said “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is
wisdom, And to depart from evil” is understanding.”
Although human beings cannot discover the way to wisdom they can find wisdom by fearing
God. God reveals wisdom to mankind as be wills. Wisdom for human beings has two foci:
the fear of God and turning from evil. Fear is the proper human response in the presence of
the Holy God. A person bows in contrition, committing himself to follow God’s way. As he
acknowledges his own limitations and God’s greatness, he enters into communion with God.
Desirous of God’s favour he wills to shun all evil. This two–fold attitude enables a person to
grow in wisdom. That is, a human being increases in wisdom primarily by obedience to God,
not by investigation into the unknown.
AIM
This masterful hymn in chapter 28, in praise of wisdom marks the end of the dialogue. It
judges the efforts of the comforters to teach Job wisdom as a failure. While they have
faithfully adhered to the tradition of the fathers, they have misinterpreted Job’s specific case
and failed to offer him any insight into God’s amazing ways in regard to his affection. While
Job has questioned the traditional wisdom, he remains without any significant insight into the
mystery of how God is acting wisely in his sufferings.
Wisdom resides with God alone. It permeates all of his creative work. In mankind it
finds expression in his amazing technical genius. But human ingenuity cannot find wisdom.
Neither can all the wealth that man can wrestle from the earth purchase it. Wisdom for
mankind can only be discovered in a devout relationship with God. Therefore, this hymn
authenticates Job’s turning away from his comforters to petition God directly. It is telling him
that he will receive genuine insight into his suffering when God himself speaks to him. Thus
this hymn prepares Job for Yahweh’s appearing. More specifically, it indicates the approach
that Yahweh will take in his discourses. He will address Job’s lament by recounting the wise
and marvellous way he has created the world. Thereby he will demonstrate that Job’s
suffering does not discount the truth that he rules the world wisely and justly. The only
response Job can then make to Yahweh’s discourse will be to fear Yahweh. In this manner
the Hymn links the opening characterization of Job as “one who feared God and shunned
evil” (1:1, 8;2:3) with his submissive response to Yahweh’s world in the end. (42: 1-6).
Job’s experience verifies the concluding principle of this hymn that a human being finds
true wisdom only in fearing God. This wisdom is a spiritual wisdom that transcends human
111
knowledge, but that does not mean that it is irrational. The converse is true. It is intelligible,
for it is the portal into the vast resources of God’s wisdom. That is why Yahweh can dialogue
with Job and offer him insight into his own wonderful ways. Beyond the limits of his reason,
though, a person can contemplate the mystery and the wonder of wisdom. In the words of
Von Rad, wisdom is the divine mystery of creation.
Elihu’s four speeches (chaps.32-37)
Deeply angered by both sides of the debates he had been listening to, Elihu, a young man, an
ancestor of King David entered the discussion.
Elihu made an honest effort to provide answers to Job’s complaints about God rather
than repeat the allegations of the three counsellors. Whereas Elihu’s three elders had
recommended that Job repent of willful sin committed prior to his calamities, Elihu
recommended (1) that Job repent of pride because of the suffering, and (2) that Job exalt
God’s work (36:24) consider His works (37:14) and fear Him (37:24). The three counsellors
had claimed that Job was suffering because he was sinning but Elihu explained that he was
sinning because he was suffering. That is to say, his suffering led him to an attitude of pride
before God and a questioning of God’s ways. According to Elihu, Job’s fault lies in sinful
attitude in his present life. Elihu said that questioning Gods ways was height of earthly
arrogance (34: 7).
Although Job did not answer Elihu, his final words seem to prepare the scene for God’s
break-through (chaps. 38-41). Whatever the case may be, the Elihu section provides a smooth
transition from Job’s insistence for vindication to God’s communication.
Elihu’s first speech (chap. 33)
Elihu’s anger, while he was waiting in deference to his elders, was intense. It was towards
Job for seeking to justify himself before God and towards the three counsellors because they
had pronounced him guilty without adequate proof. He seemed to burst in as if he had an
answer to the wrongs on both sides and a solution to the impasse.
In the first of Elihu’s four speeches he refuted Job’s charges that God did not hear him
(chap. 33). In his second speech, he refuted Job’s charge that God is unjust (chap. 34). In his
third speech, he refuted Job’s charge that it is useless to serve God (chap. 35). In other words,
he discussed God’s communication to man (through dreams and pain) (chap. 33), he
commended on God’s justice with man (chap. 34); and he discussed God’s sovereignty over
man (chap. 35). Then in the final speech ( chaps. 36–37) he again elaborated on God’s justice
and sovereignty.
Elihu answered Job’s question why God doesn’t respond to him. He said God does speak
and he does so in dreams (33 : 14–18) and through sickness and pain (33 : 19–28) in order to
save, not destroy him (30). God does not report to man on His actions; He does communicate
with him. “Indeed God speaks once, or twice in various ways or with repetition, yet no one
notices it (33 : 14). God had spoken more than once to Job, Elihu contended, but Job had not
been listening. The purpose of God’s dream communication Elihu said, was to turn man from
wrong deeds and the wrong attitude of pride (33: 17). In Elihu’s view, illness was God’s way
of getting man’s attention, reminding him of what is right, atoning for his sin, and diverting
him away from sin. Who was correct? Elihu was correct in one aspect, i.e., in touching, on
pride which bad become Job’s problem as a result or his suffering and he was probably
correct in his discussion of the purpose of dreams in Job’s situation.
112
Elihu’s second speech (chap. 34)
In his second speech, Elihu proceeded to answer Job’s accusation that God was unjust and
there is nothing to be gained by making him our delight (9) Elihu then spelt out the character
of God as a means of demonstrating His justice. He said God is the judge of all men-supreme,
just, impartial (10–30). He said Job had added to his other sins, resentment or condemning
attitude and rebellion against God (36–37). He said questioning God’s ways was the height of
earthly arrogance. Elihu reasoned that God will not pervert justice and so the only conclusion
was that Job was in the wrong.
To what extent was Elihu correct?
Elihu was certainly accurate in speaking of God’s authority, sustenance and control of life,
omniscience, power to judge sin, sovereign privilege to be silent when He so chooses. Even
Job had argued for those truths. Elihu was perhaps right in reprimanding Job for his audacity
in demanding that God answer him (34 : 29) by showing him where he had sinned (34 : 32)
and by recompensing on his terms (34 : 33). But like the three seniors, Elihu, in order to
defend God, had to assume that Job was lying about his innocence. It may be noted here that
none of the five – Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, Elihu and Job – knew of the contest in heaven
between God and Satan. Therefore Elihu’s accusation was inaccurate. He failed to understand
or think that God has a purpose in every thing. Also he failed to take into account the
possibility that Job was suffering without due cause in specific sins.
Elihu’s third speech (chap. 35)
In his third speech Elihu refuted Job’s charge that God did not reward him for his innocence.
It may be noted here that Job had certainly questioned the value of serving God for he had
suffered with the wicked. Elihu says God is supreme and thus he is not affected or dependent
on man’s innocence or sin and also that God’s lack of response to Job’s cries was because of
his pride. He explains further and says that a person’s sin or his righteous living affects only
man, not God. Elihu sought to remind Job that God the creator is greater than man, sun,
moon, stars and clouds and he is not affected adversely by man’s sin or benefitted by his
righteousness. People cry out to God in their need, but they are concerned for their skins, and
not for him (10–12). That is why He does not answer (13) Elihu’s statement was intended
specifically for Job. He said if insincere or proud prayers were not answered by God,
certainly Job’s cries of arrogance and in patience would not be heard (35–14). Therefore
Elihu advised Job to wait for God because he had presented his case to Him (35: 14b) Job
will get his just deserts in due time.
Elihu’s fourth speech (chaps. 36-37)
It is agreed by many scholars that Elihu’s final discourse contains his most impressive
speech. New dimensions of God’s character are added here. In addition to speaking of God’s
justice and God’s sovereignty, Elihu also referred to his power, and benevolence.
This speech falls into two parts:
(1) God’s justice and power in His dealing with man, both the wicked and the afflicted (36 :
1–25)
(2) God’s sovereignty and benevolence in His dealings with nature (36 : 26–37 : 24)
(1) Elihu pointed out God is almighty and all-wise. But he does not lack mercy. He does
not allow the wicked to live, and He does exercise justice on behalf of the afflicted. He
113
 also said that God is a teacher who uses suffering to open men’s ears to listen and learn
where they have gone wrong. The godless when afflicted with suffering refuse to turn to
God for help and therefore they meet untimely deaths or live a shameful existence. On
the other hand, the righteous when afflicted are delivered and learn from the experience.
Elihu then applied these points about suffering and God’s justice and power to Job with
a warning– “do not scoff, do not long for death, do not suggest that God has done
wrong, but praise Him”. Elihu urged him to note that God is exalted in His power, is an
unsurpassable Teacher, is an independent Sovereign answerable to no one and always
does right and therefore cannot rightfully be challenged by man.
Job himself had spoken of the majesty of God, but still had complained because of the
seeming injustice meted out to him. Elihu was correct; when man adores God, he has
less occasion for complaining and self pity. Worship of God enables man to learn from
his problems.
(2) Chapters (36 : 26–37 : 24) deal with Elihu’s expression of God’s sovereignty and
benevolence in his dealings with nature. Elihu elaborated here on the wonderful works
of God in nature, first in the autumn storm (36 : 27–33), then in the winter (37: 1–13),
and finally in the summer (37: 17–18). The extent of God’s glorious greatness cannot he
comprehended nor can his eternity be understood (36 : 26) Evaporation and rain (36 :
27–28), clouds and thunder (36 : 29), lightning and flooding of the oceans (36 : 30) – all
part of God’s works – demonstrate His greatness. Those elements of the sky are used by
God to bring judgement on man and to give food to men and animals, purpose that are
universally acknowledgeable today (36 : 36). A snow fall or a heavy rain falling at
God’s command can stop man from working in his fields (“He seals the hand of every
man”) and even today it can snarl traffic and keep people confined to their homes.
God commands the thunder and lightning, rain and snow. He spreads. out the clouds and the
shining skies. Man is as nothing beside God’s awesome splendour, his unassailable holiness.
A beautiful snowfall or a torrential down power can lead men to contemplate the fact that
those marvels are the works of the majestic world (37 : 6–7). Clouds are filled and emptied
by God and clouds and lightning change direction at His command. All those phenomena of
nature in autumn and winter are purposeful and causal, not haphazard. God may use them for
various purpose. As Job was to learn later from the Lord Himself, “God is free to do what He
pleases without having to explain everything as part of His purpose of mankind.” So Elihu
told Job that he should be awed by God, he must fear God. To attempt to argue a case with
God in self defense would only result in self destruction.
Elihu’s final recommendation was that Job should bow in worship and humility before
such a mighty God. The true essence of wisdom is reverential awe before God, as Job himself
has affirmed (28 : 28) Elihu thus prepared the way for God to speak. Although Elihu stressed
the different aspects of suffering and of the character of God beyond mentioned by Eliphaz,
Bildad and Zophar, he did not have total insight into Job’s situation. No man could. It was
therefore necessary that God speak.
God’s confrontation (38 : 1–42 : 6)
God broke in and addressed Job “out of the whirl wind”, when Elihu had finished his list of
excellent reasons why Job could not expect an answer. Having expressed assurance of a
Redeemer who would vindicate his cause after death, Job was confronted by God Himself.
114
And what a confrontation it was! In content as well as timing, it was unlike what Job
expected. Nothing was said about Job’s suffering; no discussion was included about the
theology of evil, no extensive answer was given to the charges made about the Sovereign’s
injustices. He ignored it (except for 40 : 2 : 8) and went instead to the subject of his creative
power and wise, benevolent control. Instead of answering questions, God asked them.
In other words, “from the agony of his seated posture among the ashes – scraping his
skin with a potsherd and suffering from the weight of grief over the loss of family,
possessions, health and friends – Job was confronted by the divine Interrogator with more
than seventy unanswerable questions whose subject matter ranged from the constellations to
the clouds, from the beasts to the birds. God showed Job that the wonders of His hand work
in outer space in the sky and on the earth were beyond Job’s grasp and the animals and birds
cared for by God were not under Job’s command”. “The purpose was clear: Job was put in
his place before God; he was shown to be ignorant and impotent in contrast to the sovereign’s
wisdom and power. If he could not comprehend or control” God’s government in nature, how
could he hope to comprehend to control the Lord’s ways with man? God is Almighty, far and
above humanity. But he is also near. He hears and He cares. Job had imagined himself
putting his case to God, asking his questions. It is God, not Job who asks questions now.
The confrontation includes God’s first speech (38 : 1–40 : 2) followed by Job’s response
of humility ( 40 : 3–5) and God’s second speech ( 40 : 6–41 : 34), followed by Job’s response
of repentance ( 42 : 1–6). This section “reaches dazzling heights of poetic splendour”. In fact
the first speech “transcends all other descriptions of the wonder of creation or the greatness of
the Creator, which are to be found either in the Bible or elsewhere”.
God’s first speech (38 : 1–40 : 2)
In the Bible, God’s appearances were often accompanied by storms, thus dramatizing the
awesomeness of the occasion. God challenged Job in the opening question itself. “Who is this
that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” Here He derided Job for his perversion
and ignorance of God’s design for the universe. As a friend of God, Job would have been
expected to depend and vindicate God’s ways to others. But instead, his charge that God’s
dealings were unjust, that God was his enemy, made his designs appear dark and severe. His
words were “without knowledge”, that is, without a true awareness of facts, without an
understanding of God’s and Satan’s heavenly controversy, which had precipitated Job’s trial.
Likewise, people today should not presume to know fully God’s ways, His plan for them.
What He means is, to act on inadequate knowledge of divine purposes is to run the risk of
beclouding and misrepresenting His inten’s.
God’s questions included questions on cosmology, oceanography, meterology,
astronomy, and zoology (chapters-38 & 39) Items in the physical world related to the earth;
the oceans; the dawn, the depths of the ocean and Sheol the width of the earth; light and
darkness; atmospheric elements, including snow and hail; light and wind, rain, dew, lees and
frost; stars; and clouds and lightning. Chapters (38 and 39) deal with marvels of creation, and
man’s inability to understand them and control the elements of nature. Some of the questions
were, where was Job when God made the world, light and darkness, wind and rain, the
constellations in their courses? What does Job know about the creatures of the wild – the lion,
the goat, the wild ass and ox, the ostrich, the horse, the eagle? Did he make them, can he feed
them, tame them – as God can? Unusual Powers and abilities are exhibited in the luring
museum of natural history, to pounce or to prey, to soar in the sky, to lure in mountains, to
115
live in deserts, to refuse domestication, to run at high speeds to engage in battle fearlessly, to
build nests on mountain crags. All the examples of the animals and birds mentioned exhibit
the creative genius and providential care of God.
The odd creatured ostrich is the largest living bird, weighing up to three hundred pounds
and reaching a height of seven or eight feet. It is the only bird with two toes (all other birds
have three or four) and the only bird with eye lashes. Although it has wings, it cannot fly and
it builds its nest in the sand rather than in a tree or rocky crag. (1) Its long neck, covered with
down instead of feathers and its huge eyes resemble a periscope, watching for danger. The
stupidity of the ostrich (39:17) is proverbial among the Arabs. This lack of wisdom and
understanding, is referred to Ostriches’ hiding their heads and necks in a bush thinking they
were safe because they could see nothing. It may also be reflected in the practice of the
ostrich to run in a large circular path, thus enabling a hunter eventually to track it down. Yet
inspite of its stupidity, the ostrich can run at the remarkably high speed of forty miles per
hour, outstripping even swift horses (39:18). The phrase “what time she lifteth up herself on
high”(39:18a) refers to an ostrich’s lifting its head, extending its rudimentary wings for
balance, and taking great strides of 12 to 15 feet while running. God’s creation of such a bird
inferior to other animals in wisdom, yet greater than others in speed, illustrates again, his
sovereign ways. He can do so, so Job could do nothing about it.
Note that God’s first speech having begun with a challenge, also ended with one; “He
that reproved God, let him answer it. “Job realised that he was deficient in the knowledge
regarding God’s ways and incompetent to control nature. Job finds his opinion of himself
shrinking, his concept of God expanding.
Job’s first reply to God
“Confronted with God’s yes or no question, “will you continue to indict, me for injustice? the
fault finder admitted to his insignificance and to his inability to respond to God. His former
self confidence now shrivelled to humility.”
Silence in the Almighty’s presence was exhibited by Job’s gesture of placing his hand on his
mouth. Job said, “I will add no more”. Because Job did not admit to any sin, God found it
necessary to continue with a second speech.
God’s second speech (40:6–41:34)
Whereas the first speech reviewed two areas of creation, the inanimate and animate, the
second oration presented two animals of creation, Behemoth and Leviathan.
The subject of justice was touched on by God only briefly. God in percing irony
challenged Job to imagine himself in control of the universe to “play God”, and see if he
could do better because man’s alleged superiority to God’s justice must be accompanied by a
similar superiority of power. God’s (40 : 9) demonstrated not only Job’s lack of superiority,
but also his lack of equality: “Is Job God’s equal that he calls to book, and questions His
justice? Hence it follows that man dependent on God, must not question Him, even though he
cannot fully comprehend His ways.
God then questioned Job regarding two animals of creation (40 : 15-41 :34). In his first
speech, God presented Job with a panorama of nature, thus illustrating the Lord’s creative
variety in the universe. Now he questioned Job regarding only two animals generally
considered the strongest on land and the wildest in the sea. He asked him to look at just two
of His creatures, Behemoth (the hippopotamus) and Leviathan (the crocodile). Look at their
116
strength (40 : 16;41 : 27); their sheer untameability (40 : 24;41 : 1-2). Man is utterly
powerless to control them. What folly then to claim equality with God who made them! The
crocodile is incomparable, for God has created him to be fearless (41 : 33). Because he is
supreme, he looks down on all other animals. He is king over all “the sons of pride”, that is,
over proud beasts (41 : 34).
Job’s second reply (42 : 1-6)
This contains Job’s reaction, the climax of the book. “Any one who cannot undertake Gods
works has no right to undermine God’s ways. And anyone who trembles at the sight of fierce
beasts is unwise in boldly contending with the beast’s Maker”.
Job now realizes he had been dabbling in things beyond his understanding, totally out of
his depth. Because he had nothing to do with the making of this wonderful universe and
sustaining or even subduing animals independent of man and animals, dangerous and
repulsive to man, it was unthinkable that he could question their creator.
“Having contemplated the overpowering strength and frightening fierceness of
Behemoth and Leviathan, Job appreciated anew the unlimited depths of the wisdom, majesty
and omnipotence of God. Faced with divine splendour in the sky, on the earth and under the
earth, Job was led by this natural revelation to realize God’s all-embracing power: “I know
that thou canst do all things” ( 42 : 2a); here Job’s sense of awe and submission is implied.
Because of God’s power, His sovereign purposes will be carried out: “no purpose of thine can
be thwarted” ( 42 : 26). Because God’s intentions cannot be altered or disputed, Job saw that
it was useless for him to question God’s actions”.
Job admitted he had spoken of things that were beyond his comprehension. He saw God
and he repented. He realized the mistake in his theology that God was unjust when a godly
person is made to suffer. Now Job’s views were changed. “By God’s natural-science display,
which not only deepened Job’s impression of God’s wisdom and power but also dramatically
displayed what Job had doubted: God’s providential care. This seeing was spiritual insight,
not a physical vision.”
Now that Job had seen God for himself, as he longed to do, there is no question of
putting his case; seeing God is enough. His questions remain unanswered, but he is satisfied.
It is unthinkable that this God could even let him down or act inconsistently. He can trust,
where he does not understand. Now he can accept whatever comes. Self righteousness melts
away.
Having deeper sight into God’s character – His power, purposes and providence – Job
gained a more accurate view of his own finitude.
Job’s concluding words were: “I repent in dust and ashes” (42:6). [Throwing dust in the
air so that it came down on one’s head, and sitting on ashes were signs of a humbled
condition because of grief over sin or over a catastrophe. The disfiguring of one’s external
appearance was designed to express the turmoil of his inner soul.] Job’s repentance, thus was
one of deep humility.
Of what did Job repent? “He did not repent of the charges his three consolers had
brought against him. His oath of innocence (chap. 31) and God’s assessment of him (1:1, 8;
2:3) prove the falsity of their accusations of sins committed before his calamities. Job
repented of his proud rebellion, of his impudent insistence that God respond to him and that
he correct His ways. Job then admitted to sinning because he suffered, not to suffering
117
because he sinned.” As he looks at God and worships, he sees himself and his problem
in perspective.
“God’s speeches did not reveal Him to be lacking in compassion. Instead, they showed
that he is interested in communicating with man, that he desires to be known personally, as
well as intellectually. This personal, indescribable knowledge of the divine, underscores the
finiteness of man’s character before God, the futility of man’s complaints against God, and
the satisfaction that comes from man’s communion with God.”
Epilogue (42 :7-17)
Or living with mystery
The book of Job closes in prose as it had begun (chaps. 1-2). In the epilogue attention is given
to Job’s friends (42:7-9) and then to Job’s fortunes (42: 10-17). The final passage in prose
(verses 1-6) merely rounds things off. Job has been vindicated and this must be visibly
demonstrated.
God and Job’s friends (42:7-9)
God spoke to Eliphaz as the representative of the three and said that he was angry with them,
“because you (plural) have not spoken of me what is right as My servant Job has” (42:7).
What was the wrong thing they said about God?
The answer lies in the fact that the three friends in their effort to uphold God’s justice
had limited His sovereignty. Their insistence that suffering must always be God’s judgment
on sin was foolish understanding of God. On the other hand, Job had consistently maintained
that his suffering was not a punishment from God for his sin. This was right. Furthermore,
although Job questioned God’s justice and despised God’s silence, he did repent of it. He did
not curse God. He had consistently elaborated on God’s power, sovereignty, knowledge, and
wisdom. In fact, his view of God was higher than the view of the three counsellors. “God
commanded the three counsellors to offer a burnt offering of seven bulls and seven rams, a
large sacrifice, which indicated the gravity of their error (42 : 8). Ironically, Job then prayed
for those who had falsely accused him. Serving again as a priest (1 : 5), he was to aid in their
sacrifice, praying that God would accept them. His readiness to intercede on their behalf
demonstrated his willingness to forgive them and thus showed again the depth of his godly
character. He had maligned God and was forgiven when he repented; now it was his turn to
forgive those who had maligned him and were repenting. No wonder God called him, “My
servant” four times in these two verses! They did as God instructed them to do, and God
accepted Job’s intercessory prayer (42 : 9). Their expiatory sacrifice prevented them from
receiving what they deserved because of their foolish words (42 : 8). Earlier Zophar had said
that God was not giving Job half of what he deserved by way of punishment (11 : 6). No
doubt Zophar was now grateful that God has not given him what he deserved.
It is striking that with all their talk about Job’s need to admit his sin and be forgiven by
God they were now the ones to repent and experience God’s – and Job’s – forgiveness.
Interestingly, Elihu was not included, apparently because he had spoken accurately about
God.
God and Job’s fortunes (42 : 10-17)
God had taken Job to task for his reaction to suffering but his integrity is beyond question.
Job’s good name is as clear as his conscience. It is the three friends who have been wrong.
118
Job’s was an honest search for truth. They would not allow for truth being bigger than their
understanding God. They must obtain Job’s forgiveness before God will forgive them.
Significantly, it is at the point when Job has accepted his suffering and forgiven his friends
that God reverses his fortune. Friends, prosperity, family are all restored to him with a long
life in which to enjoy them ( 42 : 10,12). The restored fortunes were tokens of God’s grace.
God was freely bestowing His goodness, not obligingly rewarding Job’s piety. The suffering
proved Satan’s accusations against Job to be wrong, so the suffering did not need to continue.
Furthermore the Book of Job does not deny the general rule, found repeatedly in the
scriptures, that God blesses the righteous. Instead it says that the principle is not invariable,
that God by His sovereignty can withhold – or bestow – His blessings as He chooses for
purposes known only to Him.
Glossary
Uz: (1:1) a town to the east of Palestine in Edomite territory, or possibly in the Hauran South
of Damascus.
Sons of God: (1:6) angels of God’s court in Heaven. Satan is shown here among them, under
God’s authority.
Satan: the Devil; enemy of goodness. He is believed to be the leader of the fallen angels who
revolted against God.
Sabeans: (1:15) nomads of South-West Arabia.
Chaldeans: (1.17) nomads from South Mesopotamia, Abraham’s home land.
Abraham: Father /Founder of the nation of Israel; man of outstanding faith. He is also called
the Father of the Faithful. According to the Bible, Abraham, the Patriarch was the great fore-
father of the Jews and the Arabs.
Mesopotamia- Land between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates which flow from Turkey into
the Persian Gulf. Euphrates was one of the rivers of the Garden of Eden.
Job’s friends: (2:11) Wise men from towns in Arab and Edomite territory, a region
renowned for its sages.
Temanite- The word suggests that Eliphaz belonged to Teman which is part of Edom.
Bildad the Shuhite: belonging to Shuha, in the land of Uz.
Zophar the Namathite: possibly came from the town of Naama in Judea.
Let them curse it . . . mourning: (3:8)
Reference here is to Leviathan, a seven-headed sea monster of ancient Near Eastern
mythology. It was believed then that eclipses were caused by Leviathan’s swallowing the Sun
or Moon. Job is referring to a custom of sorcerers who claim to have the power to make a day
unfortunate by rousing the monster asleep in the sea and inciting it to swallow the Sun or
Moon. Thus, if the Sun or Moon were gone, Job’s birthday would in a sense be missing.
For my sighing ... Walers: (3.24) Sighs and groans are Job’s daily diet, because of his
sufferings.
Ophir: (22:24). Country of unknown location, so famous for its export of gold that ‘Ophir’
and fine gold’ became synonymous.
119
Sheol: the Shadowy land of the dead.
Fear of the Lord : (28:28) This is an important recurring phrase in the Bible. It describes a
wholesome awe and respect for God which expresses itself in obedience, reliance on God and
deliberate avoidance of evil. The fear of the Lord is the essence of all true human wisdom.
People who look upon God with awe and respect truly, will certainly obey Him, depend on
Him for His grace. They will have the wisdom to avoid all evil and wickedness. That is to say
they will be able to apply the principles of God’s teaching to the whole of life, to
relationships, home, work, justice, decisions, attitudes, reactions, everything that man says
and does. They will be persuaded into understanding the Sovereignty of God and realising the
absurdity of going against His ways which are beyond Man’s comprehension. Job’s
experience in life proves it.
A note on Wisdom (from the Open Bible)
Wisdom is the key to a life of beauty, fulfillment and purpose. Wisdom is the skill in the art
of living life with every area under the dominion of God. It is the ability to use the best means
at the best time to accomplish the best ends.
The treasure of wisdom rests in the hands of God. Since it comes from above, we cannot
attain it apart from him. True wisdom can only be gained by cultivating the, fear of the Lord.
To fear God is to have an attitude of awe and humility before Him. It is to recognize Him
as our creator and our complete dependence upon Him in every activity of our lives. Only
very few people have developed this fear of God. The temporal value system of this world is
based on what is seen, while the eternal value system of Scriptures is based on what is
unseen. The former exerts a powerful influence upon us, and we struggle with giving up the
seen for the unseen.
Some places in the Bible
Antioch: Important city in Syria – major centre for the early church.
Babel: Site of the great tower (Genesis: (10:10) identified with Babylon.
Babylon: City on the river Euphrates, became the capital of Babylonia in Southern
Mesopotamia.
Canaan: Country settled by the Israelities – present Palestine.
Eden: Garden, cradle of human race in Mesopotamia.
Jordan: Isreal’s chief river, flowing through the sea of Galilee to the Dead sea. The Israelites
crossed the river to enter the promised land i.e. Canaan (Palestine). John baptized the people
and Jesus, in the Jordan.
Ur: famous city in South Babylonia, family home of Abraham, the Patriarch.
Several observations about the speeches made by Job’s companions – Eliphaz, Bildad
and Zophar, and Job’s reply. (from the Book Job by Roy Zuck)
1) Throughout their speeches, the friends remained adamant in their theological position.
Their view was that the righteous are rewarded and the unrighteous punished, and that
Job therefore was a wilful sinner in need of repentance. Their syllogistic reasoning is as
follows: (a) All suffering is punishment for sin; (b) Job is suffering; (c) therefore, Job is
a sinner. This cause and effect relationship says that what a man gets depends on what

120
 he has done.
2) The friends became more vitriolic and specific as the speeches progressed. In the first
round (chapters 4-14), the three directly hinted at Job’s sin, urging him to repent if he
had sinned. “But as for me, I would seek God” (Eliphaz (5:8)), “If you are pure and
upright” (Bildad (8:6)):
If iniquity is in your hand (Zophar (11:14).
The second round moved from suggestion to insinuation. Eliphaz said that the wicked are
endangered (chapter 15). Bildad stated that they are ensared and forgotten (chapter 18) and
Zophar affirmed that they are shortlived and lose their wealth (chapter 20). They all hoped
Job would get the point and know that they were talking about him.
The third round included open accusation. Eliphaz cited six sins of which he said Job was
guilty (22:5-9), and Bildad announced outrightly that man is a worm (25:5-6).
3) In every one of his speeches, Job affirmed his innocence. I have not denied the words of
the Holy One”(6:16); “I am guiltless” (9:21), there is no violence in my hands” (16:17);
I hold fast my righteouness” (27:6).
4) In his first five speeches, Job stated that God had afflicted him “The arrows of the
Almighty are within me (6:4). “He bruises me with a tempest (9:17). (“Thou dost put
my feet in the stocks (13:27); “He shattered me, ... He has also set me up as His target”
(16:12). “He has ... considered me as His enemy’’ (19:11). Job felt that God was cruel
to man and would not leave him alone.
5) In each of his three speeches in the first round, Job asked “why?” “Why hast Thou set
me as my target? (7:20); “Let me know why Thou dost contend with me” (10:2). “Why
dost thou hide thy face? (13:24).
6) In six of Job’s eight speeches, he longed to present his case to God. “If one wished to
dispute with Him, He could not answer Him” (9:3); I desire to argue with God” (13:3);
O that a man might plead with God” (16:21). “Oh that my words were inscribed in a
book” (19:23); I would present my case before Him (23:4). Behold here is my signature;
let the Almighty answer me” (31:35).
7) Each of Job’s speeches is longer than the one by the friend who spoke immediately
before him. Also, each time one of the friends spoke, his speech was shorter than his
own preceeding speech, except for Zophar, who spoke only twice (chapters-II, 20)
8) The companions stressed different aspects of God. Eliphaz pointed up the distance
between God and man (4:17-19); (15:14-16) and said that God punishes that wicked
(5:12-14). Bildad stated that God is just (8:3) and great (25:2-3) and that he punishes
only the wicked (18:5-21) Zophar underlined the fact that God is inscrutable (11:7) and
that he punishes the wicked quickly. (20:30).
9) Eliphaz based his arguments on experience. Three Times he said, “I have seen” ( 4:8;
5:3),(15:17) Bildad was more severe and less courteous than Eliphaz and based his
approach on tradition:” inquire of past generations (8:8) Zophar was the most harsh and
blunt of the three: with a sharp tongue and indiscourteous dogmatism he pounced on
Job. His words were based on mere assumption. “They all condemn Job, for on their
philosophy, they must either justify Job at Gods’ expense or justify God at Job’s; and
understandably they chose the latter.”
121
10) Bildad and Zophar, although speaking with emphases different from Eliphazs’ echoed
his speeches. They repeated many of the topics Eliphaz had opened. He had said that
God is great (5:9. 22:12) and they repeated it (Bildad (8:3), 5) where he calls God “the
Almighty’’; 25:2a}; Zophar (11:7, 11) Eliphaz had said that the wicked will be barren
(15:32-34) and Bildad (18:16) and Zophar made similar remarks (20:21-22). Eliphaz
said that the sinful meet with darkness (5:14), and Bildad (18:5,6,18) and Zophar
(20:26) reiterated the same observation.
A few observations on the Book of Job
Some writers refer to the Book of Job as a “great drama”. There is a great deal of dialogue,
but the story is a narrative, not drama. In any case it is not an action drama, but may be
considered as a dialogue drama. The prologue and Epilogue which are narrative do contain
action. However, the dialogue forms the major part of the book and so, the movement is in
the realm of thought and ideas.
Some people refer to the book as “the greatest tragedy, but it is certainly not a tragedy”
True, there are many tragic experiences in Job’s life but after much misery, pain, betterness
and conflict the story suddenly rises to the higher level and ends happily. So the book fits into
the classic definition of comedy (not humour); events begin in the height of prosperity filled
with blessings, suddenly descend into tragedy and then after a period of misery and many
complications in the physical, mental and spiritual level, the story rises to a happy ending.
“The book has elements of a modern problem play in which a problem of a philosophical
nature is raised and various characters offer their solutions to the problem”.
The poetry of the book is superb and the characters give expression to verses of emotion
and reflection. It may be said that JOB contains in it elements of wisdom, drama, lyric and
tragedy.
There is no close parallel to the poetry of the Book of Job. It is so original in form and
substance that it does not fit into any of the standard categories devised by literary criticism.
“All general classifications fail to do justice to the over-flowing abundance of its forms,
moods and thought; it is not exclusively lyric – not epic, not dramatic – nor dixlactic or
reflective .... unless the poem is cut down to fit a particular category .... Even the more
comprehensive characterisations ... fail to do justice to the scope of the work.
Like all great literature, the book deals with a subject of permanent interest, the concern
of no single generation, but of all ages; it touches the great things of our common humanity
which the changing years cannot touch. The theme is thus a worthy one and has universal
appeal.
The book is a masterpiece for its beauty of language and dignity of expression. An
example of magnificent language is to be found in JOB (6:15-21): “My bretheren have dealt
deceitfully as a brook,
-----------------------------------------
“Ye see my casting down and are afraid”.
This is a marvellous picture of a friend who has failed. What is remarkable here is
sincerity of thought and expression. Again, we get a wonderful expression of emotion in
chapter (19:17-24,)
My breath is strange to my wife,
122
 That were graven with an iron pen and lead.
In the rock for ever!
Job’s sincerity and faith in the goodness of God is expressed in the following! (Chapter
13:14-15).
Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:
But I will maintain mine own ways before him.
All through this great work, an under current of conflict runs between God as men imagine
Him and God as He really is, between the God of popular theology, and God of ultimate good
as Job knows he must be.

The Book of Job as a literary masterpiece

The Book of Job, one of the most stimulating and gripping books of the Bible, has been
acclaimed as a masterpiece unequalled in all literature. Its unusual structure and its poetic
richness and its universal theme make the book fascinating. “It is as unique in form as it is
profound in content.” Besides being praised for its poetic qualities and poetry, the Book of
Job is also accepted and acknowledged as a masterpiece of wisdom literature for the wealth
and energy of its language, and power of its thought. (In the Old Testament, Proverbs, Book
of Job, Ecclesiastics are distinctly emphasised under this category). The expression, the fear
of God is the pivot of all the Wisdom literature. (See Job 28:28 –”Behold, the fear of the
Lord, that is wisdom ; And to depart from evil is understanding.”
Martin Luther called the Book of Job, ‘magnificent and sublime, as no other book of
scripture.’ Thomas Carlyle’s often quoted statements about Job merit repeating: “A noble
Book; all men’s Book! It is our first oldest statement of the never-ending problem – man’s
destiny, and God’s ways with him here in this earth. There is nothing written, I think, in the
Bible or out of it, of equal literary merit.’ Victor Hugo, the nineteenth century French essayist
concluded that Job is perhaps the greatest masterpiece of the human mind. The book is at the
same time. a poetic work of art of the highest order.
There are many factors for the writers to herald the Book of Job as a literary masterpiece.
Roy Zuck, professor of theology gives the following reasons:-
One reason is its unique structure. It is a mixture of prose and poetry, and of monologue
and dialogue. The prologue (1: 1-2 : 13) and the epilogue (42 : 7-17) are narrative prose, and
the lengthy material in between is poetry. Within that poetic section (3 : 1-42 :6) are a
monologue by Job, three cycles of dialogues between the friends and Job, and four speeches
by a fourth friend. Then God responds to Job and orally displays his splendour in various
aspects of nature. Job is silenced and repents of his arrogance before the infinitely wise and
powerful God. That concludes the section written in poetry.
The prose poetry, prose pattern, though seen in other compositions of the ancient Near
East, is unique among the books of the Bible.
Another reason Job is acclaimed, as literature is the richness of its vocabulary. Many Old
Testament words are found only in the Book of Job. In fact, Job has 110 words that are not
found elsewhere in the Old Testament, that is, more than any other OT book.

123
 Five different words are used for lions (4 : 10-11) six for traps (18 : 8-10) and six for
darkness (3: 4-6; 10:21-22) As a commentator has observed, the writer “knows the names of
the constellations, of metals, and of many precious stones. He is familiar with the detailed
anatomy of great beasts, the technical language of the law courts, and the occupations of
mining and hunting,” References to insects, reptiles; birds, beasts; weapons and military
strategies; musical instruments; means of travel; geography; whirl winds, dew, dawn,
darkness, clouds, rain – all reveal the profuse knowledge and the vocabulary of the author of
the book of Job. It’s rich vocabulary reveals influences from several languages besides
Hebrew, including Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Sumarian, and Ugaritic.
A third literary quality is the book’s extensive use of similes and metaphors. As an
example, the brevity of life is depicted; by a weaver’s shuttle (7 : 6) one’s breath (7:7), a
cloud (7:9), a shadow (8 :9, 14 :2). a runner (9 :25), a falcon (Eagle) (9:26), and a flower (14
:2).
Those factors along with poetic parallelism (two lines per verse in which the second line
completes or contrasts the thought of the first line) and strophes (a strophe is a group of
verses in a rhythmic pattern) make the Book of Job, as Tennyson has labelled it, “the greatest
poem of ancient or modern times.”
An appreciation of the Book of Job with emphasis on its message (from the Book of Job
by Roy Zuck)
The Book of Job, probably the oldest book in the Bible, deals profoundly and surprisingly –
with the world’s most pressing and fundamental problems: the place of suffering and man’s
relationship; to God. The book began with Satan’s charge that Job was serving God for the
profit motive, that his piety was payment for blessing. God took up the challenge because
Satan’s insinuation belittled both man and God. If Satan had him correct – if the motive of
God’s servant was selfish and if God must bribe man to worship Him – the key foundations
of a true love relationship between God and man are destroyed. If God must dangle rewards
infront of man to entice him to Spirituality. God becomes capricious. If man’s goodness
stems from a contract designed to ward off trouble, piety becomes hypocrisy. Satan’s charge
then, was profoundly serious. Such a devastating accusation could not go unanswered. The
reputations of both God and man were at stake.
Yet Job knew nothing of this heavenly wager. Without his even knowing it, Job had the
honour of being used by God to refute the slanderer, to silence Satan, Job’s refusal to curse
God for withholding some of His blessings and afflicting him with bodily pain and ailments,
communicated to the world that the arch enemy was wrong, that worship can be genuine, that
man can serve God “for nothing’’ (1:9).
This is one of the grand purposes in the book, to deal with motive behind worship, to
demonstrate that it is possible to view life as other than a give-and-get bargain with God. Job
illustrates that although a man in his suffering may question God, he need not curse God
when he gets less than what he thinks he deserves. God is not a cosmic Santa Claus giving
gifts only to good children and with holding them from the bad.
Job’s sufferings, in addition to being a demonstration to Satan that pure worship is
possible, served another purpose: to deepen his spiritual insights into the character of God.
Surely this contest was more than a wager between Satan and God, with Job being a helpless
power on a cosmic chess board. Where as Satan intended to use this event to move Job away

124
from God, God’s intentions were that the afflictions open the way for Job to experience a
greater comprehension of His person and His grace.
Another central truth captioned across the pages of the book is that man can trust God
even when explanations are missing. Man must live with mystery. He must recognize that his
questionings may remain unanswered, that God may choose to respond in silence to his
inquiries about the reason for underserved suffering, that God may remain silent to his
probings about the problem, of unmerited tragedy. Anyone who believes in God must learn to
remain content with problems he cannot understand, realizing that man’s finitude keeps him
from having eternity’s perspective, which only God possesses. Like Job, we can learn that
God’s silence does not mean His absence.
It is for this reason that the book of Job teaches us another solemn lesson: the futility of
critizing God’s ways. God’s all powerful sovereignty attentuates the folly of mere man’s
insisting that God report to him or run His universe according to his orders. The vast
difference between God and man revealed to Job that he could not fully explain God. The
cosmic charm between the infinite and the finite enabled him to live with suffering, and to
relinquish any claims against the sovereign.
Job learned that effrontery in accusing God of injustice was sin – and we too should
learn the error of challenging God’s will and wisdom. A high view of the greatness of God
should deepen our sense of humility and awe before removing from us pride and self-
sufficiency. But there is a positive side too. Not only must we live with problems unsolved
and mysteries unfathomed. And not only must we wilfully avoid presumptuous accusations
against God. We must also trust Him being aware of His presence and benevolence.
Although Job did not obtain the solutions to his intellectual problems, he was reassured by
the problem-solver. By having met God himself, Job’s soul was filled and overwhelmed with
a deepened sense of His majesty.
By coming to know God more intimately (42:5) the patriarch “now confides in Him
more thoroughly than before... (Job) now believes that the Most High cannot do anything that
is out of harmony with His perfections. All that He does must be right and glorious”. Job was
not able to fathom God’s mysteries, yet he came to trust the all-perfect God more fully, to
realize that God is equally as loving when He sends adversity as when He sends prosperity.
Job and his consolers came to see that God, to be God, must be totally free. If God is
predictable or is responsible to man, He ceases to be God. We too in an attitude of calm trust,
must allow God the freedom to be Himself.
Having been made more aware that God is God, Job asked no more questions. He then
knew that he could live with his problems, unanswered as they were, because he knew that
God had not forsaken him. Like Job, we can contemplate the rain and the raven, the dawn and
the donkey, the stupid ostrich and the fierce crocodile, and realize that God’s care for them
implies his care for us. His creation and control of nature assure us of his all-sufficient ability
to care for us too. Instead of searching frantically for an elusive answer to the perennial
“why?”, the believer can enjoy life by resting in God. Instead of pounding the walls in
angered frustration, he can quietly accept God’s designs, knowing that his grace is sufficient,
that his way is perfect, and that as, Job learned, He is “full compassion and is merciful”.
Select Bibliography
1. The Holy Bible – Authorized King James Version Dictionary – concordance-Oxford
edition.
125
2. Introduction to the Old Testament by George Fohrer-SPCK.
3. The Open Bible – New King James Version.
4. The Holy Bible – Revised Standard Version-1952.
5. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament – The Book of Job by John
Hartley.
6. The Lion Handbook to the Bible.
7. Hailey’s Bible Handbook – Revised edition.
8. The Analysed Bible – Job by Campbell Morgan.
9. Job by Roy Zuck.
10. Job, a man tried as gold by Theodore M. EPP – A Back to the Bible Publication.
11. The Book of Knowledge – Waverley edition, Volume I & IV.
12. Job – The mystery of suffering – Kathleen Nicholls.
Self-check Exercise
1. What picture of Job do you get in the Prologue before calamities fell upon him?
2. What was the wager made between God and Satan and Why?
3. What was Job’s reaction to the tragic happenings in his life in the Prologue?
4. What did Satan, mean when he said, ‘skin for skin’?
5. What is the jewish custom of mourning?
6. Was Job a monotheist or Polytheist?
7. What are the main points of Job’s curse-lament? Are these outbursts consistent with
Job’s character? If not, why?
8. What is the underlying idea behind the arguments of Job’s consolers Eliphaz, Bildad
and Zophar?
9. Did Job agree with the points of argument of his comforters? If not, why?
10. Did Job curse God for his sufferings and lose his faith in Him? If not, what was his
attitude towards God?
11. Who is Elihu? How far were his arguments different from those of the three comforters
of Job and how far was he correct?
12. Did God discuss with Job the problem of suffering of the innocent? If not, how was Job
satisfied in the end?
13. Does the Book of Job have a happy ending or not? Explain.
Important Questions:
1. Write short notes on the following:
(a) Job’s character, calamities as given in the Prologue
(b) Job’s lament curse
126
 (c) Job’s comforters – Eliphaz. Bildad, Zophar
(d) Elihu and his speeches
(e) Hymn to wisdom
(f) God’s mighty works in Nature as described to Job
(g) Epilogue
(h) The Message of the Book of Job
2. What is Job’s dilemma in the Book of Job? How is it finally resolved at the end of the
book?
3. Compare and contrast the different attitudes towards Jehouahas expressed by Job, the
three comforters and the young Elihu in the Book of Job. Which views in your opinion
seem to be indicated by the end of the book?
4. Analyse the structure and functions of the Prologue.
5. Critically analyse the dialogue between Job and his Comforters.
6. What are Job’s grievances against God, and how are his grievances and doubts finally
resolved?
7. In chapter 28, we read of human skill and human ability. What are the source and the
essence of true Wisdom?
8. Job triumphs over the hardships that God puts in his way. Discuss?
9. The three comforters declared that Job was suffering because he was sinning, but Elihu
explained that Job was sinning because he was suffering. Who was correct and what
were the reasons advanced by them?
10. What is the theme of the Book of Job? Illustrate it with reference to incidents, situations
and experiences in the life of Job.
11. What are the dramatic possibilities of the Book of Job?
12. Discuss with reference to the Book of Job the saying, “Inscrutable are the ways of
God”?
13. The Book of Job impresses upon man to learn to live in uncertainity and discover a
degree of solace when sufferings from distresses manifestly unfair, agonize him. Do
you agree? Give reasons for your answer.
14. To what extent would you consider Job to be a tragic hero?
15. What have you learned about the origin and purpose of suffering and how to bear it
from the Book of Job? From the example of Job, how would you help others to bear
suffering?

127
 A Brief History of the Jews
The history of the Jews begins in a far distant past, when their ancestors were wandering
Semitic tribes of the Arabian desert, slowly drifting into Palestine. According to the Bible,
the great forefather of the Jews was Abraham, who about 2000 B.C., led his people from Ur
of the Chaldees (in the country now called Iraq) into Palestine at the Divine call to found a
nation dedicated to the service of one God. Because he came from beyond the Euphrates,
Abraham was called “the Hebrew”. (meaning to “cross over”).
Issac who succeeded Abraham as Patriarch of the people, had twin sons, Esau and Jacob.
The Lord, refusing Esau, chose Jacob whom He renamed, after a deep conversion experience,
“Israel”. He was followed by his twelve sons, who became the heads of the twelve tribes
called the lsraelites, Esau founded the Edomites. Jacob’s fondness for his son Joseph aroused
the jealousy of the other brothers, and they secretly sold him as a slave to some merchants on
their way to Egypt. But Joseph rose to the position of ruler of Egypt under its King. (Kings of
Egypt had the title Pharaoh).
After a time, because of famine in Palestine, Jacob and his sons arrived in Egypt to buy
grain. Through Joseph’s influence they and their families were given land, and they remained
for generations, enjoying prosperity and increasing in numbers. But in after years, according
to the Biblical account, the Egyptians became jealous of the lsraelites, and made them slaves.
From this oppression they were delivered by Moses and led back to Palestine, or Canaan,
“the Promised Land”, which was then inhabited by a highly civilized semitic people called
the Cananites. Before this time the Israelites had been a wandering Shepherd people, now
under the laws established by Moses and the influence of Canaanite civilization, they
gradually grew into a strong nation.
Moses was succeeded by Joshua, who led the Israelites across the river Jordan, taking
possession of the land of the Canaanites and dividing it among the tribes. Levi, (the priestly
tribe whose members were called levities), was given no land, for its members were to dwell
among the other tribes as religious leaders. Joshua won victories against the canaanites but
the lsraelites were still sorely harassed by them and other war-like tribes especially the
Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Philistines.
To lead the people during those troublous times, officers called judges were appointed-
e.g. Gideon, Deborah, Samson. In the time of the prophet Samuel the people decided that
they must have a stronger form of government, and demanded a king. Saul was chosen as the
first king of Israel. He united tribes of Israel to form a strong kingdom, and won brilliant
victories against neighbouring tribes, but he and his son Jonathan both fell in battle against
the Philistines. (1010 B.C.).
David (1030-990 B.C.) became the next king. He established peace throughout the land.
Under his son, Solomon (died 937. B.C.) the kingdom reached its greatest prosperity and
glory. With the death of Solomon the decline of the Kingdom started.
(When Solomon’s son Rehoboam ascended the throne, the ten northern tribes rebelled
and made Jeroboam a member of another tribe to be King. Only Rehobam’s own tribe of
Benjamin, remained faithful to the house of David). from that onward i.e., about the 10th
century B.C. the land of the Hebrews was divided into two kingdoms – the northern one of
the ten tribes keeping the name Israel, the Southern one of the two tribes, that is, of Judah and
of Benjamin, being named Judah.
128
 Feeling was bitter between the two kingdoms and border wars were frequent. The land of
Israel was rich and prosperous; its land was fertile and its people lived in towns. The land of
Judah was stony and sterile. Jerusalem was its only large town and most of its people still
clung to their old shepherd ways of life.
The then King of Israel forbade his people to worship at the Temple of Jerusalem and
introduced idolatrous practices. Under his successors the country went from bad to worse. In
721 B.C., the Assyrians captured Samaria the capital to Israel and driving the mass of the
people into Slaves, put an end to the Kingdom of Israel. The ten tribes were thus lost to
history. Their place was taken by Assyrian colonists, who mingling and intermarrying with
such Israelites as were left, formed that people called Samaritans.
The little Kingdom of Judah endured for more than 100 years longer though its position
between the powerful states of Egypt and Assyeria exposed it to repeated invasion. For the
most part it remained faithful to the ancient religion. King Josiah was slain in a battle with the
Egyptians and Judah was forced to pay tribute to Egypt. The weakened Kingdom finally fell a
prey to the Babylonians or Chaldeans who had become the great power of the day. Jerusalem
was captured by King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC most of the people being carried into exile
in Babylon, and the once flourishing kingdom of Judah became a Wilderness as the prophets
had foretold.
It was now that the word Jew, which originally meant an inhabitant of Judaea, was
applied to all Hebrews (Judaea is the Roman name for Judah).
After about 70 years, the Babylonian Empire was overthrown by the Persian King Cyrus.
(600-529 B.C.). He permitted the Jews who so desired to return to Jerusalem. Later Ezra, the
Scribe and Nehemiah, a jew, appointed as governor of Judaea by the Persians, brought about
a great religious awakening among the jews. During this period the writings contained in the
Hebrew Bible were collected. According to the Bible out of the Babylonian captivity came
three great establishments by which God blessed the world. First, the Jews were never
idolatrous again. Second, the Synagogue, the place of worship of the Jews, was born and
from the synagogue came the Church. The services of the synagogue are the same type of
services as Christians have in Churches. From the captivity came the cannon of Holy
Scriptures. “Out of tears and suffering came greatest blessing “The Scarlet thread of
Redemption”. That is to say, out of the agonies of the days of the Kingdoms of Israel and
Judah came the predictions by the prophets of a more glorious Saviour and King whom God
would send His people to save them from their sins and bring to them the everlasting hope
and righteousness The messianic hope became stronger and more gloriously received as the
centuries passed.
The four-hundred-year period between the Old Testament and the New Testament marks
the rise of the Hellenistic Empire. Alexander the Great spread abroad one culture and one
language. In that inter-biblical period also arose the might of the Roman Empire. It was
during that period that the prophecies of the prophets and great promise of God to Eve in the
Garden of Eden, Came to pass. In the seed progeny of the woman and through the seed of the
Abraham, all the families of the earth were to be blessed. It has thus led to the birth of Jesus
Christ who has come to redeem the human race from their fallen state.
After the conquest of Alexander the Great and his death (323 B.C.) Egypt ruled Judaea
for about 100 years and then it fell into the hands of Syria. The Syrian King forced the Jews
to worship idols. The Jews revolted, defeated the Syrian army, won their independence in
(130 B.C.)
129
 Before long however, the people became divided into parties or sects such as the
Pharisees and the Sadducees. A dispute arose between two claimants to the throne; and Rome
which acted as the arbiter, took advantage of the situation to make himself master of
Jerusalem and force the Jews to Pay tribute. Roman governors appointed by Roman Kings
ruled Judaea. There were frequent insurrections which culminated in the great Jewish war of
A.D. 66. After a long siege, the Roman general Titus took Jerusalem in A.D. 70, burned the
temple. massacred thousands of Jews and enslaved thousands of others.
The jewish nation was destroyed, but not their spirit. Dispersed throughout the world,
they established synagogues wherever they went, and their rabbis or Doctors of Law,
continued the teaching of the Mosaic lane. It was at the cost of terrible suffering that the Jews
remained faithful to their religion. Their history after A.D. 70, is for the most part, a long
succession of persecutions. Trading and moneylending were the only pursuits open to them.
The jews suffered most violent persecution in Germany since the outbreak of the Second
World War. Six million jews perished in slave labour and concentration camps in central and
Eastern Europe, including hundreds of thousands deported from the Netherland and France.
The persecutions the Jews have suffered causes many of them to look with longing eyes
to their former home in Palestine, and Jewish settlements were established there after the end
of the First World War when the country was ruled by Great Britain under a mandate of the
league of Nations. Great Britain surrendered the mandates in 1948- and fighting broke out
between Jews and Arabs for possession of Palestine, the Jewish state of Israel being
established in that year over a part of the country. The fighting still continues.

130
 Part II
The Gospel According to St. Matthew
Introduction to the New Testament
By ‘the Bible’ the Jews understand only the Old Testament. The Christians, on the other hand
include both the old and new Testaments. With regard to Christianity, Jesus Christ is the
only and final authority. What Christ has taught and revealed about God, man, sin and
salvation forms the bed-rock on which the Christian faith is founded.
Jesus was a Jew. The Christian Church began its life in Palestine, and its first members
were Jews. So the most important element in the religious background to the New Testament
is the Jewish religion itself. Jesus Christ never wrote a book, never recorded his teachings. To
him, the Old Testament was the scripture in which he saw and heard the word of God. The
disciples of Jesus kept in mind his words, teachings and deeds. The early people of the
Christian Church heard the words of Jesus and knew him from the disciples. The Apostle
Paul founded Churches in Asia Minor and Europe (When occasions arose he wrote letters to
the Churches). Alongwith the Old Testament, these letters began to be read in Christian
gatherings.
The early Christians organized their worship on the model of Synagogue worship. There,
Psalms were sung, the Old Testament read, prayers offered and sermons were given. Later
on, they began to read the Epistles and the Gospels.
Introduction to the Book of Matthew
The book of Matthew is placed in the New Testament as the first of four books called
‘Gospels’. The order of the four Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John–was fixed in the
Scripture by the early Church fathers. They were not arranged chronologically. Mark is
considered to be ‘the earliest Gospel ever written. Each Gospel gives an account of the life
and work of Jesus Christ. Gospel literally means ‘good news’. One of the current meanings of
the word ‘Gospel’ is, ‘thing that may safely be believed.’ Each of the four Gospels is thus a
message of good news relating to Jesus Christ which may safely be believed.
The Gospels are not biographies though they contain much biographical information.
They are books written by convinced Christians to commend and explain their faith to others.
Note that they are unlike any other type of ancient literature. In fact, there were no literary
parallel to the gospel form in ancient writings. Firstly, they are documents of faith, secondly,
they convey historical information.
Each of the Gospel writers presents Jesus to us in his own characteristic way. So, we
have four portraits each bringing out its own distinctive facets of the character of Jesus.
An outline of the life of Jesus
(From the Lion Handbook to the Bible)
Behind the accounts of the four Gospel writers stands a figure who is recognizably the same
in, all of them. Jesus was the son of the Virgin Mary, born at Bethlehem of Judea shortly
before the death of Herod the Great (4 B.C.), the Governor of Judea. He spent his early life in
Nazareth in the district of Galilee where he worked as the village carpenter. When John the
Baptist began to preach beside the river Jordan (about AD. 27), Jesus came and was baptized

131
by him. He immediately received the gift of the Holy Spirit commissioning him for his work.
In the strength of the Spirit he withstood Satan’s inducements to divert him from his calling.
He then commenced a ministry of preaching and healing, mainly in Galilee. This was
preceded by a period in Judea and included visits to Jerusalem. It concluded with a journey to
Jerusalem which culminated in his arrest and death at Passover time (about A.D.30).
Jesus’ message was concerned with the good news of the rule (or kingdom) of God. In
the Old Testament the prophets looked forward to a future era when God would act in power
and set up his rule over Israel. This hope was associated with the coming of a King (or
Messiah; Greek, Christ) who would belong to the kingly line of David. In the time of Jesus,
the people had come to expect a warrior-king to deliver them from their Roman overlords.
Jesus taught that this hoped for era was already dawning. He looked forward to the future
consummation of God’s rule, with himself as king. But the coming of God’s rule was to be
seen not in military victories but in Jesus’ mighty works of healing and preaching of
salvation. God was already acting in the ministry of Jesus.
This good news demanded a response from men. Jesus called them to repent of their sin;
he offered forgiveness to the penitent; and he summoned men to become his disciples. To
accept the good news of the rule of God meant accepting Jesus as Master. Out of the many
who responded, Jesus appointed twelve men to be the leaders of the new people of God who
were to replace the old Israel which rejected the message of God, and to be associated with
his missionary work.
Jesus taught his disciples a new way of life. It is summed up in the Sermon on the Mount
(Matthew chaps.5-7). Jesus took over the Old Testament commandments, to love God and
one’s neighbour, and filled them with new life and vigour.
Jesus taught with such self-confident authority that men asked who he thought he was.
Some people dismissed him as mad. Others were prepared to see him as Messiah, but when
he showed no inclination to lead them to war against Rome, they turned away from him. This
was probably why Jesus did not claim the title of Messiah openly. He preferred to speak of
himself cryptically as the ‘Son of man’, a phrase which he took from Daniel (7 : 13) and
filled with new content. For him it meant a figure who would one day be invested with power
and glory by God (Mark 14 : 62) but who was for the time being humble and unknown
(Matthew 8 : 20) and destined for suffering and death (Mark 8 : 31).
After his disciples had realized who he was he began to teach them that he must die
although they were slow to take it in. Jesus saw himself fulfilling the role of the Servant of
the Lord who suffers humiliation and death (Isaiah 52 : 13–53 : 12). He laid down his life as a
ransom for men to save them from death. Only to his closest disciples did he reveal that he
was the Son of God in a unique intimate manner. And he shared with them his privilege of
addressing God in prayer by the name of Abba, ‘Father’ (Matthew 6 : 9; 11 : 25–27; Mark 14
: 36).
Throughout his ministry Jesus was involved in conflict with the religious authorities,
mainly because of his scorching criticisms of their man-made traditions which diverted men
from the real purposes of God’s law. He attacked the hypocrisy which substituted tradition
for the law of Moses. His messianic claims spurred the Jewish leaders on to arrest him. They
feared he might be the centre of a popular uprising against Rome which would lead to grim
reprisals and the loss of their own positions. So when Jesus came to Jerusalem and flung
down the gauntlet by his attitude to the temple, they took steps to arrest him with the

132
connivance of one of his disciples.
Meanwhile Jesus held a last meal (‘the last supper’) with his disciples. He filled a
familiar table ritual with new content by using the bread and wine as symbols: his bodv was
about to be broken in death on their behalf and his blood about to be shed sacrificially, to
ratify God’s new covenant with men and to bring in his kingdom. After the meal, he went out
to pray – and to meet his enemies. He was put through a trial which appears to have broken
the appropriate legal rules. When the witnesses failed to produce sufficient evidence to
condemn him, he was forced to make what his judges regarded as the blasphemous statement
(to Christians it was the simple truth) that he was the Messiah. He was condemned to death.
The Jews handed him over to the Roman governor as a political rebel against Rome, and
although the governor was privately convinced of his innocence, he allowed him lo be put to
death by the Roman punishment of crucifixion.

133
From the third day after his death, however, many of his disciples claimed that his tomb was
empty and that he had himself appeared to them. God had raised him from the dead. (His
resurrection is observed as Easter) The appearances of Jesus to his disciples on different
occasions took place over a period of 40 days, at the end of which time Jesus gave final
command to his disciples to be his witnesses throughout the world, and ascended from their
presence as a symbol of his return to be with God and as a promise of his second coming to
them at the end of the world.
That is the gospel story in brief. Throughout the Gospels Jesus appears as more than a
man. His message, his deeds and his person are unique.
The Sermon on the Mount : Standards of Discipleship (chapter 5-7)
The words of the Lord are found in the Sermon on the Mount. This discourse requires less
than fifteen minutes to read, but its brevity has not diminished its profound influence on the
world. The Sermon on the Mount presents new laws and standards for those who want to
enter the kingdom of God. Jesus shows his followers how man ought to live-not simply
according to a set of rules but by a minor revolution of attitude and outlook. The glorious
thing is that having set a seemingly impossible standard, he goes on to give men the power to
live up to it.
The first eight verses (5 : 3--10) contain eight short sayings (the Beatitudes) each in the
same form. Blessed are ... for ... These sayings declare who is to enter the kingdom which is
coming. God will then reverse the positions and judgments which men have made for
themselves in this world, and the last will be first and the first last (20:16); so it is those who
are least like kings and rulers – the least prosperous – who are blessed. There is thus running
through these sayings a contrast between present appearances and the future reality.
A beatitude is a declaration of blessedness which Jesus attached to certain virtues and
conditions. “They do not describe eight different classes of people but eight different
elements of excellence which may all be combined in one individual. The Beatitudes are an
analysis of perfect spiritual well-being, a summary of what is best in the felicity which is
attainable by man.”
The truly happy ones or the blessed ones are the poor in spirit i.e. those who recognize
the spiritual poverty (verse 3) of self-reliance and learn to depend wholly upon God.
Everything else follows from this. The people who can be certain of a future are the humble,
the forgiving, the pure, those who set their hearts on what is right and who try to heal the
rifts. These are the ones who put the seasoning into life, who stop the rot, who light up the
way. By what they do and say and how they react they show something of which God himself
is like.
Those who mourn - The reference is to those who are under conviction of sin or who ‘sigh’
and ‘cry’ over the sinful state of the world. They shall be comforted by faith in their hearts
and by God when his kingdom comes and his will is done.
The meek - i.e. unselfish - Those who withstand gently the censoring of others for righteous
causes. The word inherit implies membership of God’s family.
The earth - the ‘new earth where in dwelleth righteousness’. Moses the leader of the
Israelites in the OT is described as the meekest of man, for he patiently endured the rebellious
134
attitude of the Israelites for 40 years. Jesus promises that such people will inherit the earth.
Hunger and thirst after righteousness: Those who pray for righteousness eagerly desire for
the coming of God’s kingdom just as a starring, thirsty man craves for food and water. To
such, Christ promises satisfaction i.e. their prayer will be answered.
The merciful - They will be mercifully treated by God. Barclay defines mercy as, “the ability
to get right inside the other persons’ skin until we can see things with his eyes, think things
with his mind, and feel things with his feelings”. Through God’s mercy, the forgiven
humanity is expected to show mercy to one another.
The pure in heart - The people who have purity in their essential being are forever blessed
and they shall see God in the age to come. In Hebrew psychology, the heart is the seat of
thought and will, rather than of emotion.
The peace makers- primarily, the reference is to those who in Christ make peace between
God and man by bringing man to accept the message of the gospel. There is also doubtless
reference to peace between man and man. In other words, those who create peace on the
earth, are referred to.
They shall be called sons of God - They are the true children of God as they use every
opportunity open to them to effect reconciliation between others who are at variance. Note
here the pharisees view of the children of God, being the natural descendants of Abraham the
patriot, drastically clashed with Jesus’ understanding.
Also refer to (Chapter 5:44) - “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so
that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”
5 : 48 - you therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The final beatitude (5:10-12) This is meant for those who are willing to accept persecution
for righteousness sake – presecuted because of their obedience to God which they have
learned by the commandment of Jesus. The likely attitude of the world to the Gospel is also
hinted at. The Christian is consistently represented in the New Testament as one liable to be
persecuted. Doubtless the blessing is primarily to Jesus’ own disciples and to all those who
would be persecuted when they preach the commandments and message of Jesus in his name
(the whole of the Church).·
The disciples are to rejoice and be glad when they suffer as disciples of Jesus because
they will know by means of their suffering that they are the blessed who will share in the
kingdom. This is their reward for suffering. “So men persecuted the prophets who were
before you. The church is the successor of the prophets and as the jews persecuted them, so
they will persecute it.”
These eight sayings at the beginning of the discourse will be expounded in the teaching
which follows. They show who will enter the kingdom and share with God, under God, in the
new order which is about to come.
Christian Witness (5:13-16)
The Salt and Light
The two simple metaphors powerfully describe the profound wholesome influence the
kingdom citizens will exert upon society. Israel had been likened to salt; the Church is the
new Israel called because the old Israel had lost its taste. The Church is not to repeat the sin
135
of the jews. The saying suggests that just as salt is useful in cooking, preserving and as a
fertiliser on earth, so the Church has a usefulness to God in making the world acceptable to
him by sacrifice and intercession. In other words, a few righteous people amid earth’s
corruption and the world’s darkness exercise a potent and purifying effect on the ways of
others. That is to say, the kingdom citizen prevents corruptions and sheds light around him.
His good influence will replace empty moral laxity with wholesomeness. Light cannot be hid
as it penetrates the densest darkness (Jesus explains that good deeds of the citizens of the
kingdom of heaven witness that God is also good.)
God is lighting a lamp by means of the teaching which Jesus is giving to his disciples
and the purpose of this lamp is to give light to the whole world. This light will be displayed to
all when Jesus sends the disciples to all nations (Chapter 28:19). The light will be seen not in
the words of the disciples so much as in their good works, i.e. ‘in doing the will of my father
who is in heaven.’
The relationship of the gospel to the law
1. The Law of Moses (5:17-20)
The law (17) This was the common jewish name for the first of the three divisions of the
Hebrew scripture consisting of the Books of Joshua to 2 kings and Isaih to Malachi in OT.
But by the use of the expression ‘the law or the prophets, Jesus is here referring to the whole
OT. Jesus fulfilled the law in his life by perfectly keeping it, in his teaching by promulgating
an ethic of love which fulfills the law and in his death by exhausting its sanctions. Jesus here
teaches a very high view of biblical inspiration and indicates clearly that the gospel is
founded upon the Old Testament. In verse 20, Jesus emphasizes the necessity for genuineness
and reality in spiritual life. Entering into the kingdom of heaven (20) is the same thing as to
have ever lasting life.
Many hearers of Jesus could have easily dismissed him as a radical revolutionary bent
upon overthrowing the laws of Moses. But Jesus did not overthrow the cherished beliefs of
the Jews as sham; neither did he set the law of Moses as now invalid. He lived by the ancient
law and said, “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”. All that he wanted was a correct
interpretation of law and leaving the traditional and false interpretations of the scribes and
pharisees. He declared uncompromisingly that no change will ever be made in one jot or one
little word of the entire OT scriptures.
Jesus considered the law of God to be the original divine revelation of law which Moses
received while on Mount Sinai (Exodus: Chapters 20-31) and before the tabernacle, as God
spoke to him (most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy). These sections of Law were recognised
as of divine origin and were always a part of the Canon of the Old Testament scriptures. The
Scribes agreed with Jesus, but added also their traditions. Many of them nullified the divine
laws. Jesus selects six Mosaic laws. They are mainly the law of murder, and reconciliation,
the law of adultery, the law of divorce, the law of oaths, the law of non-resistance and the law
of love. First, he presents the scribal perversion of the law, then gives the interpretation that is
logical, and as God intended the law to be understood.
The scribal laws can easily be recognised in the text by the words, “ye have heard that it
was said by them of old time” ( 5: 21, 27, 33, 38, 43) and his own reply and explanation by
“but I say unto you” (5 : 22,26,28,32,34,39,44). Note that “Jesus is not a second Moses by
giving another set of laws, but is presenting the divine intention of those selected Mosaic
laws”.
136
1. The Law of Murder. (5 : 21-22)
The law ‘thou shall not kill is the sixth of the Ten commandments given by God to the Israel
through Moses at Mount Sinai (Ex. 20-13) and the words following ‘and whoever murders
will be in danger of punishment is the scribal addition taught to the people in the Jewish
synagogues. Here the need to have the basic quality of ‘reconciliation or non-violence is not
stressed. The scribes and pharisees interpreted the law wrongly by saying that they should
avoid killing as then they are liable to be inconvenienced by a trial – a smart way of making
the divine law to have no effect. Whereas the pharisees and scribers were concerned with the
physical act of murder, Jesus was concerned with the root of human passions that can result
in physical murder – anger, hatred and malice – Calling a person Racca (idiot) or a fool,
amounts to character assassination. The Judgement was a local village court; the council was
the Jewish supreme court. To cast into hell fire was the prerogative of God. What Jesus
emphasised here is that anger and contemptuous speaking received judgement from men and
from God.
The teaching of Jesus in verses 23 to 26 points out how the ordinary human being tries to
get out of the guilt or sin. The wrong notion is that, the sin of anger or even murder is cleaned
by becoming more religious, and offering and sacrifice in God’s name. Instead of going to
the temple, Jesus says go to the person harmed and immediately get reconciled with him.
Illustrating his directive, Jesus says for example, two men at variance with each other, each
ready to sue the other in court, must settle the dispute before they reach the judge and receive
harsh judgement. In other words, an unresolved dispute with any other, is dangerous and
warrants judgement from God.
The Law of Adultery (5 : 27-30)
The scribes taught that adultery was committed only by an illegal sexual union. This teaching
was done to wriggle out of the guilt of their flirting and amorous trifling with other women.
Jesus taught that this seventh commandment thou shall not commit adultery (Ex 20:14)
demands purity of thought as well as abstinence from the above-mentioned act. Mental
adultery is just as wicked as the act of physical adultery. It was taught by Jesus in the
Beatitudes that only the pure in heart see God. So man could be ready for any sacrifice of
pleasure to achieve the cleansing of thought and will. The right eye and right hand are
regarded as the most valuable members of the body. If those organs are instrumental for
untrue and immoral acts, one should be ready even to sacrifice them to be assured of the
kingdom of the heaven.
The Law of Divorce (5 : 31-32)
This teaching is repeated later by Jesus in (chapter 19: 3-9).
All jews held that divorce was allowable. To Jesus, marriage vows are so sacred that
each married couple is a reproduction of Adam and Eve. Their union is therefore, no less
indissoluble. The disciples saw no possibility of obtaining a divorce with divine approval,
after the marriage had been consummated.
In the later discussion, Jesus concludes with the pronouncement, “what therefore God
hath joined together let not man put asunder”. Jesus says divorce is forbidden except for
fornication or immorality.

137
The Law of oaths (5: 33-37)
There were two kinds of swearing in practice at the time of Jesus – frivolous swearing and
evasive swearing. Evasive swearing had developed into a fine act of lying. Jesus does not
want any one to swear – by God, or by Jerusalem, or by earth or by one’s head - An oath is
not needed as every word a man speaks is known to God. Yes must mean Yes; no must mean
no.
The Law of Non-resistance. (5: 38-42)
By saying, Resist not evil, Jesus is not implying that any-one is free to allow himself to be
trampled upon by others. Jesus’ followers are expected to resist taking revenge against an
injury. It must always be borne in mind that resistance can only suppress, where as gentleness
may convert and make the accuser think and change. Turning the other cheek is not intended
to invite assault, but infers a willingness to suffer personally, rather than cause the other to
suffer by revenge. The ‘coat and cloak’ illustrate the ideal Jewish quality of mercy that is not
to be strained. Jesus also says that the disciples’ hands should be open to both giving and
borrowing. This does not imply giving everything that is asked; but it means giving the
needful.
The Law of Love (5: 43-48)
The words of verse 43, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour’ were commanded by Moses (Lev.
19:18) but hate thine enemy were conveniently added by the scribes and taught freely by
them. Christ enlarged the meaning of neighbour and narrowed that of enemy by abolishing
the race-distinction from both. A neighbour is now every human being; and an enemy
includes only those who persecute Jesus’ followers for righteousness’ sake – The way to treat
an enemy is to do good for him, and pray for him. Such action demonstrates relationship with
the benevolent Heavenly father (5:45) – Jesus declares the correct way to love. Man ought to
love the way God loves; for God without partiality pours out benevolent care. Love is more
than just a warm feeling towards another; it is a good action. God in his love gives sunshine
and rain on the fields of both the righteous man and unrighteous. “To return evil for evil is
beast-like; to return good for good is man-like, to return evil for good is satan like; but to
return good for evil is God like”. Jesus exhorts his disciples to overcome evil by good. The
love that Jesus’ disciples must aim at is moral perfection. Later, while Jesus was crucified
and suffering, he demonstrated this kind of love by requesting God on behalf of his enemies.
“Father, forgive, them, for they know not what they do”. Be ye therefore perfect (48).
The point seems to be that the christian behaviour must guide his life by the perfect ethical
standard of the gospel in contrast to the limited standard of the law.
The Kingdom life contrasted with Jewish Practice
Jesus in this section of the sermon deals with three common religious practices: alms giving,
prayer and fasting. He then relates how his disciples and followers ought to perform them.
He exhorts his followers to avoid the error of pharisees, i.e. (their hypocrisy) performing
these acts of worship exclusively to God and not to men. This should be done with a hope of
divine reward and not for secular advantage, that is, to get praise or recognition from men.
Alms giving (6 : 1-4)
Benevolent giving, prayer and fasting are expected of all kingdom subjects. Pharisees and
scribes perform these for applause, for publicity and status. So Jesus calls them hypocrites.
138
The manner of giving alms to the poor or helping others in their need as stressed by Jesus is
to be as quietly as possible, aiming at the spirit of ·the proverbial saying, let not thy left hand
know what thy right hand doeth. Giving without publicity allows God to later reward openly.
Prayer (6:5-18)
Jesus condemns the common type of prayer. The acceptable prayer has three elements.
1. Prayer is a private audience with God.
2. Prayer is measured by intensity and faith, not by length and eloquence.
3. Prayer is a communion with a loving Father already aware of one’s need, “for your
Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.”
The Prayer that Jesus taught his disciples is called ‘The Lord’s Prayer’. This famous prayer
(6: 9-13) is prayed daily in Christian homes and churches, reflecting a wholesome approach
to God.
When Jesus briefly commented on just the forgiveness clause in the prayer, he was
attempting to purify the perverted practice of prayer among the pharisees. None is fit to beg
forgiveness from God as long as an unforgiving spirit holds sway within his heart. If a man
has not put things right with his fellow men, he cannot put things right with God.
Fasting (6: 16-18)
The practice of fasting was very common among the Jews. A truly righteous man fasts just as
he gives to the poor and prays to God. The Jewish days of fasting were Monday and
Thursday. There were many like pharisees who took deliberate steps to see that others could
not miss the fact that they were fasting. Jesus assures the righteous that fasting is acceptable
with God if it is observed before Him alone. Hence on the fast day all is to appear before
others as normal and not make a show of fasting and piety.
Warning against Materialism which enslaves men
Whatever one loves will always enslave him, ‘Where your treasure is, there will your heart be
also’. Treasures on earth would come from works done to hoard money and goods, while
treasures in heaven would be those works accomplished for God alone. Singleness of purpose
is a secret of spiritual prosperity and enhances one’s entire outlook on life. Jesus repeatedly
told his disciples· that their devotion to his kingdom deserves undivided attention.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon: Double mindedness is an impossible attitude; there
cannot be no spiritual sitting on the fence. Service that is not whole hearted is not the service
of God at all. ‘Mammon’ is an Aramaic word meaning ‘Wealth’ and stands here for money
and worldly interests.
Jesus taught his disciples not to worry and worry never helps any one. The heavenly Father
promises to provide, but does so conditionally (6:33) As disciples set their desires first on the
Kingdom of God and His righteousness; God will see to it their needs are met. So regarding
the necessities of life, why worry?.
Judgement of ourselves (7: 1-6)
Jesus refers to the habit of the pharisees as setting themselves as judges o! all men. Jesus
warned the disciples to avoid destructive criticism and deluded criticism. While seeking to
pull out the mote (speck) from a fellow’s eye, the criticizer may have a beam in his own.
139
Judgement of others is often faulty as vision is blurred by one’s own faults. Let the one
judging another first subject himself to honest and healthy self-inspection. Be discerning in
your criticism – Give the right things to right people.
Abundant Resources and Prayer
Persistent Prayer with faith will be answered. No loving father gives his son a stone for bread
or a serpent for a fish. So God does not mock His children when he answers earnest Prayer.
The Golden Rule (7:12)
‘’Whatever you want men do to you do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets”.
Here the Sermon on the Mount reaches its climax. Barclay, calls this Golden Rule the
“Everest of ethics”. It is not sufficient just not to do evil; good must be done as one would
expect good to be returned to him. This rule causes on man to do his best, even going out of
his way to help another. By adding the words for this is the law and the prophets. Jesus
forcefully, declares that to obey all the OT scriptures (Law and Prophets) one need only live
according to this one rule.
Conclusion to the Sermon (7:13-27)
(The Choice is yours)
Jesus’ commentary on the righteousness of his Kingdom closes with warnings and
exhortations. Jesus makes its clear that discipleship will be costly and greatly misunderstood
by many, but rewarding. Those who have listened to the sermon are confronted with a choice,
whether to enter this Kingdom life or reject it. The listeners should make a decision. That is
to say, they may choose between two ways of life (7:13-14), a broad way or a narrow way.
Many go through the broad way which leads to destruction. Going through the narrow way,
one has to bear lot of sufferings but at the end is the essence of life. False prophets who
deceive people may be seen deceiving others, but will not be able to deceive Christ on the
day of judgment (7 : 21-23). What a day of doom it will be when Christ announces, “I never
knew you, depart from me”.
The concluding exhortation and challenges in the Sermon (7:24-27) pictures two
builders, a wise man building on a stone foundation, and a foolish man building on sand. The
wise hearer puts into practice the teachings of Christ. The foolish hearer contentedly lives on
deceived by scribes and pharisees. The Sermon ends here. The hearers were moved. Many
among the common people followed him but the religious authorities disputed with him.
The Sermon on the mount was Jesus initial proclamation of the Kingdom, by word. In
chapters 8 and 9 Matthew shows how this Kingdom was actually inaugurated. In other words
the power of the king was revealed in action through a series of miracles (chapters 8,9 and
10). They reveal his authority over every realm (disease, demons, death, and nature). Thus
the words of the Lord are supported by his works; his claims are verified by his credentials.

140
 Glossary
(From the Book, the Gospel of the Kingdom by Robert Reid)
anise - a garden herb.
baptism - the English form of the Greek baptismos. Among Jews, baptism was a
ceremonial cleansing of persons, clothing and utensils. The root meaning
of the word suggests that an article is immersed, or dipped, into a
substance; like cloth into a dye, or a person into water. The baptism of
John denoted an initial acceptance of the rule of God in one’s life:
Christian baptism (see Matt. 28:19), either actual or symbolic, is
considered a rite of purification.
Beelzebub - a Hebrew name for Satan. It is used in Matt. 12:24 for the ruler of the
demons. The name means ‘lord of the flies a concept that term Satan as the
genius who presides over corruption, spoiling everything he touches.
Bethsaida - a city of Galilee, on the west coast of the Sea of Tiberias. It was the native
place of three of Jesus’ disciples, Peter, Andrew and Philip, and the site of
many miracles of Jesus Christ.
bewray - an Old English word, meaning ‘betray’. It is used in Matthew 26:73.
Canaan - an ancient name of Palestine. By Jesus’ day, Canaan referred to an area
north-west of Jewish territory, and corresponds to present-day Lebanon.
Capernaum - a city on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. It was the residence of
Jesus and his disciples, and the scene of many of his miracles and
discourses.
Centurion - a Roman army officer who commanded 100 men.
Charger - a deep dish; used in Matt. 14:8.
Chorazin - a city of Galilee, 4 kilometers north of Capemaum, and the site of many
miracles by Jesus Christ.
Cubit - a linear measure of 17. 72, inches.
Cummin - a common herb.
Custom - as used in Matt. 17:25, a tax.
Divers - many different; as in Matt. 24:7, “in divers places” the meaning is ‘in
many different places’.
draught - as used in Matt. 15:17 refers to a drain, or latrine.
elect - those persons chosen by God to enjoy the benefits of Christ’s rule.
Elias - the Grecian form of the name Elijah, the first of the Jewish prophets.
Living in 9th century B.C., he called Israel back from idolatrous ways to
the traditional worship of God.
eunuch - a castrated male person. As used in Matt. 19:12 it refers to a person
unaffected by sensual desires.

141
gall - any bitter substance. While Jesus was on the cross, he was offered wine
mixed with gall, a bitter substance, as a narcotic to relieve the pain of
suffering.
Gentile - Biblically it means ‘nation’ or ‘people’. Jews referred to all non-Jews as
‘Gentile’. In Jewish thinking, Gentiles often were regarded as existing only
to punish the apostasy of Israel, or to undergo punishment for their enmity
toward her.
Gergesenes - in Matt. 8:28, same as Gadarenes, the inhabitants of Gadara, a Roman
provincial town on the east side of the Jordan River, about 9 km. from the
Sea of Galilee.
Gethsemane - a garden of olive trees on the Mount of Olives, to the west of Jerusalem. It
was a favourite retreat place for Jesus to come for prayer.
gnat - a tiny mosquito
husbandman - a tenant farmer
hypocrite - a two-faced person. Jesus referred to hypocrites as those who made a
profession of religion merely for worldly considerations.
Jeremiah - an ancient Jewish prophet of Jerusalem who lived in the 7th century B.C.
For forty years prior to the great Babylonian Captivity, he proclaimed
God’s message, but was rejected. Tradition declares that Jeremiah died by
his body being cut in two pieces with a saw.
John the Baptist- born of a priestly family, about six months before the birth of Jesus.
Matthew portrayed him as a herald in relationship of Jesus. He announced
the approaching kingdom of heaven. He proclaimed the righteous reign of
God and insisted that his hearers repent and tum from evil ways. They
evidenced their sincerity by baptism, or ceremonial cleansing. John had his
own disciples, and was well received by Jewish hearers. Being a fearless
moral crusader, John provoked Herod Antipas when he condemned his
incestuous marriage to Herodias. To appease Herodias, Herod ordered
John beheaded while in prison.
Jordan - a major river of Palestine, flowing from the north and emptying into the
Dead Sea.
Jonas - a Hebrew prophet, also called ‘Jonah’, of the 8th century B.C. God had
told him to proclaim a message of judgement against wicked Neneveh, the
capital of Assyria, Israel’s enemy. At first he refused and took a sea
voyage in a different direction. While on board the boat, a fierce storm
blew up. Jonah insisted that he be thrown overboard, for he knew the
storm was a mark of divine wrath against him. While in the water, a huge
mediterranean fish swallowed him. Then it vomited him out into shallow
water three days later. Jonah learned the lesson that God’s instructions are
to be obeyed. He went to Nineveh where his message was well received.
leaven - yeast that is placed in flour, causing it to rise before it is made into loaves
of bread.

142
legion - a main division of the Roman army, equivalent to a regiment. It would
number from 3,000 to 6,000 foot soldiers. Twelve legions of angels that
Jesus said he could summon, if he desired, would number from 36,000 to
72,000 angels. Legion represents an innumerable multitude.
mammon - a Hebrew word originally meaning the material wealth entrusted to another
like a deposit in a bank. But in Jesus’ day, it had been corrupted in its
meaning signifying the thing in which a man placed his trust. It was
synonymous with idolatry and covetousness.

Messiah - means ‘anointed’ and in the New Testament is rendered as ‘Christ’. It is

the official designation of Jesus. In Jewish thinking, Messiah was the one
promised of God to be the great deliverer of Israel. He had to be anointed
by God for this task.
millstone - a circular grinding stone of about one half-meter in diameter that was set
upon another similar stone and used for grinding grain into flour. Set into a
machine these stones were powered by oxen.
minister - a servant, as used in Matt. 20:26.
minstreals - pipe-players playing funeral dirges. Matt. 9:23.
mote - a dry particle of wood or chaff; a speck
Nazareth - a town of Galilee, and the home of Joseph and Mary, and of Jesus in his
infancy and youth. His long and intimate association with this town made
him known as ‘’Jesus of Nazareth”. Nazareth, being in the province of
Galilee, was considered a place lacking in culture, its people speaking in a
rude dialect.
Nephthalim - an area occupied by the ancient Jewish tribe of Naphtali; a place of many
miracles by Jesus Christ.
Nineveh - the capital of the Assyrian Empire. Its people were considered very wicked
and cruel.
Noe - same as Noah, the righteous man of the third millenium B.C. He, along
with his wife, three sons, and their wives, was saved from a worldwide
flood that destroyed all human and animal life. Noah was instructed by
God to build a large boat for the salvation of himself and his family and a
pair from every species of animal life. The full account may be read in
Genesis chapters 6-8 in the Bible.
Passover - a Jewish festival celebrated on the evening of 14th Nisan (usually in
April). It commemorated the deliverance of Israel from the tyranny of
Egypt. This festival was accompanied by the sacrificing of many lambs.
pence - plural of penny, a Roman silver coin at the time of Christ. One pence, or
denarius, represented ordinary pay for a day’s labour.
Pharisees - a strict Jewish sect that exercised profound influence among Jews in Jesus’
day. Meaning ‘the separatists’, the Pharisees objected to the imposition of

143
 Greek culture upon Jews. By the enforcement of rigid interpretations of the
Mosaic law, they sought to isolate themselves from Gentiles and other
Jews. They became avowed enemies of Jesus, and objected harshly to his
practice of showing mercy to the unfortunate, even on the Sabbath day.
Phylactery - a small box; generally 5 cm. square, containing several Old Testament
scriptures (Ex. 13 : 1-16 : Deut. 6:4-9 Deut. 11 : 13-22). During prayer
time, an orthodox Jew of Jesus’ day tied a phylactery into the centre of his
forehead, and another was tied to his left arm. They were worn in order to
publicize the devotion of the wearer. When Jesus said, “they make broad
their phylacteries” (Matt. 23:5), he accused the Pharisees of an even more
conspicuous display of religion, by wearing even larger boxes. Some
scholars considered the phylacteries to be equivalent to amulets or charms
to ward off evil spirits.
publican - a tax-collector of the Roman revenue. The publicans in Palestine were
mostly Jewish. men considered by others as cheats, extortioners and
traitors. Hence they were excommunicated from Jewish society. Many
publicans, including Matthew, became disciples of Jesus Christ.
rabbi - a respectful term applied by the Jews to their teachers and spiritual
advisors. Often a rabbi was called ‘master’.
raca - a common term of contempt used in Jesus’ day. It means ‘good-for-
nothing’, or ‘empty- headed’. In Matt. 5:22 ‘Raca’ and ‘fool’ are words of
contempt. ‘Fool’ means a person so immoral and depraved that he cannot
experience salvation.
ransom - a price paid to release a prisoner or set a slave free.
remnant - those that are remaining.
Sabbath Day - the seventh day. To Jewish understanding, the Sabbath began at sunset on
Friday and lasted until; sunset on Saturday. It was observed by cessation of
all labour, and by congregational worship services. The purpose of the
Sabbath was to give man an opportunity to engage in such mental and
spiritual exercises as would quicken his soul and spirit and strengthen his
spiritual life. The Sabbath law is stated in the Ten Commandments,
Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy (Ex. 20:8). By Jesus’ day,
scribal interpretation, as followed by the Pharisees, had perverted the
ancient law so that Sabbath keeping became a ridiculous burden upon the
people.
Sadducees - a Jewish religious sect made up of many of the aristocratic of Jesus’ day.
Having come to terms with the Roman civil powers, they controlled the
Jewish Council, the Sanhedrin, and could easily insist on the death penalty
for Jesus. This sect did not believe in the resurrection of the dead.
Samaritan - a person of Samaria, a province of Palestine, midway between Galilee in
the north and Judea in the south. They were a mixed-blooded race, partly
Jewish and partly Assyrian. By following incomplete Jewish religious
forms, the Samaritans were looked down upon by the Jews of Jesus’ day.

144
Sanhedrin - the Jewish Council of Jerusalem consisting of 70 elders, high priests and
scribes, and headed by the supreme high priest. At the time of Jesus’ trial
the head was Caiaphas. The Sarhedrin had absolute power over the
universal Jewish community in ethical matters. In the Roman province of
Judea the Sanhedrin also controlled most matters of civil life, excluding
revenue and capital offences. These matters under Roman, jurisdiction
Scourge - to lash with a whip. The Romans scourged Jesus by stripping him to the
waist. Then, typing him to a frame, they beat him 39 times with a whip
made of rope ends.
scribes - for a fuller account read under the topic “Religions at the Time of Jesus.”
scrip - a satchel for carrying bits of food. In Matt, 10: 10 the apostles were
forbidden to carry a scrip, but were to depend upon God for the supply of
their needs.
sepulchre - a tomb, or cave, used as a place of burial of the dead.
shewbreac - twelve small loaves of consecrated, ritualistic, fine wheat bread that was
kept in the sacred tabernacle. Every Sabbath Day this bread was eaten by
the priest, only, and then replaced by freshly baked bread.
Sidon - an ancient city on the Mediterranean Sea visited by Christ.
Sodom - one of the five cities south of the Dead Sea, usually linked with Gomorrha,
which was destroyed about 2069 B. C. Fire fell from heaven and
consumed all life. The wickedness and moral depravity of this city became
proverbial. Sodomy was a known practice of its inhabitants (see Gen. 19).
Solomon - the king of Israel, known for his wisdom.
Son of God - a title of Jesus Christ recorded 8 times in Matthew. In each incident,
others, including demons, conferred this title on him. Never did Jesus call
himself the Son of God. The title ascribes to Jesus deity and equality with
God. Jesus never denied this assumption, and instead of objecting to the
title being used, complimented Peter for stating. “Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God”(Matt. 16 : 16).
Son of Man - a title of Jesus Christ that Jesus called himself while addressing others.
Matthew records 33 incidents when Jesus used the title, the first being
Matt. 8 : 20. To a Jewish hearer of Jesus’ words, or a reader of Matthew’s
gospel, this term suggests the Messianic claim of Jesus. It insists upon the
reality of his humanity, and his unique position as a member of the human
race. It hinted at a supernatural birth.
Sop - a piece of bread dipped in meat gravy, and placed by a host into the mouth
of an honoured guest at a banquet. Jesus gave a sop to Judas Iscariot at the
Last Supper.
Synagogue - derived from Greek; the word means ‘congregation’, or ‘a gathering of the
people.’ It is a Jewish institution, preserved even till today, for the
teaching and upholding of Jewish ideals in their community. Ten male
Jews living in any locality warranted a synagogue.
145
talent - a weight for measuring gold or silver. In the parable of Matt. 18: 23-25
10,000 talents would approximate U.S. $ 9,600,000 or Indian Rupees
102,240,000–an astronomical sum.
tare - a degenerate variety of wheat, known as ‘bearded damel’, In its growth it
appears like wheat until the ear develops.
testament - covenant, agreement.
tetrach - a governor of the fourth part of a country. Herod the tetrach. Herod
Antipas, ruled a fourth of the former kingdom of Herod the Great.
tithe - one-tenth of one’s income; it is to be given to God.
tribute - as used in Matt, 17 : 25, a tax.
Tyre - In Jesus’ day, a very large city on the Mediterranean Sea inhabited by
Gentiles. It was the scene of many miracles.
usury - bank interest on a deposit.
verily - a word often used by Jesus, causing an axiom of truth to become concrete
in the mind of the hearer. It is a translation of the Greek word, ‘Amen’ and
means ‘it is fixed and cannot be changed.’
watch of the - -in ancient times the 12 hour night was divided into four equal periods.
night (1) 6 p.m.- 9 p.m; (2) 9 p.m.-12 midnight; (3) 12 rnidnight–3 a.m.; (4) 3
a.m.–6 a.m. watch of night’ in Matt. 14:25 would be within the period
from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m.
winebibber - a drunkard; used in matt. 11:19 as scorn for Jesus.
wrath - very angry.
Zebulon - the Greek form of the name Zabulun, an area occupied by the ancient
Jewish tribe of Zebulun. Nazareth and Cana, where Christ performed many
miracles, were situated in Zebulun.

146
 Paper-II : European Classical Literature
Unit-5

Contents:
(a) Plato: The Republic V.P. Sharma
(b) Aristotle: Poetics Shriya Pandey
(c) Sappho Shruti Sareen
(i) On The Throne of Many Hues, Immortal Aphrodite
(ii) Some Say an Army of Horsemen
(d) Horace: 'Ars Poetica' Sambuddha Jash

Edited by:
Nalini Prabhakar

147
148
 Unit 5 (a)
Plato: The Republic
V.P. Sharma
Your syllabus requires you to study Chapter X of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato’s The
Republic. But any study of Plato and his philosophy must begin with his teacher Socrates
(470-399 B.C.) who influenced him profoundly in his thoughts. Plato pays tribute to his
teacher by making him the central character of The Republic. Let us therefore begin with
Socrates.
Part I
Socrates
We know nothing for certain about Socrates. He taught entirely by word of mouth and left
nowritings of his own. Because he wrote nothing all information about him depends on the
historian Xenophon and the philosopher Plato. Plato put his ideas into the month of Socrates
in his early and middle dialogues called Socratic Dialogues. Throughout these dialogues
Socrates is the main speaker and his views are triumphant. Socrates does not figure in the
later dialogues. It is of course difficult to know just how much and in what way Plato
developed the Socratic philosophy. Socrates is said to have had a beautiful soul in an ugly
body and a quarrelsome wife called Xanthippe. He fell out of favour with the ruling party of
Athens, his native city, because he kept company with the enemies of the Government. He
was suspected of impiety for he claimed to be guided by a divine sign (a daimonion or
daemon) or, inner voice. In 399 BC, when he was more than 70 years of age, Socrates was
accused of “corrupting the youth, and believing not in the gods of the city, but in gods of his
own.” He was tried by a massive jury, found guilty by a vote of 281 to 220, and made to put
himself to death by drinking poison hemlock. The story of his trail, imprisonment, and
execution is told by his disciple Plato in three short dialogues, most memorably in the
Apology and the Phaedo.
Socratic Method and Socratic Irony
“One thing only I know and that is that 1 know nothing” is the starting point of Socratic
Philosophy. Socrates destroyed the false conceit of knowledge blinding the Athenians to their
ignorance. He conversed with all that would listen. He would ask the same question, What is
Justice? or Love, or Virtue. He discovered nothing more in what many so-called wise persons
told him than a mass of confused opinions. Such opinions were not knowledge and holders of
such opinions did not possess wisdom. As soon as a definition was given, he would proceed
to demonstrate, by a series of adroitly put questions, how utterly worthless it was. Not that he
claimed to understand the matter himself. He confessed to complete ignorance. Only he
realized and admitted his ignorance while others didn’t. This is Socratic irony—the
profession of ignorance on the part of Socrates, who is in fact quite wise. His “victims” called
him “sly” pretending that he knows less than they do when he knows more. The Greek for
slyness is “Irony.” His object was to prick bubbles. His urbane pretence of ignorance, his
eagerness to learn, his readiness to entertain different points of view and his tireless cross-
examination of his “victims’–all this proved that the so-called knowledge is merely a mass of
ill-grounded–opinions leading under logical scrutiny to absurd results. Socrates believed that
children are born with knowledge already in their souls, but they cannot recall this knowledge
149
without some help. This is the theory of knowledge as recollection (Greek anamnesis). The
teacher’s role is akin to that of a midwife. Socrates was the son of an Athenian stone-cutter
and of a mid-wife. In a sense, he practised his mother’s trade. Plato makes him describe
himself as one who assists (like a mid-wife) at the birth of ideas. This metaphor, logically
developed by Plato, becomes a whole theory of education.
Plato (427-347 BC)
Plato was born in Athens and lived there for most of his eighty years. He was called Plato, it
is said, because of his broad shoulders. He came from a distinguished aristocratic family. On
his mother’s side his pedigree went back to the famous Athenian lawgiver Solon, and on his
father’s side to Athens” last king Codrus. His mother was the sister of Charmides and the
niece of Critias. Opposition to democracy was almost in his blood, and the martyrdom of
Socrates only increased his bias. He fell deeply under the spell of Socrates’ magnetic and
searching thought, and was shocked when, at the age of about 27 he saw his master
condemned to death on the charge of corrupting young men and not believing in the city’s
gods. After the disaster, most of the friends of Socrates left Athens for a time, and Plato now
had a period of travel. He visited the Greek cities of Cicily and southern Italy, and made
political and scholarly friends there. By about 385 he was back in Athens. He founded near
the grove sacred to a legendary hero called Academus, what has come to be called the
“Academy.” He gathered about him a number of pupils who united themselves in a
“museum”, or friendly society dedicated to the Muses. Plato appears to have devoted himself
to his “Academy” for most of the remaining forty years of his long life.
The Dialogues
All but one of Plato’s thirty-six works are dialogues. Philosophy is essentially a kind of
reasoning. An inquiry that proceeds like a monologue is one-sided. Statements are submitted
to criticism by others and tested by what they suggest. This involves dialogue. The typical
Platonic dialogue draws out the meanings of a statement in order to test its consistency with
itself and with other statements.
Plato’s dialogues constitute a great philosophical work. They are also masterpieces of
literature. His thought has had and still has untold influence. Written in a prose unsurpassed
for purity and elegance, his dialogues have become synonymous with philosophy. Plato’s
central contribution to philosophy is the theory of Forms. Closely bound up with this theory
are two others, namely that the soul is immortal and that all knowledge is reminiscence or
recollection (The soul needs in this life only to be reminded of what it has forgotten).
The Republic
The Republic3 is Plato’s masterpiece. Socrates discusses with his friends the nature of Justice
(Another title of the dialogue is Justice.), and the conversation leads to an outline of the ideal
or perfect society, the republic after which the book is named.

3
The word ‘republic’ in Plato is a translation of the Greek word politeia. It simply means the political
organization of a state, be it a monarchy or a democracy.

150
While only Book X of The Republic has been prescribed for detailed study you would do
well to acquaint yourself with the general argument of The Republic as a whole. Plato’s
Theory of Art (Book X) cannot, in fact, be discussed independently of the rest of The
Republic, The Republic is primarily a book of philosophy. In studying it, therefore, we have
to pay attention above all to the reasoning, the order and connection of thought. A
philosopher thinks facts out to their consequences, and the truth he holds is reasoned truth.
The argument of the Republic falls into the following main divisions:
1. Introduction: The chief speaker is Socrates who repeats the conversation for an
unnamed group the day after it occurs. Those taking part besides himself, he says,
were his friend Cephalus, Cephalus’ son Polemarches, Plato’s brothers Glaucon and
Adeimantus and a Sophist called Thrasymachus (Sophists=wandering teachers who
came to Athens from foreign cities.). “The conversation begins with a discussion of
old age (Cephalus is a very old man), but this is soon abandoned in favour of an
attempt to define Justice. The question raised and discussed is: What does morality
mean in a man’s innermost life?
2. Plato describes in outline what, as he thinks, would be the best form of human society.
Beginning with the external organization of life in the state Plato discovers that in
every part of it, a principle upon which the welfare of the community depends has its
roots in the constitution of human nature. Whatever is good or evil in the external
order of society depends upon the inner nature of the soul. Myths and the false beliefs
taught in literature are considered.
3. Further discussion of some points in the institutions of the ideal society. The question
discussed is by what means this ideal could be realized. The answer is that human life
would be as perfect as it is capable of being, if it were governed throughout by
knowledge of the ideal Forms. The cause of all present evils is that men are blinded
by opinions which arise from the transient material phenomena perceived by the
senses. At this point Socrates says that he will describe by an image what is the actual
condition of mankind in regard to education and the want of it. The description is
given in the passage known as the “Allegory of the Cave”. (XXV/VII514A-521B)
We need only notice a few points in the allegory. The allegory pictures human beings living
in an underground cave which has a mouth open towards the light. Here they have been from
their childhood and have their legs and necks chained. These prisoners are sitting with their
backs to the light, the chains prevent them from turning round their heads. Above and behind
them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised
way, and a low wall built along the way, like the screen which puppet players have in front of
them. They can only see shadows of men and objects passing along the wall, and shadows of
one another which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave. These prisoners take the
procession of shadows, projected by an inferior source of light, for realities.
Plato’s portrait of the dwellers in the cave calls to mind Aeschylus’ picture of the primitive
men in his Prometheus Bound:

151
 How first beholding, they behold in vain,
And hearing heard not, but like shapes in dreams
Mixed all things wildly down the tedious time.
Nor knew to build a house toward the Sun
With walls of brick, nor any woodwork knew;
But lived like silly ants beneath the ground
In hollow caves unsunned.4
With this difference. that Plato is rather portraying the condition of
unenlightened humanity.
GLAUCON : It is a strange picture he said, and a strange sort of prisoners.
SOCRATES : Like ourselves, I replied .....
We are told that most people abide in this condition all their lives. And this is not the state of
a few miserable outcasts, it is our own state. In other words, the view of men about
themselves and the world around them is a view distorted by falsifying media, by their own
passions, and prejudices of other people conveyed to them by pictures and sound. These
prisoners not only live permanently in this state of make-believe, but it is one from which
they do not desire to escape. The cave world is a copy of the surface world.
Getting up to the light is a painful process. If here and there a prisoner from the cave
does get up to the light, and then, returns to tell the other prisoners what he has seen, they
laugh at him and perhaps kill him. Instead of cooperating with the leading minds that arise in
its midst, society is either indifferent or actively hostile to them. A Socrates, a Christ, a
Gandhi is condemned to die. Therefore, Plato proposes a government by philosophers. This is
an allegory of the position of man on earth and his deliverance by education. Plato’s theory of
education springs directly out of the allegory of the cave. Education is not like putting sight
into blind eyes, it is like turning the eye to the light. Indeed, it could only be done by turning
the whole body round.
Education means not merely illuminating the intellect, but turning the whole soul another
way. The allegory describes a liberator who turns ‘he prisoners round and tries to convince
them that the actual images they see in the light of the Sun are nearer to reality than the
shadows they watched in the cave. Socrates is here saying that most of us spend most of our
lives in seeing only reflections or hearing only echoes without ever seeing or hearing the
originals. The cave stands for the visible world in which we live, the fire in the cave
representing the sun. Just as the cave represents the sensible world, so the sensible world
outside the cave represents the ideal world of Forms.
Plato, so far as the Republic is concerned, does not trust any form of knowledge but the
intellectual. Poets and painters are altogether ignorant of conceptual knowledge. A work of

4
'Cornford quotes Empedocles' line 'We have come under this cavern's roof. The lines from Aeshylus seem to
be closer to Plato's allegory.

152
art has no hold of reality in the way of knowledge. It represents things as they appear not as
they are or ought to be. Thus begins what Plato calls "an ancient feud between philosophy
and poetry". Plato resolves, though reluctantly, that poetry must be banished from the ideal
state. The Gist of Plato’s attack on art is straightforward enough. Since every particular object
in the sensible world is only an image of its appropriate Form, every representation of such a
particular must be, at least twice removed from reality. Any particular bed can only be an
imperfect copy of the Form of Bed, and any painting of that particular bed can only be a copy
of a copy. This also holds for poetry. Poetry, like painting, is only a reproduction of a
reproduction (instead of performing heroic deeds, the poet writes about them). What poetry
offers is not ‘knowledge’ but ‘opinion’. That which is grasped by poet writes about them).
What poetry offers is not ‘knowledge’ but ‘opinion’. That which is grasped by thought with a
dialectical account is the thing that is always real, whereas that which is the object of opinion
and belief with unreasoning sensation is the thing that changes and passes away, and never
has real being.
4. The picture of what human life might be at its best is followed by a picture of human
evil, tracing the fall of human society and human nature to the lowest depths they can
reach.
5. The subject of art is treated over again, and especially of poetry. The last part of the
Republic considers the destinies of the human soul, by following the soul into, the life
after death.
[The above summary of the argument of the Republic has been drawn mainly from R.L.
Nettleship. Lectures on the Republic of Plato, Volume II of Nettleship’s Philosophical
Lectures and Remains, Macmillan, 1887’. This is a classical commentary on the Republic. Is
available in Paper back edition. There are numerous reprints. Quotations from the Republic
are in F.M. Cornford’s translation.]
Later, in part 2, we will turn specifically to Plato’s views on Art and Literature. But it must
be very forcefully stressed that Plato’s views, on art and education derive from his theory of
the Forms. This theory of forms indeed, we want to make it clear, provides all the clues to
Plato’s views of art and education.
Poetry, like painting, is third from reality. The artist is a copyist for Plato. He is inferior
to the workman or producer because he is an imitator and creates a world of make-believe.
Imitation (Greek mimesis), it must be understood, is not set by Plato against the creative
imagination: he calls a beautiful rhythm “an imitation” of a manly, self-controlled character.
Imitation enters into the very fabric of character. We are forever imitating the forms. We
imitate, not only if we play a part on the stage, but when we sit as spectators, when we read
Homer and put ourselves into the place of his heroes. We imitate unconsciously the line and
colour of the walls around us, the trees by the wayside, the animals we pet, the very dress we
wear. The depth of Plato’s theory of imitation and his recognition of the power of Art deserve
attention. In any case he holds that there is no other road to truth but dialectical reason.

153
Plato’s Theory of Forms
We have found the following passage from the Symposium so illuminating that we offer it as
an introduction to Plato’s theory of Forms. We hope that it will induce in you an awareness of
what the theory of Forms may be about.
We would ask you to read this passage lovingly and closely. (A skimpy reading will not do).
We want you to come to your own understanding of the passage. Later in the course of this
discussion we will try to bring out the meaning of the passage.
Before attending to the passage you should be clear about the meaning of these words:
Symposium: Greek word for ‘Banquet’ or more accurately, a drinking-part. The dialogue
describes a drinking-party held at the home of the tragic poet Agathon. It reports the speeches
in praise of love that were, made by Socrates and others.
Philosophy: Comes from two Greek words: PHILEIN = to love+SOPHIA= wisdom.
Philosophy means love of wisdom. So speaks Socrates in Phaedrus of the teachers of
mankind: ‘Wise I may not call them; for that is a great name which belongs to God alone;
lovers of wisdom or philosophers is their modest and befitting title’.
Dialectic: The word means discourse or discussion. It is primarily the art of debate by
question and answer. As conceived by Plato. It is the art of increasing knowledge by
questions and answers, and in its final stages the art of grasping the real nature of things.
Plato calls dialectic "the coping-stone of the whole structure of knowledge.’’ It is the highest,
because the clearest and hence the ultimate, sort of knowledge.
Here is the passage:
He who approaches the matter aright must begin to feel, while he is young. An attraction
towards beautiful bodies, and he must first, if he who guides him guide him rightly, love one
such body and beget therein beautiful thoughts. Next he should realise that the beauty in one
body is brother to the beauty in another, and that if he should pursue what is beautiful in
form, it would be the height of folly not to consider the beauty in all bodies one and the same;
and when he has taken this truth in, he should emerge as a lover of all beautiful bodies and
restrain his excessive love for one only, regarding it as trivial and contemptible. After that he
should regard beauty in souls as more valuable than bodily beauty, so that one with an
upright soul, even though with little beauty, would satisfy him as the object of his love and
care, and he would seek to give birth to such thoughts as would improve the young. Thus he
will be compelled to gaze at the beauty that there is in customs and laws, and to see the
kinship of all this beauty and so he will have to regard bodily beauty as a trivial thing. And
after customs, he should lead his pupil on to the sciences, so that he may behold their beauty
in turn, and, looking at the great breadth of beauty now attained, may no longer be involved
like a servant, in his affection for the beauty of one person or institution, to a single beautiful
thing, and so become petty and narrow-minded; rather he would turn to the great ocean of
beauty, and contemplating the many and noble thoughts therein, would give birth to his
notions in ungrudging philosophy; until there strengthened and enlarged, he glimpses a single
such science, the science of universal beauty.

154
 ..... He who has been trained thus far in the affairs of love, contemplating beautiful things
in their right order, is now approaching the end of the study of love. He will suddenly
glimpse a beauty that is wonderful in its nature-that very thing Socrates, for the sake of
which, he undertook all his earlier toil. First, it is eternal, it is neither generated nor
destroyed, it neither grows nor wastes away. Next it is not beautiful in one aspect and in
another ugly, nor beautiful at one time and not at another, nor beautiful in one relation and
ugly in another, nor beautiful to some and ugly to others. Nor again can this beauty be
pictured, like a face or hands or any other bodily part, or like a doctrine or a science. It never
subsists in anything else–in a living thing, for instance, or in truth or heaven or anywhere
else; it is in and by itself, eternally uniform. All other beautiful things partake of it in such a
manner that, while all else is generated and destroyed, it alone never grows greater or less or
is in any way affected.
When anyone, ascending from these first steps by a right course of love, begins to
glimpse that absolute beauty, he can almost touch the consummation. For this is the right
approach to the affairs of love, or the right way to be guided by another; to begin from
particular objects of beauty and, for the sake of that absolute beauty, to climb on and on, as if
on the rungs of a ladder, from one to two, from two to all beautiful bodies; from beautiful
bodies to beautiful customs; from customs to beautiful branches of knowledge: so that from
beautiful branches of knowledge, one may end up at the branch of knowledge: of nothing
other than this absolute beauty, and may understand in the end what absolute beauty is. Such
is the life, my dear Socrates, said the stranger from Mantinea, which above all others a man
should live, in contemplation of beauty itself. If you ever behold beauty itself, you will not
class it with money, clothes, beautiful persons, even though now, at the sight of them, you are
infatuated and ready, like many another, so long as you can see your beloved and be forever
with him, neither to eat nor to drink but only to gaze at him and be with him. What then, she
said. Do we think about anyone to whom is granted the sight of beauty itself, absolute, pure
and uncontaminated; not immersed in human flesh or colour or other such mortal trivialities,
but the divine and uniform beauty itself? Do you think a man’s life would be paltry, she said,
while he gazes thither and contemplates and associates with that for which we should strive?
Do you not rather imagine that there alone will it befall him, while he sees beauty as it should
be seen, to give birth, not to images of goodness, since he is not in contact with an image but
with reality, but to true goodness? And when he has given birth to true goodness and reared
it, then it is his lot to become dear to the gods and, if such is ever granted to any man, to
become himself immortal.
Like nearly all the dialogues of Plato the Symposium has a dramatic setting. Plato had the
conscience of a true dramatist and never put himself by name into his dialogues. But he was
of the view that philosophy can only be found in the discussions of living men. For the
argument to be pursued effectively the dramatic setting was essential.
The Symposium is among Plato’s masterpieces. Here we have a discussion of love from
almost all points of view. Six speeches are made in praise of love. No aspect of love is
neglected. The climax is reached in the speech of Socrates which makes love the everlasting
possession of absolute Beauty. Platonic love seeks the absolute beauty of the perfect and

155
eternal Forms. It is a passion, a mystic longing for the vision of Beauty. Mind you. it has
nothing to do with artistic beauty.
We hope that you will have found the passage moving. Indeed it is one of the peaks in
the history of prose. Anybody who reads it is bound to feel that Plato was not a mere
philosopher, but was a visionary and a mystic who had experiences which are denied to the
ordinary run of men. And he was a great literary artist, a poet, and a mythmaker. Truly did
Shelley say that Plato spoke the language of the gods.
To help you in understanding the passage from the Symposium, let us analyse its
argument. For the moment we will ignore the pulsating vitality, the beauty, and colour of its
eloquence, and attend to its meaning.
The core of the Symposium is Love of the Soul (Eros). The ultimate aim of Socratic love
is to perceive absolute Beauty itself. To know absolute Beauty is the last step in the upward
movement of thought. In the Republic absolute Beauty reappears in the guise of the Idea of
the Good. In Phaedo an early dialogue, this ultimate reality is called "something
satisfactory". So, the development of Plato’s conception of the ultimate reality is from a
"something satisfactory" to absolute Beauty–and finally, to the Idea of the Good.
This gospel of Love is put into the mouth of an otherwise unknown and most probably
imaginary priestess called Diotima. Love for Plato is closely akin to philosophy. A
philosopher is a lover of wisdom. The speech of Diotima serves as a forceful introduction to
the greater part of the argument of The Republic. Here is Socrates speaking to Glaucon in the
Republic:
Hence Glaucon... the decisive importance of education in poetry and music:
rhythm and harmony sink deep into the recesses of the soul and to the
strongest hold there, bringing that grace of body and mind which is only to be
found in one who is brought up in the right way. Moreover, a proper training
in this kind makes a man quick to perceive any defect or ugliness in art or in
nature. Such deformity will rightly disgust him. Approving all that is lovely,
he will welcome it home with joy into his soul and, nourished by it, grow into
a man of noble spirit. All that is ugly and disgraceful he will rightly condemn
and abhor while he is still too young to understand the reason., and when
reason comes he will greet her (the beauty of Reason) as a friend with whom
his education has made him long familiar. III 401)
Here is the essence of Plato’s beliefs on education. The passage describes first how the
Guardians, by being brought up in a beautiful environment, shall gradually learn the kinship
of all physical beauty and shall begin to love beauty. Next they will come to value beauty of
soul higher than mere physical beauty. And finally they will be ready to possess the Beauty
of Reason for ever.
Platonic Forms
The central place is occupied by the theory of Forms in Plato’s system. The Forms constitute
a world which exists of itself, is eternal and unchanging, and can be grasped by thought. In
156
this pure and independent existence the forms have their abode–here the soul in its former
existence has perceived them. All learning and knowledge consists in the recollection by the
soul of the forms when it perceives the things of sense. The role of the teacher is like that of a
mid-wife who assists at the birth of ideas. The earthly things perceived by the senses are mere
fleeting and shadowy images of the eternal world of forms. This view finds vivid expression
in the celebrated simile of the Cave.
Each thing is what it is only through the presence of the form in it or through its
participation in the form. Through all the multiplicity and variety of just and unjust acts,
persons, and situations in this world there is in some way only one Justice (and only one
Injustice). And so with every collection of things to which we apply the same name, as
‘’beautiful’’ or “bed”. Various as beautiful things are, there is only one Beauty. In each and
all of the many beautiful things the one Beauty must be there otherwise there would be no
sense in calling anything beautiful. The many beautiful things are however unlike Beauty
itself in that they are born, change, and perish. They are real in so far as they participate in
Beauty itself, and unreal in so far as they do not endure.
(The Greek word Eidos has been variously translated as "idea", "Form", "Archetype",
and "Pattern’’. Following R.L. Nettleship and F.M., Cornford, two eminent Platonic scholars,
we have throughout used the term "Form’’ for Plato’s "eidos’’. The most commonly used
term though is "Idea", but it is misleading as it suggests a mental idea, a thought in the mind.
Form too is misleading, as Aristotle uses it in a different sense. But, then. in a sense every
word is misleading. Nevertheless, as Cornford argues, for readers who have no Greek
"Form’’ seems to be a serviceable term: it has fewest misleading associations.)
It is of interest at this point, before we leave the term "Form", to consider Plato’s view of
the world. In the Timaeus Plato describes in ‘picture language’ the creation of the world. The
world-creator or the world-architect (Demings) embodies in a mythical form the same
attributes as are ascribed to the form of the Good in the Republic. He makes the world to be
as good as possible, because he is himself perfectly good. Further, he makes the world as we
perceive it with the senses after the pattern of a world which is "intelligible": which means
not that there are really two worlds, but that the world as it shines through the senses, is the
manifestation of a intelligible order. The world as we see it reveals, though imperfectly, those
intelligible principles upon which it is really constructed. The easiest way to understand
Plato’s meaning of the Form of the Good is to compare it with certain conceptions of the
divine nature, for example, with the conception of what Shelley calls the "light of the world":
That Light whose smile kindles the universe,
That Beauty in which all things work and move
.... that sustaining love
which through the web of being....
Burns light or dim as each are mirrors of
The fire for which all thirst...
(Adonais)

157
Perhaps the most famous Platonic lines in English poetry are these from Shelley’s Adonais:
The One remains, the many change and pass;
Heaven’s light forever shines. Earth’s shadows fly:
Life, like a dome of many coloured glass,
Stains the white radiance of Eternity....
Shelley’s platonism was highly personal, but he was an inspired platonist and these lines say
eloquently and memorably what we have been trying to say in our pedestrian prose. The
inexplicable splendour of Plato’s philosophy shines through these lines.
Plato holds that man is "not an earthly but a heavenly plant–up from earth towards our
kindred in heaven." We would have you appreciate the classic expression of this platonic
mood in these lines of Wordsworth:
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting
The soul that rises with us, our life’s star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting.
Not in entire forgetfulness
And not in utter nakedness
But trailing clouds of glory do we come from God who
is our home ...
(Ode on Intimations of Immortality).
While the Symposium dramatizes the emotional ascent of Man’s life, the Republic gives a
detailed account of Man’s intellectual ascent. The ascent in the Republic is to the Idea of the
Good. The Good with Plato occupies the same place in the moral world as the Sun occupies
in the physical world.
We end this section with a summary paragraph on the place occupied in Plato’s philosophy
by the conception of the Good. The Good, for Plato, is
1. the end of or aim of life, the supreme object of all desire and all aspiration (Not for
Plato value-free science without conscience).
2. the condition of knowledge ‘knowledge is virtue’. Is a famous and much debated
dictum of Socrates
3. the creative and sustaining cause of the world and its contents.
The crucial passage on the Good at 518B runs as follows:
... we must conclude that education is not what it is said to be by some, who profess to put
knowledge into a soul which does not possess it, as if they could put sight into blind eyes. On
the contrary ... the soul of every man does possess the power of learning the truth and the
organ to see it with; and that, just as one might have to tum the whole body round in order

158
that the eye should see light instead of darkness, so the entire soul must be turned away from
the changing world, until its eye can bear to contemplate reality and that supreme splendour
which we have called the Good. (Rep. Chap. XXVIVII. 5 I 8B)
This is the gist of Plato’s philosophy. The Forms constitute a hierarchy with the Good at the
apex.
The ascent to the Good and its everlasting possession is the supreme end of human life.
Characteristics of the Forms in Outline
1. Forms are absolute and ultimate realities. They depend on nothing, but all things
depend on them. They are the first principles of things.
2. Forms are universal. A Form is not any particular thing, but it has greater reality than
any particular material object. It is more concrete than the so-called concrete things
which as we say we can grasp.
3. Forms are not ‘things’ but ‘thoughts’. But they are not the thoughts of a person. They
are objective forms and have reality on their own account.
4. Each Form is a unity. It is the one amid the many. The Form of man is one although
individual men are many. There cannot be more than one form for each class of
objects.
5. Forms are eternal. ‘The many beautiful things arise and pass away, but the one Beauty
neither begins nor ends. It is unchangeable and imperishable. The many beautiful
things are but the fleeting shadows of the one eternal Beauty.
6. Forms are the Essences of all things. (The definition gives us what is essential to a
thing. If we define man as a rational animal, this means that reason is of the essence
of man.)
7. Each Form is, in its own kind, an absolute perfection, and its perfection is the same as
its reality.
8. Forms are outside Space and Time. If they were in space, they would have to be in
some particular place, and therefore, would not be universals at all. As they are
unchangeable they are outside time. This does not mean that they are always the same
in time, but that time is irrelevant to them. They are timeless.
9. Forms are rational, that is to say, they are grasped by reason. The finding of the One
in the Many is the work of reason. Through reason alone is the knowledge of the
forms possible.
10. Forms are ideals. They are supreme forms towards which all things are drawn. They
are Powers that draw us towards perfection. If they seem to us so far away, dim and
unreal, it is because we are so far from self-knowledge, so much immersed in what is
destructive to the soul. Without the Forms we should have no world to think about at
all. They are the primary patterns of things, and their ultimate goal.

159
11. Forms are objects of the soul’s desire. The soul is the self-moving force in a man, and
is part of the soul of all things. It has not a material body, and is immortal. It existed
before the body, and has brought with it from previous incarnations many memories
which, when awakened by new life are mistaken for new knowledge (Teaching
merely arouses the recollection of things known by the soul many lives ago. After
death the Soul passes into other bodies, higher or lower according to the merits it has
earned in its previous incarnation.). It longs for the perfect law and structure life and
goal of the human world.
12. The Forms are not only of natural objects, but of manufactured articles. There are
Forms of beds, tables, clothes. And there are forms not only of noble moral entities,
such as Beauty, Love, and Justice. There are also the ideal ugliness, and the ideal
Injustice. There are even forms of the positively nauseating, such as hair, filth, and
dirt. These forms of base things are just as much perfection in their kind as Beauty
and Goodness are in theirs. In general, the principle is that there must be a form
wherever a concept can be formed, i.e., wherever this is a class of many things called
by one name. Thus natural things (willow true), products of art (bed), valuable things
(a child’s smile), qualities and activities (courage), bad and worthless things, ugly and
evil things (a dung heap, a disease) all have an ideal form.
Fortunately for every body, the Republic generally deals with exalted forms. It is in the
Parmenides that Plato investigates the forms of the ugly and evil and filthy things. We will
end, as we began, with Socrates. But first, one word more about the immortal allegory of the
cave. Examine the structure ·of the allegory and you will notice that the ascent of the
prisoners is from darkness to light, from opinion to knowledge, from bondage to freedom.
The allegory generates meaning that no logical argument conducted in abstract language can.
But it is not vague. It is controlled to a high degree by the context of Plato’s philosophy. It
has strange power of suggesting more than it "says". And yet it is precise, having its own
kind of precision. A most important element of Plato’s style is his use of myths, symbols,
metaphors, and allegories. He does not always explain his meaning in the form of direct
exposition. This has led some critics to call these myths fanciful. They are considered to be
weak points of the system. But Plato cannot be convicted of substituting poetic metaphors for
the explanation which is lacking. It is simply not true that Plato slips into metaphors and
myths to escape the rigour of logical statement. In every type of discourse myth and metaphor
are needed elements. In the Republic the cave allegory is an essential element of the
intellectual life of the Dialogue. The cave allegory dramatizes Plato’s theory, and out of it a
new and strange insight arises. The allegory’s scenario carries an authentic picture of the
human condition. There is a marked similarity between, Plato’s prisoners sitting chained in
the half-darkness of the cave with their backs turned to the vast sunlit world outside and
today’s cinema audience "chained to their seats in a dark "cave" with their backs to the real
would outside the cinema hall watching moving pictures, taking shadows for realities. You
have only to suppose with Plato that these modern "prisoners" have remained there for a long,
long time and the rest follows. It is then a mistake to suppose, as some have done, that the
cave allegory weakens the argument of the Republic: Far from being a weakness of Plato’s

160
argument it gives the whole discourse a creative dimension. The process by which Plato’s
philosophers might be led to the knowledge of Good is rendered deeply vivid by the allegory.
We have tried to give you some idea of what is to be found in the Republic, and perhaps we
may have awakened in you the desire to know more about "the wisest and justest and best" of
teachers. Socrates lived his philosophy and was a martyr for it. He refused to beg for mercy
from his accusers nor did he agree of flee Athens to save his life, thus fulfilling the mission of
a true philosopher, to whom an unexamined life was not worth living and who regarded
knowledge as the highest virtue.

Plato: The Republic

Part II
Introduction
In your earlier lesson you have already read that the central concern of The Republic is the
ideal State. You will also recall that The Republic is in the form of dialogues. The discussion
takes place at the house of a wealthy Athenian Cephalus; the chief actors in the discussion are
Socrates, Plato’s mouthpiece, Ademantus and Glaucon, Plato’s brothers, and a determined
Sophist Thrasymachus. They begin by discussing what justice means. But let us remember
that the word had a much wider sense for the Greeks than it has for us today. It was a quality
of personal conduct. The judge who passed a wrong sentence was ‘unjust’, and so was the
guilty man in, his criminal conduct. Justice was a synonym for morality, for virtue. Whatever
was "right" and "good" was ‘’just".
Socrates suggests that justice is to be found in the ideal State. And thus the idea of justice
is neatly linked up with the idea of the ideal State. And given the wide sense in which
‘justice’ is an attribute of morality i.e., right conduct, the question of the ideal city state
acquires three dimensions: political, psychological and ethical (i.e., moral).
Socrates considers various political systems and rejects them all. He considers timarchy
of Sparta5quite imperfect because in it one section of people (the military aristocracy of
Citizens’) lived by exploiting the other (the serfs called the ‘helots’). He dismisses oligarchy
because, based as it is on the power of wealth, it always led to a reckless scramble for wealth
and therefore to exploitation of the community by the wealthy ruling class. It inevitably led to
revolution. But democracy, which might result from a-revolution against the aristocratic or
oligarchic rule is no better; it gives to the people an equal share of freedom and power,
inevitably more than they need or can use. It degenerates into mob-rule of people who are
hardly trained or educated enough to judge the merit of things. It encourages bad leadership,
for the common people select those as their leaders who are cunning but honey-tongued and
proclaim themselves to be the "protectors of the people". To Socrates it seems the most
amazing thing that the very people who would look for a skilled worker for even the smallest
job like shoe-making would entrust the reins of the State to those who have no qualification
whatever for it. The fourth type that Socrates considers is tyranny which results from the

5
See pages 22-24 of your text (Plato: The Republic edited by Desmond Lee (1987) published by Penguins.

161
chaos and degeneration that democracy leads to. In this the violent and criminal instincts of
the despotic ruler get out of hand and he only rules by terror. To think of justice in such a
system is to think of the impossible.
What then is the ideal system? One in which there is perfect harmony and justice, in
which the citizens live an austere and simple life in harmony with nature itself. But such a
paradise, Plato knows, is not attainable because the rulers are greedy and, misusing their
power and position, try to acquire more and more wealth and property.
Here we must keep in mind that for Plato the political problem of finding an ideal state is
linked with the moral problem of ensuring justice in the society. In fact for Socrates and Plato
there is hardly any distinction between morals and politics. ‘The laws of the right are the,
same for classes, and cities as for individual men. Hence, rather than look for a strictly
political solution in terms of a system Plato attempts a psychological solution. After all it is
the greed and injustice of man that perverts a system. Plato believes that there must be men in
a society who, have the capacity to rise above such moral weaknesses and be the right kind of
dedicated, efficient and just rulers.
But how are such rulers to be discovered? Plato was convinced that only the
philosophers could be truly dedicated rulers, competent enough to establish perfect harmony
in the society. With this conviction Plato devises an elaborate system of education which has
the twin purpose of discovering the potential philosopher-rulers and of training them.
But before we discuss Plato’s idea of the kind of education to be imparted to the future
rulers we must refer to a few basic assumptions underlying his theory.
Socrates’ contempt for democracy makes it quite clear that he does not expect everyone
to be capable of becoming a ruler. He believes that men have different aptitudes and the best
thing for a society would be to encourage everyone to concentrate on his or her particular
aptitude. In particular, Socrates focuses on three sources of human behaviour viz., desire,
emotion and knowledge. They are present in every individual but in different proportions.
The seat of desire in the human body is the loins. Men who are dominated by desire are
possessive by nature, always restless to acquire more and more wealth etc. Men dominated by
emotion (with its seat in the heart) will be aggressive, courageous and ambitious. Finally,
men with knowledge (with its seat in the head) are the best product of a society. They delight
in meditation rather than acquisition of worldly things. Greed and vanity do not touch them.
In the ideal state of Socrates these people with different aptitudes will form three different
classes who will be assigned different roles in the society. Men with strong desires will be
Producers (shopkeepers, craftsmen, agriculturists etc.), those with strong emotions will be the
Auxiliaries (the guardians of the state as soldiers) and men with knowledge and wisdom will
be the Rulers. One quality common to all the three classes will be self-control. But men,
Socrates believes, are not self-sufficient. There will be harmony in the society only when
each section sticks to its proper duties. A shopkeeper trying to be a soldier, or a general
assuming the role of a ruler would only mean chaos in the society. Each must know his place
and be satisfied with it.
Let us now turn to Plato’s scheme of education which he discusses in Book III.

162
Education
Greek education in Plato’s day had three principal divisions: reading and writing, physical
education and literary education. Plato adopts this system for his system of education of the
guardians for it takes care of the cultivation of the mind as well as of the body.
The child’s education begins when his nurse or mother tells him stories. Since it is an
impressionable age, Socrates first directs his attention to the content of these stories. He
begins with stories: ‘The greater part of the stories current today we shall have to reject’ (p.
131)6. He then proceeds to give reasons for this rejection. The first stories that a child should
hear should be designed to produce the best possible effect on his character. But, according to
Socrates, the stories that the children hear can only pervert their minds. He cites certain
stories of Homer and Hesiod that set the gods in a bad light and slow them indulging in
intrigues and cruelties against their own kith and kin or causing suffering to mortals or
transforming themselves into human beings playing mischief. If children are to grow up to be
god fearing and holy and if they are to learn to respect their parents they shall not be told
such stories. In fact the state will forbid by law the writing of such blasphemous plays and
stories (p. 139-40).
To sum up Socrates’ arguments:
1. A poet whether he is writing epic, lyric, or drama, should always show the divine
nature as it really is. Because divine nature is always good, gods cannot be evil and
therefore cannot do any evil. Gods can only do good to human beings, the cause of
evil lies elsewhere. The poets must only be allowed to say that the wicked were
miserable because they needed to be punished and the gods were right in punishing
them.
2. Divine nature is perfect in every way. Therefore any change in it would be only for
the worse. But why would gods like to change for the worse? God is a being of entire
simplicity and truthfulness in word and deed. Gods, therefore, can never transform
themselves and play mischief or mislead us by illusion or lies.
The guardians must be brave. Hence children, the would-be guardians, must not hear stories
that make them fear death. Lines that seem to do so shall be struck out from existing plays.
Nor shall famous heroes be shown weeping and grieving over the death of their near and dear
ones.
Self-restraint will be an essential quality of a citizen’s character, more so that of a
guardian. Therefore they shall be taught to control their emotions. If they shall not weep they
shall not laugh overmuch nor eat or drink too much. They shall taught to be truthful and to
resist temptations. They will not be excessive lovers of money.
Plato assigns an important place to poetry and music. Like all Greeks he also believes
that they have a tremendous power in moulding character. "Poetry and music are marked by
rhythm and harmony. The learner absorbs this rhythm and harmony into his very soul and

6
All page numbers refer to the edition mentioned earlier.

163
achieves a gracefulness in both body and mind. In fact, Socrates claims, education in poetry
and music makes a man more sensitive and noble; ‘a proper training in this kind makes a man
quick to perceive any defect or ugliness in art or in nature. Such deformity will rightly disgust
him. Approving all that is lovely he will welcome it home with joy into his soul and,
nourishing thereby grow into a man of noble spirit. All that is ugly and disgraceful he will
rightly condemn ...’ (Cornford’s translation of section 401 e and 402a of The Republic. See p.
163 of Penguin’s The Republic) And again he rejects all poetry that has a bad influence on
moral character. In fact he extends his criticism to the whole field of art: ‘we must issue
similar orders to all artists and craftsmen and prevent then portraying bad character, ill-
discipline ... in sculpture, architecture, or any work of art ... (p.161). For Plato ‘the ultimate
end of all education is insight into the harmonious order (cosmos) of the whole world’
(Cornford). The study of literature, music and even physical training are meant to serve this
end. Both music and gymnastics are needed in education and ultimately both have the welfare
of the soul in view (p.174). But the physical training suitable for a guardian is not as rigorous
as that for a professional athlete. Moderation and simplicity are the key words in the case of a
guardian in training. He has to learn to be neither too tough nor too soft: ‘The two together –
physical training and education in literature and others arts – should produce a harmonious
development of the spirited and the philosophic elements in human character’ (Cornford).
It has to be noted that literature for the Greek child was the source of all moral education
and education in Plato’s time primarily meant teaching the child to be good. Religion did not
have the same hold over the Greek mind as perhaps the Bible today has over a Christian in
matters of moral conduct. Socrates therefore condemns all literature that does not teach
children to be good and virtuous. This attack later develops into a more general attack on art
so much so that he banishes poets from his ideal state. Socrates refuses to believe that the
poets can be the best educators for children. Elsewhere, in Laws, Plato says that ‘the stories
of literature, whether in fact true or not, make for kindred qualities. But there is no learning
there which leads to what you are now seeking’ i.e., a certain knowledge of philosophy. This,
of course, is essential for the would-be rulers, in particular. As a result, he censures just what
we consider the imperishable contributions of Athens to art and literature of the world
because they have tendencies which are unfavourable to the highest development of moral
personality.
Plato’s Theory of Art
Plato’s views on art must have been shocking to his contemporaries. And more than two
thousand years later the modern mind can only consider him to be perverse when he
condemns the greatest artists that Greece has ever produced–and the list includes immortal
names like Sophocles and Homer.
Plato’s criticism of art, especially poetry, is based principally on his theory of Imitation. But
before we discuss this theory let us very briefly summarize his arguments in the tenth book
(pp.471-39).
1. All art is representation or imitation (the Greek word is mimesis) of an original, that
is, the form as defined in the theory of forms.

164
2. An artist’s representation is at the third remove from reality or truth. To take the
example of a bed, first there is its Form in nature, then its imitation by a carpenter,
and finally, its picture by the painter. The painter, and by extension any imitative
artist including the tragedian, is inferior to even an artisan. What the artist produces is
appearance and not reality.
3. The claim of the poets and tragedians, especially Homer, that they are masters of all
skills and know all about human excellence and religion etc., are baseless. Neither
Homer nor other poets had a real knowledge of the subjects they wrote about–war,
statesmanship administration, human conduct etc.
4. Poetry uses words, metre rhythm and music to create a picture but if you remove these
elements it has no substance left.
5. Another way to look at a thing’s worth is in terms of its use, manufacture and
representation (in contrast to form, manufacture and representation above). Only the
user knows best about a thing’s worth, the artist knows little or nothing about it. The
art of representation has no serious value. This is true of all tragic poetry, epic or
dramatic.
6. Art in general and poetry in particular deals with the less rational part of our nature;
the tragic drama depicts grief and suffering of the characters rather than their courage
and fortitude in the face of a misfortune.
7. Poetry, dramatic poetry in particular, most often corrupts even the best characters. It
arouses our baser instincts by ‘representing’ sex, anger, vulgarity (through dirty
jokes). In essence, it perverts our moral sense.
To sum up, poetry has a low degree of truth, deals with a low element in our mind and very
often has a corrupting influence on the audience. Therefore, the poetry of pleasure and poetry
of grief shall both be cast out of Plato’s ideal state so that pain and pleasure do not rule in
place of law and reason. In short, the poet will be banished.
Theory of Imitation
In the third book of The Republic Socrates discusses the kind of stories that should be told to
the guardians in their early childhood and finds many tales about gods that would be
undesirable for this purpose. He ‘pleads for a censorship of art and cites passages from
Homer and Sophocles and others that should be deleted. In the tenth book this attack on
poetry develops into a general attack on art leading to the conclusion that art that has no
social or educative value (and most art is worthless in this respect, according to Socrates)
should be banished from his ideal state.
The basic ground for this banishment now is that all art is a case of mimesis. Socrates has
already used this word in the third book when he discusses three different forms of Poetry
‘narrative’ (as in lyric poetry), mimesis or representation (in drama, both tragedy and
comedy) And a mixture of both (in epic)7.He now uses the term mimesis to describe artistic
creation as a whole. We must, however, note that Plato uses the term mimesis in different
7
Read pages 152-153 of the text.
165
senses in The Republic. It has the general sense of imitation and a particular sense of
representation or impersonation.
In the third book mimesis was used in the sense of representation alone. In drama the
author identifies himself emotionally with his character and in this emotional identification
comes to represent or impersonate that character fully. In the theatre this emotional,
identification extends to the audience. This is undesirable, especially, if the guardians
emotionally identify themselves with evil characters.
In the tenth book the word mimesis is used in both the senses of representation and
imitation: in case of tragedy and comedy and in Homer (in his fondness for direct speech),
mimesis essentially implies representation; both representation and imitation are implied in
fine arts like painting. Applying his theory of forms Socrates shows that all products of
imitative art are at third remove from the truth i.e., the essential nature of a thing. If a painter
paints a bed it is only a copy of a copy. First there is the form of the bed created by god, then
its imitation created by the carpenter and finally its copying by the painter and that too of
only a particular aspect (for the painter cannot fully imitate the carpenter). The painter
therefore is inferior to even a craftsman for he only creates appearances. Plato further
remarks that a fine art such as painting is like producing reflections of objects in a mirror. He
is, in effect, attacking realism in art which believes that a work of art is an image of likeness
of some original, or holds a mirror up to nature.
Socrates concludes that the tragic poet and all other imitative artists are like the painter at
third remove from the truth, from the reality.
Implications for poetry-The implications of most art being imitative are far deeper for
poetry than for other arts. Plato attacks poetry not only for being at third remove from truth
but also on psychological grounds. Drama represents characters in all kinds of actions,
pleasant and unpleasant and in all kinds of emotions indiscriminately. It shows them
succumbing to grief and anguish whereas in real life men might like to face up to their
misfortunes: the imitative poet is a maker of images, far distant from the truth.
This ‘being distant from truth’ leads Plato to contest the value of poetry as the true
source of knowledge. Poets, for the Greeks, were infallible guides. But Plato says that they do
not possess knowledge, which alone is infallible. He therefore refuses to accept the social and
educative value of poetry. We can now see the full implications of Plato’s theory of art as
imitation: artists indulge in uncritical copying of an object and are quite uncritically affected
emotionally by it. Hence artists especially poets (by far the most influential of artists) stand
banished from Plato’s ideal state.
The harsh criticism and the extreme penalty of exile for the poets might seem irrational
and one can rightfully object that Plato has quite ignored the aesthetic aspect of literature or
that art does try to search for truth which intellect cannot reach with mere logic. Plato has
indeed ignored all this. But we must remember that he has concerned himself with the social
and educative value alone of art in The Republic, especially because poets in his time were
considered as the most important source of knowledge. And we also know that both poetry
and philosophy have, since ancient times, claimed to be the real source of truth and

166
knowledge. In this quarrel between poetry and philosophy Plato obviously sides with
philosophy.

Select Bibliography
F.M. Cornford 1982 The Republic by Plato. Oxford University Press
Desmond Lee 1987 Plato: The Republic. Penguins.
R.L. Nettleship 1963 Lectures on The Republic of Plato. Macmillan
A.E Taylor 1986 Plato : The Man and His Work. Methuen

167
 Reading Material
Some Commentaries
I. Poetry has already been discussed together with the other arts as part of education; nothing
has prepared us for the statement in Book X which is now to have met better justification, in
terms of the soul’s parts, for the banishment of all imitative poetry. In Books 2 and 3 poetry
was just one of the arts, though the most important. Here (in Book X) Plato singles it out for
attack in a way impossible to reconcile with Book 3.
In Book 3 only some poetry was imitative. Here all poetry is, but we soon see that
something different is meant by ‘imitation’, for Plato’s model of imitative art is now painting.
Abruptly, we are given two arguments which claim that all that a painter does is to copy the
way things appear, and then treat poetry as though this were what it did too. They are among
the most famous, and outrageous, arguments in Plato.
The first argument claims to show that all artists lack knowledge. A craftsman copies a
form to produce a bed; the painter, more superficial, only copies the way the bed appears. We
have already seen how odd the role of Forms here is. They are introduced here to emphasize
the idea that the painter merely copies particular things, a fairly fatuous thing to do; he does
not even achieve the level of the craftsman, who at least embodies general principles of
function and design in his products.
Mimesis or ‘imitation’ was introduced in Book 3 in the context of the performing arts,
and was best thought of there as expressing or representing. But here it is introduced by what
the painter does, and is rather the literal copying of one visual aspect of a particular thing. It
is explicitly said to be like holding a mirror up to reflect things. Clearly no-one who does this
requires knowledge or even true belief; mindless copying is possible if one lacks
understanding of one’s subject-matter and even if one had false beliefs about it. Plato is
talking about trompe-l’ovil painting (which actually takes more skill than he allows), not
painting as he has talked about it before through the Republic. He could not be more insistent
that imitation is an exact copying of the way things in the world look; it may take effort but it
is not creative in any way, any more than mirroring the world is.
Plato now talks as though the same were true of poets like Homer; he has already made
the claim about the tragic poets. They too are said to be mere imitators who produce
something ‘at three removes from real nature’ requiring no comprehension of what is
imitated.
But the claim just made about painting does not carry across to poetry, precisely because
of the very narrow account given of what the painter’s activity is. Poets do not do anything
that can be compared to holding up a mirror to particular things, or capturing the perspective
of the way a bed looks from one angle of vision. Plato just assumes that he can talk of poetry
as being a ‘mere image’, at third remove from real nature’, and the like, without considering
that these terms have only been given their sense within the meta-physical picture of Form,
particular, and painting, and that this model does not fit poetry in any obvious way. In fact,
when Plato expands on the way in which the poet lacks knowledge, he does not use this
picture at all, but a quite different one. Now we are told that the person with knowledge and
168
understanding is the user, the person with mere true belief but no understanding of the maker;
the imitator is the person with neither. So the poet as imitator is the person who neither makes
nor uses what he is talking about; not the person who has grasp of a Form. Forms, which are
not objects of use, do not fit into the picture at all; the contrast is not between levels of
reality, but between different ways of relating to things on a single level of reality, since one
uses, makes or imitates the same kind of thing, like bridles or flutes. (Plato could have said
that the poet only describes particular things, in contrast to the person with understanding
who has turned away from the shadows on the wall towards the state of enlightenment that
grasps only Forms; but he does not.) Plato’s actual points against the poet’s claims to
knowledge are quite common sensical (and similar to points he makes in other dialogues); the
poet, he says, describes activities, like those of generals, about which he has absolutely no
understanding, and therefore there is no reason for us to give his works the respectful
attention which they get.
So the reasons for saying that the painter lacks knowledge do not carry over to the poet,
Plato has made a few points against the poet’s claim to have knowledge, but has done nothing
to show that the imitates in the way that a trompe-l’ovil painter does, or that his works are
mere images and at third remove from real nature. He has not established that the poet
imitates in the pejorative sense established for the painter. But this is the only sense so far
given to us in Book 10. We cannot appeal to Book 3 to fill out the sense in which the poet
imitates. For, in Book 3 imitation was not what the poet did, but what the person did who
recited or acted the poet’s works; the distinction between imitative and non-imitative was
there drawn within poetry, whereas in Book 10 all poetry is said to be imitative.
The second argument goes as follows. Scene-painting relies on various kinds of optical
illusion, flat surfaces can be made to appear three-dimensional, just as straight stickes can
look bent in water, and concave surfaces appear convex. What happens in cases like this is
that part of the soul is taken in and accepts the appearance at face value, but the reasoning
part does not; it relies instead on objective procedures for finding out the true state of affairs,
like measuring, counting, and weighing. So we find two parts of the soul in conflict. The
reasoning part, relying on objective ways of finding out the truth, is clearly the better part, so
painting appeals to the inferior part of the soul (whose worthlessness is dwelt on). Plato now
applies this point to poetry. Poetry appeals to and strengthens the lower, desiring part of the
soul, which is apt to resist reason. It encourages us to give in to our immediate feelings and
emotions when reason would forbid their gratification because it is useless or harmful for the
agent if he considers his life as a whole and the true value of human attachments.
This distinction of reason and lower part of the soul, however, appears to be a totally
different one from the one appealed to in the case of painting. How can the strength and
importunate nature of one’s desires have anything to do with one’s being taken in by optical
illusions? The lowest part of the soul to which poetry appeals is one which itself gives scope
for imitation, since it is the tendency to be led by emotion which provides most of tragedy’s
best plots. But this cannot be identified with the part which passively and unreflectively
accepts appearances and is led to judge that a straight stick in water is bent. It is absurd to
suggest that this is a rich source of dramatic material. The argument from painting does not
carry over to poetry because the parts of the soul distinguished are not the same in both cases;
169
conclusions drawn from the conflict of reason and another part in the one case have no
application to the other. Some try to escape this problem by claiming that Plato does not even
think that the two contrasts drawn are the same; his language suggests that he may think of
the part of the soul opposed to reason as being not a unity but a collection of bad tendencies.
But this does not avoid the problem that reason’s role does not come out the same in the two
cases. And anyway if the parts of the soul appeared to in the two cases are not the same, then
Plato has no argument at all; he would have no semblance of justification for claiming that
the worthlessness of painting proves anything about poetry.
These two arguments raise, incidentally, problems about how either of the divisions of
the soul here fit with the divisions we have become used to throughout the book. None of the
roles of reason and the lowest part of the soul have any perspicuous connection to their roles
as seen so far in the theory of the soul’s parts that Plato has used to establish conclusions
about justice. Further, it is hard to see how the third part, spirit is to fit in; its roles seem to be
partitioned between the two factors distinguished here. The rational part in fighting grief and
sorrow is said to obey nomos, ‘law’ or ‘convention’, in a way that makes it look like the kind
of motivation developed in the Auxiliaries. The rational principle determines how it feels, but
is seen as external to it. On the other hand, the emotions that have to be resisted, like grief,
seem at least as conceptually complex as anger, the spirit’s main emotion, and they are not
very like desires for particular objects. Plato in fact is very vague here about the soul’s lower
part. It does not have its clear role of being a collection of particular desires whose reasoning
capacity is limited to the attaining of particular satisfactions. It is treated as simply the trashy
part, the part, whatever it is like, that opposes reason. Plato presumably fails to see that his
argument will not work, that desire has nothing to do with optical illusion, because he thinks
of the lower part of the soul as being merely the trashy and reason-resisting part. In this
passage he always refers to it simply as the worthless part, keeping in the background the fact
that to be consistent with its roles elsewhere it would have to be the desiring part.
In both these arguments we find. Plato trying (unsuccessfully) to assimilate poetry to
painting–and to a debased form of painting at that. This underlines the most striking and
surprising feature of these two arguments. In Book 3 Plato was concerned to stress how
important the role of the arts is especially that of poetry. The poetry that surrounds people can
decisively influence their beliefs, for better or worse. (Plato is mainly thinking of the effects
on the developing minds of the young, but he is also concerned with people who have grown
up; there is no relaxation of censorship for adults). The arts, and particularly poetry, are
important because the education Plato stresses is character education, not academic training.
It is vital that the Guardians have not just the right beliefs but the right attitudes and motives,
and so it is important that their characters be developed by exposure to the right kind of
poetry and art. Existing poetry, like Homer’s, is attacked and severely censored because it is
seen as dangerous. However, in these two arguments in Book 10 poetry has been presented as
essentially trivial, as tacky as scene-painting, something that no serious person would bother
wasting time over. Plato has gone from accepting that poetry is important and dangerous, to
trying to prove that it is really trivial and marginal).
The forced and unconvincing assimilation to trompe-l’vil painting is vital for Plato’s
downgrading of poetry. Throughout this passage poetry is assailed in terms of contempt that
170
have become famous. ‘The poet, we are told, is despised because he devotes his life to
making images instead of originals; he deals with images of virtue only; he and his works are
at third remove from the truth; he lacks knowledge and even true belief because he deals only
in images, he is an imitator and as such held in low regard; his imitations consort with an
inferior part of the soul, and he goes in for easy popularity because most people lack the
discernment to see his products for what they are, mindless production appealing to the
mindless part of the soul. All these attempts to get us to see poetry as being trivial are given
their sense by the assimilation to painting. We have seen that the way we were introduced to
imitation in Book 3 did not suggest that imitation was trivial or contemptible; rather the
reverse, in fact. We have seen that the assimilation Book 10 attempts does not work, and that
Plato’s real hits against poetry are not dependent on it; but it is the sole base for his
denunciations of poetry as worthless and stupid.
Plato now adds a third argument against poetry; and to our surprise it reverts to the stand
point of Book 3 in complete contrast to the previous two arguments. The gravest charge
against poetry, Socrates says, has yet to be brought. It is able to corrupt even good men, with
very few exceptions, and.... is a terribly dangerous thing. The arts, and especially poetry,
encourage all our desires and make them hard to cope with in our own lives. The part of us
that takes pleasure in watching actors lament is the part that longs to indulge our own grief,
taking pleasure in laughing at comedies tends to make us cynical and unserious in real life.
The effect of poetry is to encourage the desires that ought to be suppressed in the virtuous
life. And Plato concludes, going beyond Book 3, that poetry is so dangerous, and so
attractive, that it must be banished entirely from the ideally just state. He recognizes that this
seems philistine, and perhaps absurd, but the struggle to be good or bad is important.
This argument is not merely a more rhetorical repetition of what was said in the second
one. It may seem so, because it renews the point that poetry fosters the lower part of the soul
against the rule of reason. But there are three important differences. Plato has reverted to the
Book 3 attitude of recognizing the importance of poetry in people’s lives (here he is thinking
of the performances of tragedy and recitations of Homer). In the first Book 10 argument,
Plato would have had us believe that poets are actually despised because they are not real
moral teachers with knowledge. Secondly, in this argument he has given up talking of poetry
in visual terms derived from the forced assimilation to painting. He talks straight forwardly
about what goes on in the theatre, and its effects on people. And thirdly, and most important,
he has reverted to the idea that poetry is important and dangerous, not something
contemptible and fatuous like mindless copying. Homer can make one stray from the right
path, and that is why although poetry has genuine pleasures, Homer is to be banished.
We thus get the odd spectacle of Plato arguing passionately for the banishment of poetry
because of its danger to the moral life, on the basis of arguments that show (if they
succeeded) that poetry is so trivial that it has no moral significance at all. This passage of
Book X makes us aware of a serious problem. It is not just that it adds a discussion of poetry
that changes the meaning and scope of imitation and argues that all poetry should be
banished, whereas Book 3 was more tolerant. The problem is deeper than that— Plato seems
to hold two inconsistent views about poetry; that it is important and dangerous, and so should
either be censored and tamed in the service of a truly moral life or expelled from the truly
171
moral life altogether as being hopelessly untrustworthy; and that it is a trivial and fatuous
thing, too pathetic even to be immoral. It is the first of these views which Plato holds most
consistently and which makes most sense of the development of the Republic. Plato is bound
to be worried about the influence of poetry when he gives such weight to the education of
people’s desires and characters, and it is only realistic for him to bear in mind the important
role of poetry in the popular education of his own day. (In a modern context he would be
talking about other forms of popular culture. By contrast he has to try and prove that poetry is
trivial. This he attempts in the first two arguments of Book 10; arguments that do not work,
because they rely on a forced and unconvincing assimilation of poetry to a wholly distinct art
form. (In any case they raise problems of consistency with what Plato says elsewhere about
knowledge, Forms, and the parts of the soul). It is therefore a mistake to take these two
arguments as being the essence of Plato’s ‘theory of art’, as is often done. In the course of
trying to prove a conclusion, the triviality of poetry, which he elsewhere implicitly rejects,
Plato puts forward a view of both poetry and painting which he endorses nowhere else. To
find Plato’s views on poetry, we would do better to look at Book 3, the third argument of
Book 10 and other dialogues such as the Ion and the Phaedrus.
II. From The Republic by F.M. Cornford (1973) Published by Oxford.
The Quarrel between Philosophy and Poetry
The attack on poetry in this Part has the air of an appendix, only superficially linked with the
preceding and following context. Possibly the strictures on dramatic poetry in Chapter IX had
become known8 and provoked criticism to which Plato wished to reply. In discussing the
early education of the Guardians he began by limiting the dramatic recitations of school-
children to the impersonation (mimesis) of appropriate types of character and forbidding the
realistic imitation (also mimesis) of animals’ cries and lifeless noises. Then, somewhat
unexpectedly, he proposed to banish altogether from his commonwealth all poetry which did
not conform to these standards, in terms which suggested the complete exclusion of tragedy
and comedy.
The excuse for returning to the subject of poetry is that, since that earlier passage, we
have had (i) the metaphysical distinction of the intelligible world of Forms known to the
philosopher and the sensible world which alone is recognized by the lover of sights and
sounds (Chapters XIX and XXIV); and (2) the analysis of the soul into three elements
(Chapter XIII). These furnish the basis for a wider attack (i) on poetry and art in general as
far removed from any apprehension of reality and (2) on dramatic poetry as psychologically
injurious.
How Representation in Art is Related to Truth
Readers who take this chapter as stating, for its own sake, an aesthetic theory of the nature of
art are surprised and shocked: the point of view seems as perverse, and even stupid, as

8
Since books were not printed or published at a fixed date, MS. copies of parts of a long work might be
circulated privately and pass out of the author's control. In the Parmenides Zeno complains that this had
happened to an early treatise of his own, which he would have preferred to suppress.

172
Tolstoy’s in What is Art? The main object of attack, however, is the claim, currently made by
sophists and professional reciters of the Homeric poems,9 that Homer in particular, and in a
less degree the tragedians, were masters of all technical knowledge, from wagon- building or
chariot-driving to strategy, and also moral and religious guides to the conduct of life.10 As
such, the poet becomes the rival of the philosopher as conceived by Plato, and the study of
poetry an alternative to the severe intellectual training of the Academy. If wisdom is to be
gained only through knowledge of the real world of Forms disclosed by Dialectic, the claim
that the poet can educate mankind to virtue must be as hollow as the pretence that the artist
knows all about shoe making because he can paint a life-like picture of a shoemaker. How
much knowledge of ultimate values does the poet need in order to paint in words his pictures
of human life?
The painter is taken first by way of illustration. A picture of a bed is a two-dimensional
representation of the appearance of a solid object seen at a certain angle. The object itself is
only a particular bed, which, as a part of the material world, is not a wholly real thing, since it
comes into being and perishes and is perpetually changing; it belongs to the realm of
Becoming characterized in Chapter XIX. This actual bed, however, is nearer `to reality than
the picture, because it is one of many embodiments of the essential nature common to all
beds. Beds can be made of wood or iron or canvas and may vary indefinitely in size, shape,
colour, etc. But they cannot be called beds at all unless they serve the purpose of a bed, a
thing designed to be slept on. This purpose, however hard to define, may be called the
essence or Form of Bed, and in Plato’s view it is the unique and unvarying reality which must
be, however imperfectly, embodied in any bed, and is in one sense the meaning of the word
‘Bed.’ (Plato speaks here of this essential Bed as ‘in the nature of things,’ i.e. in the real
world of Forms, and as made by a god, though the Forms are elsewhere described as not
made by anyone, but eternal, and there is a difficulty in supposing eternal Forms of the
products of human workmanship. These points, however, need not be pressed. The bed was
perhaps chosen for illustrative purposes because beds are obviously made by a practical
craftsman, whom Plato wishes to contrast with the fine artist, whereas the maker of natural
objects, the divine Demiurge of the Timaeus, is a mythical figure who could not be
introduced without a long explanation.) The upshot is that the artist’s picture of a bed is at
two removes from the essential Form. It is only as it were a mirror-image of a sensible thing,
which itself is only one embodiment (with many accidental features) of the real Form, the
object of knowledge.
Poetry is like a picture in words, a representation of life. However skilfully executed, it is
no evidence that the poet really possessed the knowledge required for the right conduct of
actual life. This knowledge is not to be gained by studying his portraits of heroic characters,
any more than we can learn how to drive a chariot or conduct a campaign from his
descriptions of a chariot-race or of the Trojan war. Socrates’ examination of the poet had
convinced him that they worked, not with conscious intelligence„ but from inspiration, like
9
Such as Ion in Plato's dialogue of that name.
10
In Xenophon's Symposium, iii. 5. Niceratus says his father made him learn all Homer by heart in order that he
might become a good man.

173
seers and oracle-mongers who do not understand the meaning of the fine language they use
(Apology, 22 B).
In this chapter mimesis has a wider sense than dramatic impersonation: the nearest
English word is `representation,’ applicable to many forms of fine art. The usual rendering
‘imitation’ is misleading. We do not say that Garrick, still less that Shakespeare, imitated the
character of Hamlet; or that Raphael imitated Julius II; or that the Passion music imitates
religious emotion. In all these cases mimesis would be used. The substantive mimetes can be
rendered in this context by ‘artist.’ On the other hand, memesis does also mean `imitation,’
and this encourages the suggestion that tragic acting is on a level with mimicry and that fine
art in general is no more than a copying of external appearances. The view that a work of art
is an image or likeness (eikon) of some original, or holds a mirror up to nature, became
prominent towards the end of the fifth century together with the realistic drama of Euripides
and the illusionistic painting of Zeuxis. Plato’s attack adopts this theory. The art which claims
to be ‘realistic’ is, in his view, as far as possible reality.
III. From Introduction to Aristotle/Horace/Longinus: Classical Literary Criticism by T.S.
Dorsch (1965) Published by Penguin Books
Everyone knows that Plato attacked poets and poetry, and excluded poets from his ideal
republic. It is not so generally known that he attacked them only for particular reasons and in
particular contexts. He himself wrote poetry, and wrote very poetically in his prose works;
and although there were qualities in much existing poetry of which he did not approve, it is
clear from many remarks in the dialogues that, generally speaking, he found much pleasure in
poetry. In The Republic, where his so- called attack is most fully developed, his main
preoccupations are Political, not artistic. He banishes literature and the arts because they have
no political utility and may indeed exert an adverse influence on the particular virtues that
must be himself wrote poetry, and wrote very poetically in his prose works; and although
there were qualities in much existing poetry of which he did not approve, it is clear from
many remarks in the dialogues that, generally speaking, he found much pleasure in poetry. In
The Republic, where his so- called attack is most fully developed, his main preoccupations
are Political, not artistic. He banishes literature and the arts because they have no political
utility and may indeed exert an adverse influence on the particular virtues that must be
fostered for the proper maintenance of his ideal common- wealth. He banishes the poets, but
before doing so, he anoints them with myrrh and crowns them with garlands. He must banish
them on political grounds, but honours them by other standards.
Plato’s discussion of poetry in The Republic is to be found at the end of the second and
the beginning of the third Books, and in the tenth Book. In Book III he is mainly concerned
with the education of the Guardians of his commonwealth, and he begins with their literary
education, which he considers under three heads, theological moral, and formal.
Now young people are impressionable, says Socrates, and any impression we choose to
make leaves a permanent mark. He goes on to argue that God is perfectly good, and therefore
both changeless and incapable of deceit, but the poets often show him as falling short in these
respects; they misrepresent gods and heroes, ‘like a portrait painter who fails to catch a
likeness, and thus in the theological sense they are unsuitable preceptors (Republic II, 377-
174
83). On moral grounds, too, most existing poetry is unsuitable for educational purposes, for in
their accounts of the gods and of the great heroes of the past the poets have depicted various
forms of moral weakness, and here again they will have a bad effect on the minds of the
young (ibid.III, 386-92). In the discussion of the form, or manner of presentation, of poetry
we encounter for the first time the term mimesis, or imitation, which is to figure so largely
again in book X of The Republic and in Aristotle’s Poetics. Here in Book III Plato uses it in a
rather specialized sense, perhaps best translated as `impersonation’: that is, what the poet
does when he is not speaking in his own person, as he does in lyric, but, by the use of direct
speech in drama or in parts of epic, represents or impersonates another person. In their
reading aloud from the poets (which formed a large part of Greek education) the young future
Guardians, Plato causes Socrates to say, will learn by the poets’ example to depart from their
own characters by having to represent other characters, including bad character. This will not
do in a republic in which everyone has to learn how best to play his own part, and not to
interfere with the functions of other people (ibid. III, 394-8). For his illustrations of the bad
influence of the poets on the bringing up of his Guardians Plato draws chiefly on Homer,
Hesiod and the tragic playwrights.
At the beginning of Book X (595-602.) Plato’s general argument is that poetry and the
arts are illusion. In comparison with the meaning he attaches to it in Book III, he greatly
extends and deepens the sense of the term mimesis. He now uses it to signify imitation, or
representation, in the much wider sense of the copying of reality—of the objects and
circumstances of the actual world—by means of literature and the visual arts. In literature this
implies the attempt to reproduce life exactly as it is. Of this Plato cannot approve, and he
gives the grounds of his disapproval in terms of his Theory of Ideas. According to this theory
everything that exists, or happens, in this world is an imperfect copy of an ideal object or
action or state that has an ideal existence beyond this world. The productions of the poets
(and artists) are therefore imitations of imperfect copies of an ideal life; they are third-hand
and unreal, and can teach us nothing of value about life.
Plato goes on to argue in some detail that the appeal of poetry is to the lower, less
rational, part of our nature: it strengthens the lower elements in the mind at the expense of
reason.
Finally Plato takes up again the charge that poetry is a bad moral influence. But whereas
in Book III he had related his argument to the education of his Guardians, here he widens its
scope, as he has done with mimesis. He now maintains that poetry, especially dramatic
poetry, has a had moral effect on these, who hear it, for they soon learn to admire it, and
thence to model themselves on the weaknesses and faults that it represents.
In The Laws, where his subject is again the nature of an ideal state, Plato’s discussion of
the place of literature and art in education is more general. The citizens, he says, must be
educated in good art, and good art, he concludes, is that in which not only is the imitation –
all art being imitative–as true as it is possible to wisdom. But, in the arguments put forward
by Socrates, Plato makes clear his belief that this indiscriminate admiration for the poets is
mere superstition, and that their judgements on conduct and morality are unreliable. This
unreliability comes from the fact that, as Plato expresses it in the Apology (22c), poets

175
compose their works not under the influence of wisdom, ‘but by reason of some natural
endowment and under the power of non-rational inspiration’. This notion of the irrationality
of the poets is further developed in the Phaedrus (244) and the Ion (534), where they are
equated with madmen and men who merely reproduce in a state of frenzy what the Muse has
inspired them to say. Nor will Plato have anything to do with the allegorical interpretation,
fashionable in his day, of that which in the poets appears obscure or contradictory. He rejects
such interpretations, not only in The Republic, but also in the Protagoras (347e) and the
Phaedrus (229).
Much has been made of Plato’s animadversions on poets and poetry, but be is very far
from being merely a negative critic. Even in The Republic (607) he is ready to give a
favourable hearing to those who wish to defend poetry, ‘as we shall gain much if we find her
a source of profit as well as pleasure’; and, as has been shown, he is in The Laws prepared to
accept the mimetic arts of epic and drama if only their poets will imitate worthy things.
However, he puts forward more positively constructive views than these. In the
Phaedrus (245a, 265 he gives a deeper meaning to the concept of inspiration than that which
has already been mentioned; inspiration, can indeed, give rise to the utterances of a madman,
but it can also be ‘a divine release of the soul from the yoke of custom and convention’. In
the same work (264) he discusses the principle of organic unity, which he considers basic to
the whole idea of art. He speaks to the same effect in the Gorgias (503), and touches on it
also in The Republic (398). In other respects he inaugurates systems or points of view which
have become commonplaces in the criticism of later ages. In The Republic, as has been seen,
he draws distinctions, according to their manner of presentation, between epic, lyric, and
drama. In The Laws (817) he speaks of the truest tragedy as that which represents the best and
noblest type of life, a view later developed by Aristotle, and taken up by Renaissance critics.
In The Republic (387, 605) and the Phaedrus (268) he accepts pity and fear as the emotions
particularly awakened by tragedy, another conception which was carried further by Aristotle.
In the Philebus (47-8) he embarks on a topic which has been much discussed by recent
theorists of tragedy, that of ‘tragic pleasure’ – the special kind of pleasure that we derive
from watching a good tragedy. He is the first critic who is known to have theorized
constructively on the nature of comedy, largely in the Philebus (48-9). And it may he
mentioned in passing that he also contributed sensibly to rhetorical theory.
So far Plato has been considered only as a speculative critic. He frequently demonstrates
that he is a good practical critic as well. To give only two or three examples, in the
Symposium (194-7) he exposes the extravagances and mannerisms of the poet Agathon by
means of devastating parody. In the Protagoras (344) he causes Socrates to deride Protagoras
and others for their misguided methods in criticizing an ode by Simonides; Socrates himself
draws attention to its excellent craftsmanship and its wealth of fine detail, and says that it
should be judged according to its total effect, not merely by reference to isolated phrases.
Moreover, Plato more than once mocks the sensationalism of contemporary tragic
playwrights, and in the Cratylus (425) their excessive use of the deus ex machina to get them
out of difficult situation.

176
 Unit-5 (b)

Poetics
Aristotle
(Chapters: 6-17, 23, 24 & 26)
Shriya Pandey

1. Introduction
1.1 Who is Aristotle?
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was the son of Nicomachus, a court physician to Amyntas II
grandfather of Alexander III of Macedon widely known as Alexander the Great. In 343 B C,
King Philip of Macedon invited Aristotle to tutor his son Alexander III. Aristotle was also
one of the brightest students at Plato’s academy, who just like his mentor established
‘Lyceum’ in Athens, a school of rhetoric and philosophy. Aristotle had to move to Chalcis in
Macedonia after being charged with impiety just like Socrates.
Andronicus of Rhodes in the 1st century BC published the only one quarter of actual
work by Aristotle which survived. It is through these lecture notes indited by Aristotle and his
students that he is known in the literary world. Aristotle was captivated by empirical
observation of natural phenomenon, more so biology. His notable contribution to the history
of thoughts traverses several fields such as literary criticism, ethics, politics and various
branches of natural science.
1.2Aristotle’s Poetics
‘Poetics’ was written around 335 BC and is considered to be the first formal philosophical
explanation of literary theory. As we know. Aristotle was a student in Plato’s academy. Plato
in his work the ‘Republic’ (375 BC) criticized poetry, as unscholarly and mere imitation of
‘real’. In Book X of the ‘Republic’ Plato says, “We will give her champions, not poets
themselves but poet lovers, an opportunity to make her defense in plain prose and show that
she is not only sweet- as we well know- but also helpful to society and the life of man, and
we will listen in a kindly spirit. For we shall be gainers, I take it, if this can be proved.” It
could be said that Aristotle after reading these lines took upon himself to establish the
significance of poetry.
‘Poetics’ looks into poetry “in itself”. The work tries to lay the ground work that would
accord poetry the status of productive sciences that served a social and moral purpose.
‘Poetics’ as it is now constituted is incomplete; it is believed by academicians that there was
more than one book. The fragment as we read now has total of 26 chapters.

177
2. Learning Objectives
The philosophy and literary theory of Aristotle integrally shaped the field of western literary
criticism. After going through this lesson you will be able to;
 Understand Aristotle`s contribution to the history of thoughts and its significance in
shaping the field of literary criticism.
 Recognize the allusions in various literary works and also interpret the terms of a
critical debate, as well as its larger socio-political implication.
 Understand what constitutes a Tragedy
 Understand the idea of a Plot
 Understand the concept of Unity of Action and the language of tragedy
 Understand characterization and who is an ideal Hero of a tragedy
 Differentiate between Epic and Tragedy
 Understand the Metaphysical and Ethical Contexts of the ‘Poetics’
3. Synopsis
3.1 CHAPTER VI: A discourse on Tragedy and its component parts.
According to Malcolm Heath’s translation, Aristotle defines Tragedy in chapter VI as
follows:
“Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is admirable [spoudaios, serious], complete and
possess magnitude; in language made pleasurable, each of its species separated in different
parts, performed by actors, not through narration; effecting through pity and fear the
purification of such emotions.”
Hence, Aristotle defines Tragedy as, the imitation of an action that is of relative
importance, seriousness and complete in itself. The language should be such that it affords
satisfaction and is used to express the needs of the separate parts of the work, in a dramatic
and not narrative form. There should be a sense of rhythm and harmony, with songs and
verses used accordingly to give the described incident a sense of completeness. The incidents
should invoke the feeling of pity and fear, so as to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions.
By action (praxis) Aristotle refers to the sequence of events in a play; beginning, middle and
the end. Language (lexis) as mentioned earlier includes dialogue and songs.
Aristotle further moves on to highlight the six component parts of Tragedy Spectacle,
Character, Fable, Diction, Melody, and Thought. He begins the section with an introduction
of Spectacle, which is the mask worn by the actors as well as their costumes. Melody is the
choric odes or lyric poetry. Diction is the composition of verses or can also signify the
exchange of conversation between actors along with the song sung by the chorus. Both
Diction and Melody are a means of imitation by the actors. Two more components are
introduced by him which are; Character (ethos), the moral aspects of the agents in a play and,
Thought or reasoning (dianoia) which is the reflective aspect of the agents in a play. Aristotle

178
binds the five components together through the idea of Fable or Plot, which the combination
of the incidents or things done in the story.
According to Aristotle, the most important of the six is the Plot or combination of the
incidents of the story. Character in a plot gives it quality but it is included for the sake of
action, which is its Fable or Plot. It is the plot which is the chief purpose of the Tragedy.
Hence, it is possible to not have a strong character but a tragedy is impossible without action.
A Tragedy might not produce the true tragic effect even after eloquent series of characteristic
speeches which are Thought and Diction if it has an inferior plot. The indispensable
constituent of Tragedy, Peripeties and Discoveries, are a part of plot. Aristotle considers
Melody to be the greatest of pleasurable accessories of Tragedy and Spectacle nothing more
than a mere attraction. Yet, he firmly believes Plot is the life and soul of any Tragedy.
Check Your Progress-1
1. How does Aristotle define Tragedy?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

2. What are the six main components of Tragedy and, according to Aristotle, which is
the most important one?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

3.2 Chapter VII: Tragic Plot: Completeness and Magnitude

Tragedy has been defined by Aristotle as an imitation of action that is “complete” and of a
“certain magnitude”. Hence, in this chapter Aristotle gives a description of completeness and
magnitude in a Tragedy.
According to him, Completeness or “complete” means an action which has a proper
beginning, middle, and an end. The proper beginning to him is which is just like sowing a
seed, that is, an action which doesn’t follow but is a throttle that would lead to unfolding of
various other incidents. Middle is the outcome of the beginning and a catalyst that will
towards the end. The end is a final action which will complete the plot. The end binds all the
actions together and leaves no room for any unanswered questions.
Aristotle gives the example of ‘Oedipus the King’ and highlights how there were various
possible beginnings for it, for example, the life history of the protagonist and myth associated
with Oedipus. Yet, in a Tragedy, it is not the history of a person but a single action the

179
dramatist has to focus on in order to compose a great Tragedy. Therefore, the beginning of a
Tragedy should be such that it has no link to the knowledge of the things which have
happened prior to the commencement of the first action. The end according to Aristotle has to
equally unprompted. He again gives the example of ‘Oedipus the King’ and highlights how
Sophocles does not terminate the action through death. Instead we see Oedipus abdicating the
throne and leaving Thebes to live a life of recluse to repent his actions. The end is complete
in itself, even though we know from ‘Oedipus at Colonus’ that Oedipus did have a future
after the end of ‘Oedipus the King’.
Aristotle then discusses the idea of magnitude, which according to him accords the
Tragedy its aesthetic qualities because a Tragedy might be complete yet either too small or
too big. Hence, Magnitude can be defined as the size, proportion and symmetry of any
Tragedy. According to the definition, Aristotle espouses that the length of a tragic plot should
be such that it can be apprehended by spectators so that they are able to link one event with
other easily. The length of Tragedy should meet the inner demands of the plot; this is to say
that it should show a change in the fortunes of a protagonist. For example, in ‘Oedipus the
King’ Sophocles proves the magnitude by intricately drawing the trajectory from Oedipus’s
prosperity to his humiliating fall.
Check Your Progress-2
1. How should a Tragedy begin?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

2. How long should be the length of a tragic plot?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

3.3 Chapter VIII: Tragic Plot: The Unity of Action

The idea of magnitude and completeness as described above is relevant in understanding the
concept of unity of action in a Tragedy. According to Aristotle, the unity of the plot and unity
of the tragic protagonist are completely different ideas. For example, Odysseus does not
become a unified play just because it encompasses all the major life events in the
protagonist’s life. In a Tragedy it is to be observed and followed that it is just an imitation of
a single, unified action. Inclusion of incidents which do not help in producing the desired end,
are insignificant. They make the plots episodic, and episodic have ben vehemently denounced
by Aristotle. Therefore, a tragic playwright should only include incidents which help the plot
180
unfold in a sequential manner that would lead to an end which is “complete in itself”.
Nonetheless, Aristotle praises Homer as one of the greatest epic writers. Aristotle gives the
example of ‘The Iliad’ by Homer contrasting them with ‘The Heracleid’ and ‘The Theseid’
which have a unified plot. Yet, he makes clear demarcation between the plot requirement of
Epic and Tragedy.
3.4 Chapter IX: Poetry versus History
The prior discourse on the need of unity in the incidents of Tragedy is further elaborated by
highlighting ways to achieve this unity. The rule that Aristotle foregrounds to achieve the
unity is “necessity and probability” in the arrangement of events. It is in the examination of
“necessity and probability” that Aristotle throws light on the difference between the poetic
and the historical truth.”
“Necessity” has been defined as an unpremeditated relationship between the incidents of
plot. The rule necessity stated that incidents should be interrelated to each other in terms that
latter is the outcome of former. Yet, even if an incident at times is not the outcome of the
action before it, Aristotle does not denounce it, because for him, Necessity is “marvelous” or
chance element in a play, a playwright cannot be rigid about it. “Probability” is an element in
a tragic plot that makes their sequence probable or likely. This is to say, incident 2 might not
be a “necessary” outcome of incident 1. Yet, in a given situation it is the most likely outcome.
The playwright may sacrifice “necessity” where it is not possible. But, he cannot overlook
“probability”. The two concepts are essential for a tragic plot as they provide for a certain
degree of irreversibility in the pattern of events.
Aristotle along with his explanation of “necessity” and “probability” ingeniously puts
forward the difference between the historical and the poetic truth. Through this he also
establishes the identity of Poetry as a form of art that serves an important purpose, a reply to
Plato. According to Aristotle History is not governed by the rule of “necessity and
probability” like Poetry. History deals with the actual events while Poetry is an imitation of
that event. But, while history records the incidents as they happened, Poetry shares an
experience which is probable. In sharing a probable experience, Poetry then serves a greater
moral purpose by making the experience more general and universal.

Check Your Progress-3

1. How is the unity of action achieved in a tragic plot?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3.5 Chapter X: Simple and Complex Plots

The chapter discusses the difference between two kinds of plots: simple and complex. A
simple plot is the one in which action moves in a straight line, evolving towards a tragic end.
181
A complex plot, in contrast to it includes reversal of the situation, with or without the
recognition of the true situation. The only condition imposed on a complex plot is both
reversal and discovery should come from within without the interference of any external
stimuli.
3.6 Chapter XI: Peripeteia and Anagnorisis (Reversal and Discovery)
The chapter discusses in details the meaning of Peripeteia (Reversal) and Anagnorisis
(Discovery). According to the Aristotelian theory, Reversal of the situation (Peripeteia), is a
change in the course of action from one sate to its opposite just like in ‘Oedipus the King’ a
change in fortune, from happiness to misery or from adversity to prosperity. Usually in a
tragic plot the change is from happiness to adversity, it is only in comic or a happy plot that
the fortune changes from misery to happiness.
Discovery or Recognition (Anagnorisis) is interrelated to Peripeteia. In the case of
Discovery, in a tragic plot, means a sudden discovery of knowledge which brings about the
reversal in the situation. In ‘Oedipus the King’ the revelation by Corinthian shepherd leads to
Discovery of Oedipus’s true identity and in turn to reversal of the entire situation. According
to Aristotle, an ideal complex plot is the one in which the two elements, Peripeteia and
Anagnorisis are combined and given an impression of suddenness.
3.7 Chapter XII: Quantitative Parts of a Tragedy
According to Aristotle, a Tragedy consists of a prologue, episodes, choral odes and exode. A
choral ode is then further divided into two parts parode and stasimon. Prologue comes before
the entry of the chorus. It is an introductory note that provides the necessary background
information about the events, characters and themes. Episode is a form of dramatic action and
consists of activities of characters, the interaction between them, and the conversation
between chorus and characters. An episode comes between two choral odes. Chorus consists
of a group of people that sing or speak the choral ode. The odes are usually the narration of
the action which is linked to the main plot. An exode, comes after the last choral ode. Choral
ode is divided into two parts; Parode is the first undivided utterance of the chorus. Stasimon
is a choral ode without anapests or trochaic tetrameter. Aristotle also mentions one more part,
Kommos, which is a song of lamentation, sung by chorus and characters together.

Check Your Progress-4

1. What are the quantitative parts of a Tragedy?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3.8 Chapter XIII: The Ideal Hero for a Tragic Plot

The ideal tragic hero is measured in terms of the plot, which are ‘action’ in which there is a
change from one state to its opposite and ‘tragic effect’, the catharsis of the feelings of pity

182
and fear. Aristotle mentions four categories of tragic heroes. Foremost, he describes a hero
who is virtuous and just, yet falls from a state of prosperity to adversity. But, such a tragic
hero is not able to invoke the feelings of pity and fear. Second is a kind of action wherein a
tragic dramatist portrays a vicious person who rises from misery to happiness, it is highly
unsuitable for a tragic plot. The third is an action in which a vicious person meets his tragic
fate; this too is unable to arouse a feeling of pity and fear. The fourth category, according to
Aristotle is the ideal category. The tragic hero is described as someone who should be better
than the average but not perfectly virtuous or just. He falls from the state of prosperity to that
of adversity, because of his own ‘Hamartia’ or tragic error. The quintessential example of this
is, Oedipus in ‘Oedipus the King’.
3.9 Chapter XIV: Deeds Suitable for Tragedy
Structure and Spectacle: Aristotle puts forward the use of Structure and spectacle in arousing
the feelings of pity and fear in order to provide catharsis or purgation. Spectacle is the use of
stage-machinery or terrible stage pictures, in order to accessorize the incidents in the plot and
produce the feelings of pity and fear. Aristotle says that the structure of the plot should be
such that it is self-sufficient. This is to say that a Tragedy should be enjoyable even if it is
only read and not performed. The reason behind it being that the Greek Tragedy that Aristotle
based his theoretical premise on did not showcase the cruelty or violence on stage. For
example, the most tragic deeds in ‘Oedipus the King’ like suicide of Jocasta and Oedipus’
self-blinding were narrated and not performed.
Tragic Deeds: According to Aristotle there are three kinds of tragic deeds: a) Enemies
killing each other, b) strangers killing each other or, c) two close friends or blood relations
committing the tragic deed. Aristotle stresses that the ideal tragic deed is the case of hostility
amongst friends or blood relations. The word deed is that in which a person, fully conscious,
contemplates a deed of cruelty but leaves it undone either due to fear or any other reason.
Aristotle divides Tragic Deeds into three categories on the basis of just contemplation and
execution after contemplation. The first category is where the character consciously
contemplates and commits the deed. The second category is in which the character commits
the deed in ignorance of the facts. The third category is in which the character contemplates
to commit the deed in ignorance of the facts but does not because of the discovery of the true
identity of the victim. The third category is considered to be ideal by Aristotle.
Check Your Progress-5
1. Who is an ideal tragic hero?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

183
 2. What are the three different kinds of tragic deeds?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

3.10 Chapter XV: Characterization

The chapter provides an organized view of the types of tragic protagonist and the ‘right’
portrayal of them by a playwright. He foregrounds four rules; a) Characters of a tragedy
should be good, to some degree, b) realistic, c) he should have consistency, d) and
appropriateness.
‘According to Aristotle the goodness of a tragic protagonists that he is ‘noble’ but not
morally excellent, similarly he is ‘just’ but not perfectly so. The characteristics of the
characters of a tragedy should ‘add grandeur’ to a plot. A tragic protagonist should be
relatable, and this is what Aristotle means by it being ‘realistic’. So, that the play serves its
purpose of providing purgation. The character of a tragic plot should represent its character
through his countenance. The last rule by Aristotle in elaboration states that the character
traits should remain consistent of a tragic protagonist. The character should be depicted in the
same way a painter makes portraits.
3.11 Chapter XVI: Kinds of Discovery
The chapter discusses the means by which discovery becomes possible. The first one is,
‘signs or tokens’ with the help of which identity of one person is revealed to another. The
method has been kept at the bottom of hierarchy foregrounded by Aristotle in terms of its
aesthetic appeal. The reason is that it is not reliable. The second kind of discovery is when the
playwright reveals the truth in order to ‘solve some problem’ of the plot. According to
Aristotle, this kind of discovery pays no heed to the rules of necessity and probability. The
third kind of discovery is considered to be superior to the above two mentioned, because it
has some relevance to the plot line. It is recognition or discovery due to character’s ‘sudden
remembering’ of something.
The fourth and fifth types of ‘discovery’ as deployed by the playwright are based on
reasoning. The recognition seeps in through the process of reasoning in the former, and in
latter is brought about by false reasoning. The best kind of discovery, according to Aristotle
is the sixth, where the incidents of the plot lead to self- discovery. As is the case in ‘Oedipus
Rex’ by Sophocles, Oedipus discovers his true identity through the gradual unfolding of the
plot. This kind of discovery abides by the rules of probability and necessity, which are of
utmost importance in any Tragedy.

184
Check Your Progress-6
1. What are the four rules of characterization?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What are the five kinds of discovery?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3.12 Chapter XVII: The Process of Composing Tragedies

The chapter highlights the rules of composing Tragedies. The first rule is ‘Visualizing the
incidents’ in such a way that they are an exact representation of the incidents. The spectator
should be able to easily understand the actions through the appropriate employment of
pictorial representation. The second rule according to Aristotle is, ‘Language and Gestures’; a
playwright should delineate his characters in such a way that they give a psychological
insight through their gestures and language. The language and gesture should portray the
circumstances accurately to create convincing characters. The third rule of Aristotle is that
the plot of a Tragedy should be ‘Universal’ in their form. In order to do this, playwright
should thoughtfully construct the outline of the plot. The characterization, language, stage
props so on and so forth should be in consistence with plot development.
3.13 Chapter XXIII: Epic and Tragedy
The chapter contrasts and compares between Epic and Tragedy, in terms of action and plot.
According to Aristotle, an Epic narrative should also be dealt in the same way as a Tragedy.
Epic writers instead of using a single meter should follow the dramatic manner in the mixing
of meters, just like Homer. An Epic too should have a single action or unified action without
intermixing of various events. Although, the Epic follows the trajectory of history yet, unlike
history, it is not concerned with the whole period. Hence, an Epic writer should confine its
portrayal of actions. Aristotle gives the example of Homer’s ‘The Iliad’ where he has
confined the action of his Epic to a limited portion of the war, highlighting the fall of Troy.
The unity of Epic might differ from that of Tragedy, because in an Epic digression are
allowed if they accessorize the plot.
3.14 Chapter XXIV: Epic and Tragedy
The chapter continues in the line of tenor regarding Epic and Tragedy. Aristotle says, while
there might be similarities of the plot requirements like the need for plot reversal, for example
Discovery. Aristotle gives the example of Homer’s the ‘Iliad’ which is full of pathos and
185
‘Odyssey’ as being complex with precisely delineated character’s to enhance the plotline.
Epic and Tragedy differ in its meter and its length. He applauds the work of Homer who only
imitated the narration and gave his characters the space to dramatize the action. But, still an
Epic is the improbable or irrational upon which the marvelous is placed. Also, the absurdity
of presenting several actions together on stage passes unnoticed in Epic poetry. According to
Aristotle, a Tragedy should always prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities.
The tragic plot should not comprise of irrational parts, as well as should employ its meters, be
it iambic or trochaic tetrameters with utmost skillfulness.
3.15 Chapter XXVI: Which is Superior; Epic or Tragedy?
According to Aristotle, Tragedy is far more superior to Epic because a Tragedy comprises of
all the formative elements of the Epic and has two more; song and spectacle. Hence, a
Tragedy is far more engrossing. He also responds to the traditional criticism of Tragedy that
has deemed it to be of lower form because the effect of Tragedy is solely dependent on its
performance. Aristotle says that Epic too can lose the magnificence in its recital, even though
it is not dependent on the performance.
Check Your Progress-7
1. What are the differences between Epic and Tragedy?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

4. Themes
4.1 The Metaphysical and Ethical Contexts of the ‘Poetics’
Aristotle doesn’t seem to embrace the idea of poetical autonomy. Instead, we see him
defending poetry as a part of “productive” sciences. Poetry too according to him served a
moral and social function, a rational pursuit. The ‘Poetics’ is a theoretical exposition on the
nature and function of poetry as well as a strong critique of Plato’s view regarding poetry.
Hence, it becomes important to analyze the Metaphysical and Ethical context of ‘Poetics’.
‘Poetics’ in describing the subtleties of a Tragedy, characters, plot, action, epic and so on
and so forth, also rejects the bland utilitarianism espoused by Plato’s ‘Republic’. Aristotle
seems to reject the constant demand for the usefulness of a pursuit as not being relevant to the
broader vision. Although, he does oppose the confined view of mechanical utilitarianism, yet
he insists that art is useful only if it helps in developing the attributes of a person. He states
that there should be a natural connection between the pleasure derived from art and the virtue
nspired by it.

186
 The Metaphysical characteristics in a Tragedy according to Aristotle are notions of unity,
possibility, rationality, necessity, universality. These derive from his metaphysical principles
of, teleology of both individual and state, the principle of moderation, acceptance of plurality
and empirical method. In order for the art work to serve a productive purpose it should abide
by these rules.
4.2 Imitation and Action
Aristotle believes art as being a mode of imitation. But his view of imitation is different from
that of Plato. He sees imitation as a basic human instinct and allows it to be a source toward
truth and knowledge. Imitation is also a source of pleasure along with learning. Aristotle
places high priority on action. According to him, action should have a moral end or purpose.
4.3 The Concept of Imitation
Aristotle states that the origin of art lies in imitation. According to him, imitation is a
formalization of impulses, a rational development of instincts, unlike the view foregrounded
by Plato that a Poet is divinely possessed. The actions imitated should be of moral
significance. But, the portrayal of a human being should vary from the norm, as in the case of
Tragedy or Comedy, because the mechanical moral realism is for the discipline of History.
4.4 The Concept of Action.
According to Aristotle, Tragedy is essentially dramatic. A Tragedy must be based on a certain
structure of events to which the actions of characters in the play contribute. The action must
take place within a complex network of human relationship because individuals do not act in
isolation. A Tragedy should represent complete action in order to arouse the feeling of pity
and fear. Action is what drives the plot to a great extent, as it is not the character a Tragedy
focuses on but the sequence of action. As an action might be uncharacteristic but might
occupy space in the sequence of cause and effect which are beyond the imagination of mere
mortals.
Check Your Progress-8
1. What, according to Aristotle, are the metaphysical characteristics of a Tragedy?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Things to Remember:
1. The idea of Tragedy as defined by Aristotle (unit 3.1)
2. The various types of tragic plot and characters (unit 3.2/ 3.3)
3. Tragic flaw, Discovery, Recognition, Catharsis and their representation (unit 3.8-3.11)
4. Epic and Tragedy (unit 3.13-3.15)

187
 Unit-5(c)

Sappho
Shruti Sareen

Learning Objectives
 To be able to understand the two poems in the syllabus
 To be able to interpret the poems in the light of our knowledge about Sappho’s life
and ancient Greece

Introduction
Personal Life
Sappho is believed to have lived in Greece in the town of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos in
the 6th Century BC. She is believed to have had three brothers, out of which one brother is
known to have spent a lot of money flirting with a courtesan (prostitute, veshya, randi). He
later joined the pirates in the sea. Sappho did not approve of his actions. It is believed that her
mother was called Cleis, and her daughter was named Cleis also, after her grandmother.
Sappho’s father’s name is widely believed to be Scamandronymous, after a famous river,
Scamander. Sappho is known to have married a rich man called Cercylas or Cercolas from
one of the neighbouring islands. It is believed that Sappho’s family was wealthy and
influential because of several reasons: her father was named after a famous river, her brother
spent a lot of money on the courtesan, and she married a very rich man. Her family was also
important enough to have been sent to exile—they went to Sicily during the time of their
banishment / exile. It is also believed that another brother of hers had the opportunity of
pouring wine during a ceremony. As this was an honour given only to the nobility, it again
shows that Sappho’s family was probably from the wealthy aristocracy. She had many
lovers—men as well as women—and it is believed that perhaps she died because of
committing suicide because of unrequited love. However, this could be a myth and may not
be a fact.

Professional Life
She is known to have had a circle of students around her, to whom she taught poetry, music,
and various things to prepare them to be brides, wives and mothers. She is known to have
been the best woman-poet and even great philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle held
her wisdom, knowledge and art in great respect. She was so famous that her name, face and
verses are inscribed on many ancient Greek vases. So she is a poet par excellence, and she is
known to be a kind of school-mistress. Some scholars also believe her to have been a kind of
priestess to the Gods. However, others say that she just took part in the usual prayers and
ceremonies just like other women in Greece at that time did, and that some of her poems were
odes and tributes to goddesses like Aphrodite, which may give rise to the idea that she could
be a priestess. The subjects of her poems / songs were usually love, festivals, and religious
ceremonies—which also makes it seem that she came from a rich, aristocratic family as her
188
poems are not about ordinary daily activities such as cooking, weaving etc. On one hand, she
was very respected as a wise woman, poet and teacher. On the other hand however, she was
mocked and ridiculed for having so many lovers—men as well as women. Sappho’s poems
were more like songs and were sung to the accompaniment of the lyre, which is a musical
instrument. She made her own new techniques in terms of musical instruments, ways of
playing them, metre of the poems etc. (metre—number of syllables in one line)
Sources
It is extremely difficult to actually know and be sure about Sappho’s life. A lot of information
is available from the 4th century BC, which is about two hundred years after Sappho’s time.
During the 4th century BC, a lot of Greek comedy was common, and the comedies have
distorted information about Sappho through their satires, caricatures, melodrama and
sensationalism. So we do not know if everything is true or not. Very few of Sappho’s poems
have survived whole, most have some parts missing, and thus it is difficult to get full
information out of them. Some information is from what Sappho herself has written, some
from what other writers and philosophers have written about her. Moreover, these sources are
in Greek, so they have to be translated and always the meaning is not clear. Sappho uses the
personal pronoun “I” in her poems. However, we cannot be sure if it refers to the poet herself
or to a fictional narrator. Sometimes, the same person is called by many different names in
different places. All this has complicated the reliability and veracity of information we have
about Sappho. Songs are oral. Of course Sappho has also written her fragments, but oral
songs and stories get lost as they cannot be stored, unlike the written form. Thus, it is very
difficult for us to actually know the details of Sappho’s life.
Lyric Poetry in Ancient Greece
The Ancient Greeks considered poetry a much higher form of art than prose. There were
various types of poetry: 1.) epic poetry, 2.) philosophical poetry, 3.) elegiac poetry, 4.) choral
poetry, 5.) lyric poetry, and 6.) pastoral poetry. Lyric poetry in Greece was at its highest from
the 7th to the 5th Century BC. Sappho lived during the latter half of the 7th century and the
beginning of the 6th century BC. Later, when drama came, the comedies and tragedies were
also considered as poetry, not as prose. Epic poetry is like telling a long story about heroic
figures in verse such as Homer, pastoral poetry deals with nature and rural scenes. Elegies are
poems written for the dead. The Greeks had many different dialects of the language and
poetry was written in these different dialects. A dialect is a local form of the standard
language. For example, Haryanvi Hindi or Punjabi Hindi can be seen as dialects of Hindi.
The language used for generally speaking in Greece was very different from the complex,
styled literary language that was used for poetry. The two poets from the island of Lesbos,
Sappho and Alcaeus, wrote in a different and more complex language from the other Greeks.
At its height, there were a total of nine most famous lyric poets from Greece. Sappho and
Alcaeus were two of them. Lyric poetry is called lyric because it was usually sung as songs,
accompanied by the musical string instrument, the lyre. (Lyra) Lyric poetry is also known as
melic poetry. It can also be sung without an instrument. It has its own specific metre. Metre is
the number of syllables in each line. Lyric poetry can be choral or solo. Hymns in churches
are also an example of lyric poetry. Choral poetry means it is sung by a group or chorus, for

189
example, at religious ceremonies, weddings, festivals, symposium (wine-drinking party) and
so on. They also celebrate victories in athletics and war. Solo lyric poetry, on the other hand,
is more personal and is sung alone by one individual. It deals with emotions, feelings,
thoughts, and love poetry plays a major role in this. Sappho’s poetry is both monadic and
choral. A solo song is known as a monody. However, we have also seen that she has many
songs as tributes to goddesses and deities and that she used to sing for festivals. Lyric poems
are fairly short poems, as compared to epics and dramas. Lyric poetry is written with the first-
person ‘I’ pronoun. However, we cannot be sure if it is the poet speaking or whether there is a
fictional narrator. Similarly, in Sappho’s case, though scholars have tried to find her
biography through her poetry, we actually do not know if the first-person “I” in the poems
refers to Sappho or to a fictional narrator. These poems were actually written as songs and
were accompanied by the musical instrument, lyre. Thus, they have a lot of musicality, and
repetition of sounds in the original. There is an incantatory effect which has its own charm
and which seduces as just as much as Sappho does, or Aphrodite does. However, we can only
read Sappho’s Greek fragments after they have been translated into English, and it is hard to
translate them in such a way that the sounds, repetitions, beats and rhythm of poetry remains
the same even in a different language as it is in the original.
Fragment-1
On The Throne of Many Hues, Immortal Aphrodite: Critical Analysis
Sappho is by and large known as a lyric poet which means her poetry usually has personal
themes. Epic poetry, on the other hand, is public and deals with society and the world, instead
of with personal emotion. However, Sappho mixes elements of epic poetry as well with lyric
poetry. Sappho speaks of a personal subject, love, but the ways in which she does this are
public in the sense that the style she adopts and the imagery she uses are often taken from
epic poetry. She also talks about it very openly the way we talk about public things and
events. For example, she begins the poem with an invocation to Aphrodite, the Greek
goddess of love. Aphrodite is the daughter of Zeus, who is the king of all the gods. “Immortal
Aphrodite”, “weaver of wiles”, “child of Zeus”, “O Blessed Goddess”, this is how Sappho
addresses or invokes the goddess Aphrodite. Beginning with an invocation to the gods is an
epic tradition. Other epic themes or tropes in the poem may be hinted at for example war
which is suggested by the fact that Aphrodite comes down to Sappho on a chariot, usually a
vehicle for warriors. However, the difference is that Sappho’s Aphrodite comes on a chariot
led by sparrows. Sparrows are very ordinary, commonplace birds, and not the usual birds
who lead chariots. Swans and peacocks are seen as more royal birds who would drive the
chariot for a goddess. However, Sappho has chosen sparrows as symbols of sexual fertility,
fecundity and procreation, thus making them appropriate bearers of the love goddess’s
chariot.
Most of the poem deals with a past incident and is in flashback. It is about how
Aphrodite has come and helped Sappho earlier on so many occasions. Sappho pleads with her
to come and help her now as well. She reminds Aphrodite how she came earlier when Sappho
called her for help, on her golden chariot led by sparrows, leaving her father’s house. It seems
that Aphrodite has helped Sappho many times earlier if someone whom Sappho loves does
190
not love her back or has wronged her. Aphrodite is like Sappho’s ally or friend in such
matters and does whatever Sappho wants. Aphrodite has, on earlier occasions told Sappho
that whoever flees or runs away from her will soon run after her, whoever doesn’t love her
will soon start loving her. The whole poem is in flashback. This is a very typical technique of
ancient Greece. Only in the last stanza, does it come back to the present when Sappho
entreats Aphrodite to come to her and help her as she has on earlier occasions.
This is a very personal poem even though the goddess is invoked and some epic
traditions can be seen because Aphrodite calls Sappho by her name. The relation Sappho has
with the goddess seems to be intimate and there is no hierarchy, Aphrodite is her friend and
ally. The last few lines repeat what the invocation says in the beginning, which is a
characteristic of music. Sappho’s poems are actually songs which were sung to the
accompaniment of a lyre, a musical instrument. Sappho invokes Aphrodite in many of her
poems. It seems the goddess was worshipped on the island of Lesbos, though we cannot say
if Sappho was officially a priestess or not. Aphrodite’s descent from heaven can be seen as
love descending down to the earth which yearns and desires, like rain falling on the earth to
make the soil fertile and help trees and plants to grow. This is all the work of the goddess
Aphrodite, to make the earth bear fruits and flowers. Sappho too, like the earth, yearns for
love. Perhaps we can say that this is a conversation that Sappho had with the goddess in a
dream. There definitely seems to be a personal, emotional connection like that of a friend
which Sappho shares with the goddess. Sappho asks Aphrodite to be her friend and ally.
Aphrodite is known as a “weaver of wiles”. In another translation, she is called “Aphrodite of
the spangled mind”. Aphrodite can defeat all the gods, even Zeus, the king of the gods,
because her weapon is not war. Her weapon is soft persuasion, seduction, temptation,
cajoling, playing on emotions. In some sense, Sappho is the same. She is a lover who tries to
win love from other women or men through charms, attraction and influence.
We may also perhaps see Aphrodite as a reflective part of Sappho’s own personality,
which stands aside and views her own passionate and desiring self with some degree of
detachment. Aphrodite symbolises the wisdom which Sappho gives to herself: that loves have
come and gone before, and will again, and that particular loves for specific people are
transient and temporary like the leaves, and only Love, the emotion itself, is deathless and
golden.
Fragment-16
Some Say an Army of Horsemen: Critical Analysis
This poem too begins with epic like qualities. It begins with a catalogue of army of horsemen,
foot soldiers, ships. This is in keeping with the traditions of epic poetry. Moreover, again the
reference to war is epic-like as wars are typical features of epics. The first few lines of the
poem also show repetition, each beginning with “Some say…”. This incantatory effect has a
spellbinding, hypnotising effect on the reader, much like Aphrodite and Helen themselves
have. Sappho has a similar effect.
In ancient Greek society, war is considered as the most desirable, heroic thing for men,
whereas for women, it is love. Sappho refers to mythology here. In Homer’s epic Iliad, Helen

191
is the wife of Menelaus. Helen is the most beautiful human being on earth, and Menelaus is
the best husband. Actually, there is a wedding among the god to which one goddess Eris, is
not invited. This enrages her and she brings a golden apple and says that whoever is the most
beautiful will get the apple. Zeus, the King of the gods, tells a mortal man, Paris of Troy, to
judge who is the most beautiful between Hera, Athena and Aphrodite as all three claim to be
most beautiful. Paris is famous for being a very fair person. As Paris begins to judge the
contest, all three goddesses try to bribe him. Hera promises to make him the king of Europa
and Asia, Athena, goddess of war, says she will give him the skills to win every war, and
Aphrodite, goddess of love, says she will give him the most beautiful human being on earth,
Helen. Helen is the wife of the Greek king Menelaus, in Sparta. Paris takes Helen from her
bedroom to Troy. Menelaus starts a war to try and get Helen back. This is the Trojan war.
This myth is also called The Judgement of Paris.
In Sappho’s poem, the Homeric myth is changed. Here, Helen is the one who chooses
Paris, not the other way round. This shifts the agency from the man, Paris, to the woman,
Helen. Helen is made to fall in love with Paris by the love goddess Aphrodite. Helen who is
the most beautiful human herself, for the love of Paris, leaves the best husband, her child and
her dear parents. This illustrates what Sappho writes in the first stanza of the poem, that “it is
what one loves” is the most beautiful thing on the black earth instead of war and army.
Sappho tries to change the masculine perspective into a feminine perspective. Helen went
with Paris, that is why the Trojan war happened. So, in some sense, if the most beautiful
thing on earth is what one loves, then Helen desires Paris, rather than the war Menelaus
fought to get her back. Here again of course, it is important to remember that Sappho shifts
the agency from Paris to Helen, Sappho’s Helen has agency which Homer’s Helen does not.
Homer’s Helen is the typical silenced and objectified woman which we see in masculine
patriarchal writings.
Now in the fourth stanza, Sappho links her own context and situation with this myth.
Sappho has agency and desires Anactoria, just as she gives agency to Helen to desire Paris.
Thus she gives a feminist twist to the myth of the Judgement of Paris. It seems that Anactoria
is a young woman whom Sappho desires. But Anactoria is not here. Sappho does not say this
explicitly, but it is implied that Anactoria is perhaps with someone else whom she loves or
desires. This leaves Sappho in the same position as Menelaus in the myth of the Trojan war.
Helen has gone off with Paris, and so Sappho wonders if Anactoria too has gone off with
someone else. However, Helen was married to Menelaus. Does this then mean that Sappho
sees herself as wedded to Anactoria, with the same commitment and sense of “ownership” as
in a marriage? Does Sappho feel that Anactoria rightfully belongs to her?
However, in the last stanza, Sappho again asserts what she said in the first one (we
discussed this with respect to the previous poem also), that a glance of what she loves, the
face, the walk, the eyes of the beautiful Anactoria has more charms than all the war-chariots
and foot-soldiers. Now, if we see Sappho in the position of Menelaus, and if we remember
that Menelaus started the war to get Helen back, we see Sappho doing no such thing. She
loves Anactoria more than she loves war. In other words, it seems, that even if Anactoria has
gone to someone else, however much Sappho loves or desires her, she cannot (becaushe she
doesn’t have power and armies like Menelaus), but moreover, also that she chooses not to
192
start a war to get Anactoria back. In this sense, the poem again shows us things from the
viewpoint of a woman, a feminist standpoint. Relationships between women are shown to
have function by the kind of power and dominance with which relationships among men
function. Women-women relationships are here shown to be characterised by mutual respect
and love. However, now we understand why armies and chariots can be useful in the first
place: to get back what ones loves. However, a feminine logic operates within the poem
instead of a masculine logic. As explained in the previous poem, Aphrodite is known as a
“weaver of wiles”. In another translation, she is called “Aphrodite of the spangled mind”.
Aphrodite can defeat all the gods, even Zeus, the king of the gods, because her weapon is not
war. Her weapon is soft persuasion, seduction, temptation, cajoling, playing on emotions. In
some sense, Sappho is the same. She is a lover who tries to win love from other women or
men through charms, attraction and influence. So Aphrodite, a female goddess has the power
to win over all the male gods without using weapons of war. Like Aphrodite, Sappho too uses
soft, cunning means like persuasion, temptation and seduction to get what she wants.
Sappho’s Social Context: Women and Sexuality in Ancient Greece
It is difficult to get reliable information about Ancient Greece simply because very few
records have been preserved since antiquity. Sappho wrote on papyrus which is hard to
preserve. We know her work because of what others have written about her. However, it
seems that in ancient Greece, society was segregated by gender. This means that men had
very little contact with men, and men with women, before and also after marriage. Marriage,
at that time, was not considered to be an emotional bond, but rather a social, economic and
political institution according to which inheritance of property, money and so on was
decided. Fathers chose husbands for their daughters. So most of the time, women lived with
women and men with men. Homosexuality among men was widely accepted in Greece.
Many well-known Greek male poets and philosophers had sexual relations with younger
boys. This is known as pederasty and was regarded as completely normal at that time.
However, it was totally different with women. Women having sexual relations with other
women were considered to be loose, immoral, and perverted. Women who only had relations
with men were praised. However, a lot of women did have relations with other women, even
though it was considered as negative in the patriarchal culture. In the introduction, we
discussed that Sappho was from a famous and noble family. Rich upper-class women like
Sappho were used to having sexual relations with each other. Emotional bonds were
maintained by same sex relations, as there were no emotional bonds in marriage.
Sappho is known to have sex with men as well as women. She had a husband and a
daughter named Cleis. However, she also had sexual relations with women and many of them
are believed to have been younger than her. Sometimes she also had relations with older
women. She had a close circle of women around her. It is not exactly sure what was the
purpose of this circle. They could have been friends or lovers who shared emotional (and
sexual) bonds with each other. Sometimes, it is said that Sappho taught music and dance to
these girls, and also gave them knowledge about worshipping the female goddesses, and
about sex and marriage. Sometimes, it is said that it was a purely religious group. But that
does not seem true as Sappho has written for wedding ceremonies also, and love poetry too.
But she definitely had a close circle of young women around her.
193
Self Check Questions
1. What is your response towards queer sexuality (same-sex love)? What is society’s
response?
2. What was the response of ancient Greek society about queer sexuality among women?
3. How can you link the explanations of the two poems with your knowledge of Sappho
and ancient Greek society?
4. What is the role of oral and written literatures? What is the difference?
5. What is the importance of translation?

Glossary
Zeus—King of the Greek Gods on Mount Olympus
Aphrodite—Goddess of Love, daughter of Zeus
Hera—Queen of the Gods. Wife and sister of Zeus. Goddess of Marriage and Birth
Athena—Goddess of wisdom and war
Helen—most beautiful human in the world. Wife of Menelaus, who is the king of Sparta,
Greece
Paris—King of Troy
Menelaus------ King of Sparta, in Mycenae, in Greece
Anactoria------- woman whom Sappho loves
Sparta—---------- a kingdom in the province of Mycenae, Greece
Lyric Poetry------ short personal poetry about emotions usually. Sung to the accompaniment
of musical instrument, lyre. Solo and Monodic.
Choral Poetry----short public poetry or songs sung in groups during weddings, processions,
festivals, ceremonies etc
Epic Poetry------- a very long narrative story in verse form. About humans and gods. It is
public and shows the nature of the society, characteristics of a particular historical time
period etc.
Bibliography
Castle, Warren. ‘Observations on Sappho’s To Aphrodite’. Transactions and Proceedings of
the American Philological Association, Vol. 89. John Hopkins University Press. 1958.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/283665
Decker, Jessica Elbert. ‘The Most Beautiful Thing on the Black Earth: Sappho’s Alliance
with Aphrodite’. Looking at Beauty to Kalon in Western Greece: Selected Essays from the
2018 Symposium on the Heritage of Western Greece. Heather L. Reid and Tony Leyh Ed.
Parnassos Press: Fonte Aretusa. 2019. < https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvcmxpn5.6>

194
Dodson-Robinson, Eric. ‘Helen’s Judgement of Paris and Greek Marriage Ritual in Sappho
16’ . Arethusa, Vol. 43, No. 1. The John Hopkins University Press. Winter 2010. <
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44578316>
duBois, Page. ‘Sappho and Helen’. Arethusa, Vol. 11, No. 1/2, WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT
WORLD. The John Hopkins University Press. Spring and Fall 1978. <
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26308155>
Hallett, Judith P.. ‘Sappho and Her Social Context: Sense and Sensuality’. Signs Vol 4 No.3.
University of Chicago Press. 1979. < https://www.jstor.org/stable/3173393>
Kivilo, Maarit. ‘Sappho’, Early Greek Poets’ Lives: The Shaping of the Tradition. Brill.
2010. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv4cbgkd.11.
Perry, E.D.. ‘Greek Literature’. The Classical Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 23, The John Hopkins
University Press. Apr.1912. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4386575
Pfeijffer, Ilja Leonard. ‘Shifting Helen: An Interpretation of Sappho Fragment 16’, The
Classical Quarterly, Vol 50 No.1. Cambridge University Press. 2000. <
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1558930>
Prentice, William K. ‘Sappho’. Classical Philology Vol. 13 No.4 (Oct 1918). The University
of Chicago Press. 347-360. < https://www.jstor.org/stable/262942>

195
 Unit-5(d)

Ars Poetica
Horace
Sambuddha Jash

1.1 Introduction
Ars Poetica, which in English means ‘Art of Poetry’ is a poetic treatise composed by Horace
sometime between 19–18 BC for the Piso family who were his patrons for some time. The
original version had been titled as Epistula ad Pisones or Epistle to the Pisos. Ars Poetica
derives some of its compositional elements from Aristotle as he discusses the importance of
poetry and how good poetry can be written. It is also different from Aristotle’s work as
Horace dealt with genres like lyric, satires, elegy, and odes while Aristotle’s work was
mainly concerned with epic, tragedy and comedy. Aristotle had given the maximum
importance to tragedy while Horace discusses poetry as a genre with distinct qualities. Both
Aristotle and Horace had given due importance to decorum in their works, so as we can see
that Aristotle’s Poetics and Horace’s Ars Poetica are similar to each other but have
significant departure points. Originally written in verse, the way a poem is written, Ars
Poetica consists of 476 lines containing nearly 30 maxims for young poets. It was composed
following a conversational method – a method where an elderly person provides advice to
young people through his experiences of the world and literature.
Ars Poetica’s English translation has been done in the form of prose and is designed as
an Epistle or a letter where Horace is seen giving advice to the two young boys of the Piso
family and magnificently explains to them the steps of composing great poetry. It was
composed using the hexameter pattern. Through Horace’s witty lines that also reflect irony he
uses poetry as a symbol to deliver the important lessons of life to the young boys. Through
his knowledge he displays the fact that just like poetry is a gradual development of a creative
genre, so is life where every step has to be taken by carefully assessing both positive and
negative aspects of it. At the outset Horace upholds the virtue of truth for the young boys of
the Piso family by dismissing his contemporary tendency of not speaking the truth in front of
their patrons with the worry to displease them. Ars Poetica has been an influential treatise
where Horace successfully displays the importance of creative truth, decorum and harmony
by blending them with the virtues of living an exemplary life. The work was a prized instance
for the Neoclassicists of the 17th and 18th centuries not only for the standards it set but also
for its humour, common sense, and appeal to the educated taste of the elites. Poets like John
Dryden and Alexander Pope often provided instances from Ars Poetica as a sort of Bible for
poetic excellence. The work served as a bench mark for future poetic creation and also
criticism about poetry’s various components – just the way Aristotle’s Poetics was
instrumental in driving all future dramatic conventions.

196
1.2 Learning Objectives
The objective of this Unit is to analyze the importance of Ars Poetica written by Horace. This
has been done through a close reading of the text and critical engagement with its major
themes. The backdrop within which Ars Poetica was composed has been seen as an important
juncture of Latin writings. Close textual evaluation provides us knowledge of its
contemporary relevance within Latin culture, social conventions and above all the importance
of poetry as a creative genre. Ars Poetica like all literary genres speaks about the
contemporary society in general and the sensibility of the people. After going through this
lesson the students will be able to:
i) Have a better understanding of the text of Ars Poetica
ii) Get a knowledge of the main themes within the text
iii) Get a knowledge about the importance of poetry as a literary medium
iv) Understand the importance and contribution of Ars Poetica in the modern times

1.2.1 About the Author

Quintus Horatius Flaccus (8 December 65 BC – 27 November 8 BC) widely known as
Horace was a lyric poet and satirist. Along with Virgil he was regarded as an integral part of
the Roman Emperor Augustus Caeser’s court. He is known for his Odes, Epodes, Satires,
Epistles and his philosophical tract on poetry titled Ars Poetica. Horace had also served as an
officer in the republican army where he had befriended Augustus Caeser’s right-hand man in
civil affairs, Maecenas and became a spokesman of the court matters.
He composed hexameter verses through his Epistles and Satires and caustic iambic poetry
though his Epodes. His creative life gradually grew alongside the transformative growth of
Rome from a republic to an empire.
1.3 Summary
Horace begins Ars Poetica by describing the importance of two constitutive elements within
poetry – proportion and diction or the choice of words. Explaining the importance of the first
element to the two young boys of the Piso family, Horace says that if a woman’s neck is
provided to the picture of a horse it would be funny and absurd at the same time. So it is
important to be proportionate while creating any work of art by not placing serpents along
with birds or lambs along with tigers. The second element of diction is also equally important
as it is the words that live forever and not their creators, so one needs to be delicate and
careful while choosing words for poetic composition. The importance of diction or choice of
selecting words is emphasized with the author’s advice to preserve their poetry inside a closet
for nine years before giving it a public appearance. This would provide consistency to their
work and the movement of the lines would be parallel as it could reflect all the changes that
takes place within that time period.

197
 Horace then moves to discuss the role of a critic and how poets can benefit themselves
through good criticism. He compares critics to whetstones against whom the new poets can
sharpen their works. The purpose of a critic is to provide healthy and positive criticism so
that the creative outputs of the poets can be maximized. Within this discussion Horace also
stresses the importance of importance of decorum – where the critic has to severely condemn
the use of negative elements that may be present within poetry. He exemplifies this fact
through the character of Achilles who has to be represented as fiery and brave; someone who
is devoid of any negative aspects. If Achilles is portrayed in a different manner it would be a
breach of decorum and it is the critic’s work to discourage such a tendency amongst young
budding poets. Horace also attacks poets by saying that mixing genres by infusing comic
elements within the general tragic tone of poetry or vice versa is a negative aspect of
creativity and poets should avoid doing that. For him each genre should have a unique mode
of progression – that should be unbroken with unity of action and the integrity of the
characters. Horace further points out that each genre should follow a distinct meter within
which the compositional variety could be reflected and all aspects of it should come out in a
proportionate manner. This practice would set a literary precedent for the future poets and
help them to create great poetry. Making a comparison between poetry and painting the
author says that as some paintings are best viewed from a distance, some are best viewed in
light or darkness – poetry should also have a similar function – some should be enjoyed from
a distance while some others’ essence would be in a very close reading of it. Poetry true aim
should be to teach and appeal the senses at the same time as the true poet is someone who is
an inspired craftsman.
Besides an elaborate list of advices of what constitutes good poetry, Horace also makes
relevant observations within the field of dramatic criticism. He says that plays should always
begin in media res (in the middle of things) and they should consist of five Acts. The choral
and chorus song should be introduced according to the change of action within the play and
the play should never end with the introduction of deus ex machina. Similar to Aristotle,
Horace suggested that a play should always move forward with an organic unity where the
course of action and the role of the characters should be in one direction leading to a
consolidated conclusion. Each part of the narrative should have a connection with what
unfolds gradually within the play.
In the final section, Horace reminds the young boys of the Piso family as a wise counsel
that a poet often needs to please a vulgar or negative crowd but he should never compromise
on the aspect of artistic truth and always stand by it. A poet is a person who restores balance
amongst the humans and therefore must always adhere to the moral rules of the universe. He
ends my remarking that poets need to earn fortune for a living but they should always keep in
mind that they belong to the oracle of divinity and never allow themselves to be carried over
by material gains. Their acknowledgment might come late but will come for sure if they
adhere to the advice that is being given to them. The poet for Horace is a civilizer who has
the potential of keeping the standards of humanity intact.

198
1.3.1 Themes
Art of Composition: The major theme about which Horace discusses in detail is the source
of good poetry and how to compose the best of them. As a wise person he offers his
reflection to the young minds and suggests possible sources and their accumulation so that
their poetry could become immortal. Along with this he describes the standards of composing
a play and what things should be followed when the play is acted on the stage. Horace
describes the importance of chorus and the junctures where they need to be introduced while
a play is being staged. He further asks creators of plays to refrain themselves from mixing the
two genres of tragedy and comedy. Returning back to the genre of poetry Horace advises the
young boys of the Piso family to never believe in flattery of the critics, instead create their
own benchmarks that would help them in excelling over their limitations. Adhering to
standards, Horace observes that the iambic meter is the most suitable for any composition as
it carries with itself the true spirit of conversation. Ars Poetica central concern of the art of
composition – be it about poetry or drama is a classic example of how a work can pave the
way for future generations to come. Through the art of composition Horace also teaches the
boys the art of living a life – a life of decorum and correct proportion.
Rules of the Stage: The second important theme of Horace’s Ars Poeticais related to
stagecraft and compositions of plays. His ideas of performance and the necessary constituents
are largely related to the ideas of Aristotle that had been expressed in Poetics. Since Horace
had composed Ars Poetica at a time of Roman history when plays were the only available
medium of knowledge and entertainment so it was important for him to advise young
composers about what should be there and what things should never be included while plays
were being written. Horace’s indebtedness to Aristotle is expressed with the fact that he
suggests the young boys to draw their plots from older Greek legends – a tradition that
Horace always upholds within his writings. He also speaks about consistency of plot and
characters as he writes:
‘If your bold muse dare tread unbeaten baths,
And bring new characters on the stage
Be sure you kept them upto your first height’
In relation to plot and characters Horace stresses on the fact that the plot should be
interconnected and there should be proper divisions between the beginning, middle and the
end. The characters should also have an integral connection with their history – for instance if
Achilles is depicted on the stage he should be shown as brave and fiery. Medea should also
be shown as defiant and untamed, just the ways she has been represented by her creator.
Horace provides a future stage oriented frame to the theories proposed by Aristotle.

199
1.3.2 Check Your Progress
Answer the following:
i) Why does Horace advise that poetry should be preserved for nine years before its final
publication?
..............………………………………………………………………………………
………...………………………………………………………………………………
……...…..............……………………………………………………………………
…………………...……………………………………………………………………

ii) Why is it important to represent characters on the stage just the way they have been
shown by the in the books? Explain with Horace’s views on this.
………...………………………………………………………………………………
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
..............………………………………………………………………………………
………...………………………………………………………………………………

iii) Describe some of the essential features that Horace thinks should be followed by
every dramatist while composing plays.
………………………………………………………………………...………………
……………………………………………………………………...…………………
………………………………………………………………………...………………
……………………………………………………………………...…………………

1.4 Glossary
Achilles: He is known as the greatest Greek warrior who fought in the Trojan War and
defeated Hector
Backdrop: The background of an event or phenomenon
Bacchus: Related to Classical mythology, known as the God of wine and pleasure
Cyclops: Related to Classical mythology, the belong to the family of Giants with one
rounded eye located at the forehead
Decorum: Something that describes a standard – in speech, behavior, dress and other human
aspects
Delphi: An ancient city located in the central part of Greece
Epoch: A particular period of time
Priam: The King of Troy
Pythias: She was a Greek biologist
Unprecedented: Something that did not happen or experienced earlier
200
1.4.1 Concluding Remarks
Ars Poetica was not only an addition to a great Classical tradition, it was the beginning of a
new tradition too. The ideals of composition and creative genius were explained by Horace in
Ars Poetica in an unprecedented manner. Alexander Pope, the famous English poet had
remarked ‘Horace still charms with graceful negligence, and without method talks us into
sense’. Besides Ars Poetica being an epoch in classical learning that set the standards high for
future literary creations, the different axioms or phrases used in the text are relevant in the
contemporary times. That title hints at the universal status of this didactic poem as a pre-
eminent, authoritative and, in every sense, ‘classical’ manual on the composition of poetry.
The Ars provided an object of imitation, as well as a code of practice, for Renaissance poets
and playwrights; it continued to be the most outstanding creative instance for neo-classical
literature and aesthetics; and even some modernist writers of the twentieth century responded,
or else owed something, to its prescriptions. While the Ars Poetica is clearly far more than a
versified technical treatise, it would be wrong to give the impression that its main appeal lies
in an abundance of clever flourishes. C.O. Brink has characterised the Arsas ‘a work of the
imagination that makes a poetic symbol out of literary theory’ and enjoins readers of the
work to make sense of that theory.11 The poem contains much astute observation that can be
appreciated by today’s readers for insight not only on ancient thinking but also on ideas about
literary expression which have broader significance. For example at 93-7, having made a
prescriptive distinction between the comic and tragic styles (‘everything must keep
appropriately to the place it is alloted’ 92), Horace concedes that characters in comedy may
sometimes speak with more elevated eloquence and, conversely, that characters in a tragedy
can occasionally move the spectator more directly by using the prosaic language of everyday
life. This flexibility makes sense in terms of modern thinking (and even some postmodern
thinking) about genre: its ‘rules’ are certainly there, but those rules are there to be broken.
Phrases like in medias res, purpureuspannus (which means ‘purple patch’),
uctpicturapoesis (which means ‘as picture, so poetry’), bonus dormitat Homerus (which
means ‘the good Homer nods’) have entered the parlance of modern criticism and are often
used to describe particular event and phenomena. Notable critic and author M. A. R. Habib in
his essay ‘Horace’s Ars Poetica and the Deconstructive Leech’ has observed that ‘The text is
multi – layered: on the one hand we hear the informal speaking voice of a man who makes no
claim to be impersonal or objective his principles are drawn from experience, not theory. On
the other hand these insights seem to be no more than part of a self-conscious literary game.’
In the later years Ars Poetica had greatly influenced Renaissance European literature – one
such instance would be French dramatist Nicholas Boileau’s L’Art Poetique published in
1674 which imitated the narrative style of Homer’s original work. Andrew Laird in the
Cambridge Companion to Horace writes that ‘There is no doubt that this single composition
by Horace – at 476 Hexameters its longest - has exercised far more influence than any of his

11
Brink (1971), viii.

201
other individual poems, and more even than his collection of poems.’ Horace’s Ars Poetica is
a classic which has defined the status of all future classics that were yet to arrive on the
literary scenario.
1.5 University Questions
1. According to Horace, where should young poets look for new vocabulary? How
should those words be used?
2. What led to the degradation of Roman poetry? Elaborate with Horace’s observations.
3. How does Horace relate poetic creativity with the decorum of stage performance?
Elaborate by explaining the different counsels that Horace had offered regarding the
two genres of poetry and play.
4. Why is poetry as a genre so important for Horace?
Further Reading
 Kilpatrick, Ross S. The Poetry of Criticism: Horace Epistles II and Ars Poetica.
Abingdon: University of Alberta Press. 1990.
 Horace. Ars Poetica. trans. H Rushton Fairclough. Horace: Satires, Epistles and Ars
Poetica. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2005. Pg 451-473.
 Raghunathan, Harriet. ed. Readings in Classical Literature. Delhi: Worldview
Publications. 2007.
 Brink, C.O. Horace on Poetry: The Ars Poetica. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 2011.

202