The object of this chapter is to make two points. The first is to demonstrate that there is a significant parallel between Aeschylus and Hesiod. In both authors we find narratives concerned with journeys of creatures of darkness—the Erinyes in Aeschylus’ Eumenides; Styx and the Hundred-Handers in Hesiod’s Theogony—who travel from darkness into light, and back into darkness again. The second point, closely related to the first, is that in both narratives Zeus is shown as a superb and measured ruler, dispensing justice to the primeval deities of darkness. Creatures belonging to darkness mingle in the world of men and gods in the light but have to return whence they came. Such intermingling requires a restoration of balance, which comes at the hands of Zeus and his agents.
Let us begin with the Erinyes in Aeschylus. Unquestionably, they are creatures of darkness since according to Aeschylus they are daughters of Night and live in Tartarus.2 Hesiod gives a different account of their birth, saying that they are born from the blood of the castration of Ouranos and Earth (Th. 183–85).3 The first physical descriptions of the Erinyes in the Oresteia are in Libation Bearers: Orestes likens them to Gorgons; they are packed with snakes (Ch. 1048–50),4 and they drip a stream from their eyes (Ch. 1058). The priestess of Apollo is the first to see them in Eumenides. In her agitation, she keeps changing her description—they are women; not women, but Gorgons; but not like the Gorgons in paintings (Eum. 46 ff). They defy description and are clearly not of man’s world: they are ‘black and entirely disgusting’ (μέλαιναι δ᾽, ἐς τὸ πᾶν βδελύκτροποι, Eum. 52), and they snore and drip hateful tears from their eyes, and their attire is not fit to bear before the statues of gods or enter into the houses of men.5 As further evidence of their other worldliness, the priestess has not seen the tribe this group is from, nor the land which can boast of rearing them without harm (Eum. 57–59). During the trial of Orestes Apollo addresses them: ‘oh all-hateful monsters, abhorrent to the gods’ (ὦ παντομισῆ κνώδαλα, στύγη θεῶν, Eum. 644). In appearance, they are hateful to men and gods alike. As daughters of Night, they are clearly suited to darkness; they are not to roam the area of man’s ken. This description constitutes the first stage in the narrative: the Erinyes are in darkness (see table).
In stage two, they leave the darkness and their mother, Night, and enter into the realm where light shines on gods and men. Once in the light, there is conflict, which involves the clash of the Erinyes, on the one hand, and Apollo and Orestes, on the other, culminating in Orestes’ trial: creatures of darkness against the god of light. The third stage, appeasement, involves the conferment of honors upon the Erinyes.6 The second and third stages will be explored in more detail below.
The fourth and final stage of the Erinyes’ journey is the return into the darkness, in a new state of honor. Athena instructs the Chorus to follow the sacred light (φῶς ἱερὸν, Eum. 1005) of the escorting Athenians, saying ‘go, and, impelled by these sacred sacrifices down into earth, restrain destruction, separately’ (ἴτε καὶ σφαγίων/ τῶνδ᾽ ὑπὸ σεμνῶν κατὰ γῆς σύμεναι/ τὸ μὲν ἀτηρὸν χωρὶς κατέχειν, Eum. 1006–8).7 A few lines later, the newly honored Erinyes are described as ‘below the primal depths of Earth’ (γᾶς ὑπὸ κεύθεσιν ὠγυγίοισιν, Eum. 1036). The Erinyes complete their journey with lightbearing attendants, surely a symbol of their newly earned honors at Athens. But the most telling feature of their new home is that it is below earth, away from the light of the sun, yet the darkness into which they return is a place of honor and joy. The four stages of the Erinyes’ journey are summarized in the table below.
We now turn to the nature of the conflict between the Erinyes and the inhabitants of the world of light (stage two, table). The most important point is this: nowhere is it stated in the Oresteia that the Erinyes clash with Zeus. Their opponents are Orestes and Apollo in the first place, Athena and the people of Athens in the second, but not Zeus as Hugh Lloyd-Jones and others have assumed.8 For example, we see in Libation Bearers the Chorus calling on Zeus to send punishment from below—κάτωθεν (Ch. 382)—and Electra calling on Zeus and Earth and the honored ones of earth—τιμαὶ χθονίων (Ch. 394 ff). Finally, the Chorus of female slaves invoke Erinys (Ch. 400 ff). There can be only one conclusion: the Erinyes, and other forces from below, are very much in concert with Zeus.9
Nor is it possible to detect an opposition between Zeus and the Erinyes in Eumenides. Apollo and the Chorus clash, but it is not evident that everything Apollo says is endorsed by Zeus. In particular, Apollo argues that there is no inconsistency between Zeus preferring man’s rights to those of a woman and Zeus’ fettering of his own father, Kronos (Eum. 645–48). But Apollo, in his capacity as advocate for Orestes, is presenting an incomplete picture of Zeus’position. He invokes Zeus, father of men and gods, as though he had authorized the murder of Clytemnestra (Eum. 614–21). But the Chorus challenges this claim: ‘Zeus, as you say, granted this oracle, to tell to Orestes that, in exacting payment for the murder of his father, to respect the honors of his mother not at all?’ (Ζεύς, ὡς λέγεις σύ, τόνδε χρησμὸν ὤπασε,/ φράζειν Ὀρέστῃ τῷδε, τὸν πατρὸς φόνον/ πράξαντα μητρὸς μηδαμοῦ τιμὰς νέμειν; Eum. 622–24). Nowhere in this interrogation is there anything from which one might infer that the Chorus is questioning the authority of Zeus himself. Rather, the Chorus implicitly affirms the order and rule of Zeus by querying Apollo about Zeus’ true involvement in the murder of Clytemnestra. The Chorus does not accuse Zeus of having a role in their troubles.10 Apollo’s response speaks volumes: he does not answer the Erinyes’ question about Zeus granting the oracle, but changes the subject (Eum. 625 ff).
Apollo, though an Olympian, must not be conflated with Zeus himself. Apollo argues that Zeus trumps the oath of the jurors.11 Christopher Collard in his translation explains that the oath meant in this passage is that taken by the jurors: “Apollo asks the jurors to set greater value on the power of Zeus and its implicit conformity with justice than on anything sworn.”12 But Apollo’s testimony about Zeus is at odds with the prominence of the oath of the gods (sworn by the waters of Styx) in Hesiod, as discussed below. Moreover, Apollo contradicts himself with his closing statement.13 In sum, the notion, propounded by Lloyd-Jones, that the Justice of Zeus is opposed to the honor of the Erinyes is not valid.14
In stage three, the Erinyes are appeased with honors. Of particular note, the Erinyes will receive a new, hidden home in Attica, with shining thrones and hearths (Eum. 804–7), and they will be granted the first fruits of the Athenians (Eum. 833–35). What is most important is the process of conferring honors. Athena does not manage to get the Chorus to set aside their anger and accept honors through threats of violence as Lloyd-Jones argues.15 Rather, Athena uses Persuasion: ‘you have not been conquered’ (οὐ γὰρ νενίκησθ᾽, Eum. 795). Once the Erinyes have relented, Athena thanks Persuasion for guiding her tongue (Eum. 970–71). Though Zeus does not appear, it is clear that Athena is working in his place to bring balance after the trial, for she thanks him too: ‘but Zeus of the assembly was strong’ (ἀλλ᾽ ἐκράτησε Ζεὺς ἀγοραῖος, Eum. 973). The last lines of the play make Zeus’ role clear: ‘allseeing Zeus and Moira came down together to help’ (Ζεὺς <ὁ> πανόπτας/ οὕτω Μοῖρά τε συγκατέβα, Eum. 1045–46).16 The Erinyes have been neutralized as a threat to Athens; they have returned to their proper realm, darkness, Jand the Erinyes themselves are pleased with the outcome since they have new honors. Balance and order are restored.17
Now let us consider the journey of Styx in the Theogony. Unfortunately, Hesiod does not make very clear the state or location of Styx before her journey to Zeus. Hesiod does, however, list her as the eldest, or preeminent, daughter of Oceanus and Tethys (Th. 361, 776–77). Moreover, Hesiod describes Styx as ‘a branch of Oceanus, she flows from the sacred river far below the broad-pathed earth through black night’ (πολλὸν δὲ ὑπὸ χθονὸς εὐρυοδείης/ ἐξ ἱεροῦ ποταμοῖο ῥέει διὰ νύκτα μέλαιναν,/ Ὠκεανοῖο κέρας, Th. 787–89).18 Since she is here specified as a branch of Oceanus, she has likely held this course since her birth from Oceanus. In stage one (see table), Styx is in darkness. When Zeus calls to the gods for help in his fight against the Titans, ‘imperishable Styx then first came to Olympus’ (ἦλθε δ᾽ ἄρα πρώτη Στὺξ ἄφθιτος Οὔλυμπόνδε, Th. 397). Styx has entered into the light; this is stage two. Also, the children of Styx, Zelos, Nike, Kratos, and Bia, are involved in this stage: they join in conflict. The successful outcome of the conflict results in honors being bestowed by Zeus upon Styx’s children: they do not live apart from Zeus, but follow his path (Th. 386–88). But leaving aside the honor that attaches to these children who are ever at Zeus’ side, they themselves are certainly important for Zeus in his battle with the Titans.19
In stage three, Styx herself is honored by Zeus: ‘And Zeus honored her, and gave her inordinate (!) gifts. For he made her be the great oath of the gods’ (τὴν δὲ Ζεὺς τίμησε, περισσὰ δὲ δῶρα ἔδωκεν./ αὐτὴν μὲν γὰρ ἔθηκε θεῶν μέγαν ἔμμεναι ὅρκον Th. 399–400). This gift is most emblematic of Zeus’ coming reign.20 When Zeus calls for the gods to come to Olympus, he promises to maintain the honors already granted under Kronos (Th. 393–94), and to grant new ones to those who help him and who until then have not been honored by Kronos (Th. 395–96).21 His promise to honor the gods is completely fulfilled when he gives such a great honor to the first god to heed his call. Styx now acquires the privilege of being the validation for oaths of the gods—she alone guarantees great punishment for any god who breaks his oath (Th. 775–806).22 In this role, she becomes closely allied to Zeus himself, who bears the epithet horkios when appealed to by men who take an oath. According to Walter Burkert, Zeus horkios originally denoted the shining sky, which serves as an excellent witness of men’s oaths because it sees all.23 In the Theogony, Zeus is twice called ‘broad-seeing’ (εὐρύοπα, 514, 884). Styx, who validates the oath of the gods, is precisely the opposite. She is in the netherworld, in darkness, certainly not ‘broad-seeing.’ Styx complements Zeus by acting as his counterpart and validating the oath of the gods in the infernal darkness, instead of in the light.24
In stage four Styx flows back through night, returning below the earth (Th. 787–89, above). From this description it was also possible to infer the beginning of the journey. Like the Erinyes, Styx returns to the darkness with new honors. No ignominy is attached to her for flowing under the earth and through the night. If she is still described as ‘a great misery to the gods’ (μέγα πῆμα θεοῖσιν, Th. 792), this appellation is due entirely to the new role Zeus gave her as the validation of the oath of the gods.25
Friedrich Solmsen is correct to observe that in the Theogony it is not divine birth that wins τιμή. Instead, it is the intrinsic worth of the god.26 For this reason, the children of Styx are given unique honor by Zeus as his constant companions (Th. 386–88). But this method of giving honor to those who are of some special worth is not new. Kronos too granted honors to the gods,27 including Hecate, who is singled out by Hesiod for mention in this regard (Th. 423–52).28 But this is only to say that one of the defining characteristics of any (divine) ruler is the granting of honors. Zeus merely followed the model already laid down by Kronos and improved upon it to win and maintain his own rule.
Finally, let us analyze the narrative of the Hundred-Handers (Heka- toncheires): Briareos, Kottos, and Gyges. Stage one (see table 9.1), they live in darkness inside earth (Th. 157, 620–22), perhaps in Tartarus.29 Stage two, Zeus, along with the other children of Kronos, releases the Hundred-Handers and brings them into the light (Th. 626). He seeks to persuade them to join his fight against Kronos and the Titans. He reminds them of their release from captivity in darkness: ‘you came back into the light from under cruel bondage, from under mist-shrouded darkness, through our plans’ (ἐς φάος ἂψ ἀφίκεσθε δυσηλεγέος ὑπὸ δεσμοῦ/ ἡμετέρας διὰ βουλὰς ὑπὸ ζόφου ἠερόεντος, Th. 652–53). The Hundred-Handers heed this appeal for their aid, and the tide of the battle is turned (Th. 661–86).30
Stage three, new honors are bestowed upon the Hundred-Handers. These honors are detailed twice during Hesiod’s digression on the netherworld:‘There Gyges and Kottos and Briareos, great-hearted, dwell, the trusty guards of aegis-bearing Zeus’ (ἔνθα Γύγης Κόττος τ’ ἠδὲ ϐριάρεως μεγάθυμος/ναίουσιν, φύλακες πιστοὶ Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο, Th. . 734–35); and again, later, ‘but the famous allies of loud-thundering Zeus, Kottos and Gyges, inhabit their houses upon the foundations of Ocean’ (αὐτὰρ ἐρισμαράγοιο Διὸς κλειτοὶ ἐπίκουροι/ δώματα ναιετάουσιν ἐπ᾽ Ὠκεανοῖο θεμέθλοις,/ Κόττος τ᾽ ἠδὲ Γύγης, Th. 815–17).31 Martin West argues against the idea that any honors were bestowed: “it is usually assumed that the Hundred-Handers are acting as prison guards ... the poet does not say this—πιστοὶ φύλακες Διὸς probably refers to their help in the battle.” Further, he maintains: “we can hardly suppose, after 655–63, that they went home willingly; Zeus must have banished them, though the poet avoids saying so.”32 West avoids the obvious meaning of φύλακες in light of the alternative description, ἐπίκουροι, but the terms can hardly be taken as synonymous. The earlier word must refer (as is usually assumed) to the Hundred-Handers’ latest role—prison guards near Tartarus— and the ‘allies’ refers primarily to their help in the Titanomachy, but certainly too to their continued friendly relations with Zeus.
In stage four, the Hundred-Handers return to darkness (Th. 734–35, 815–17). What West cannot imagine is that these creatures would willingly return to the dark, dank unpleasantness of the netherworld, but this is precisely what has happened. Zeus gives them a dignified role as guards. West is correct to observe that “they live [in the netherworld] under Zeus as before under Kronos and Uranos; they must, for there is no place for them on Olympus,”33 but he underestimates the power of τιμή which Zeus bestows. The Hundred-Handers do not return to the darkness in bondage, as before, but with the great honor of being Zeus’ trusty guardsmen. Most handily Zeus removes these mighty creatures from Olympus—they could, after all, be a threat to his power at some point—but he does it by granting honors and, we must infer, by persuasion. The three journeys detailed above are summarized in the table below.
Lloyd-Jones, commenting on the famous ‘Zeus, whoever he is’ sentence in the Agamemnon, comes to the conclusion that “what follows shows little trace of an advanced conception; rather it recalls the crudest myths of Hesiodic cosmogony.”34 Lloyd-Jones is correct that what follows is Hesiodic. It is the description of Zeus’ rise to rule after he has conquered his own father Kronos (Ag. 167 ff). Yet Lloyd-Jones fails to appreciate the meaning of Hesiod’s presentation of Zeus and consequently also misses the significance of the Hesiodic cosmogony in Aeschylus.
Hesiod’s Zeus is the god who achieves harmony in the universe by conferring honors, even on creatures of the netherworld. Sometimes the honorees are gods of Zeus’ generation, but at other times they are primal creatures of darkness: Styx, the Hundred-Handers. In Eumenides, the Erinyes are given new honors and balance is restored. As Richard Seaford puts it, “the gods of the upper and lower world are emphatically differentiated so as to enable the incorporation of the latter into a new order controlled by the former.”35 This chapter has shown that the process by which primeval deities receive honors under Zeus involves a journey from primal darkness into light and a conflict with those who dwell in the light, but—and this is important—the conflict is not with Zeus. In fact, the conflict is resolved by Zeus when he confers honors upon the dishonored, primal creatures with the result that they return to darkness where they belong. Whereas sending the Titans to dark Tartarus is punishment (Th. 717–18, 729–30, 813–14), and Zeus threatens to also send unruly Olympians to Tartarus (Il. 8.13), darkness can be honorable for primal deities such as the Erinyes or Styx. Thus, we see in Hesiod and in Aeschylus a sophisticated conception of cosmic order, one in which Zeus recognizes, accommodates, and incorporates creatures of darkness that would otherwise clash with those in the light. Darkness and the primal creatures who inhabit it are not rejected by Zeus; rather, they are given a proper role in the cosmos.
1. This chapter had its genesis in a seminar paper written at UIC under the direction of Nanno Marinatos. I thank Professors Marinatos, Kershaw, and Ramsey for reading and commenting on earlier drafts. I alone, and not they, am responsible for any errors that remain.
2. At Eum. 321–22, the Chorus prays to their mother, Night. At Eum. 71–72, Apollo describes the Erinyes as ‘inhabiting an evil darkness and Tartarus under the earth’ (κακὸν/ σκότον νέμονται Τάρταρόν θ᾽ ὑπὸ χθονός). All translations are my own.
3. F. Solmsen, Hesiod and Aeschylus (Ithaca, 1949), 180, explains that Hesiod’s account causes the Erinyes to be born with the first act that requires their intervention. This intervention is recalled at Theogony 468 ff., where Rhea seeks advice from her parents, Earth and Ouranos, so that the Erinyes of Kronos’ father may be paid. See Christopoulos in this volume for analysis of the differing emphasis on the role of darkness in Aristophanes’ and Hesiod’s cosmogonies. Aeschylus is perhaps following a model of cosmogonic succession more akin to that of Aristophanes, with an emphasis on the contrast between light and darkness. The Erinyes, as daughters of Night, would be quite primal creatures in such a scheme. As will be shown, however, Aeschylus is indebted to Hesiod (directly or indirectly) for the narrative pattern of the journey from darkness to light and the conferment of honors.
4. For a discussion of the first sighting of the Erinyes in the Oresteia, see A. L. Brown, “The Erinyes in the Oresteia: Real Life, the Supernatural, and the Stage,” JHS 103 (1983): 13–34.
5. Eum. 52–56. Cf. Il. 9.571, 19.87, where the Erinyes are described as walking in darkness (ἠεροφοῖτις).
6. The honors to be held by the Chorus are detailed at length: they will have a hidden abode with shining thrones next to their hearths (Eum. 804–7); they will share the land with Athena and have offerings of first fruits (Eum. 833–35); they will play a role as sources of prosperity for the Athenian people (Eum. 903–15, 921–26, 938–48, 956–67, 976–87).
7. Cf. Eum. 1041 (Σεμναί). On the equation of the Eumenides with the Semnai Theai cult at Athens (perhaps an Aeschylean innovation), see A. L. Brown, “Eumenides in Greek Tragedy,” CQ 34.2 (1984): 260–81.
8. “The issue lies between the law of Zeus, who as the champion of Dike demands through his προφήτης Apollo that the doer shall suffer, and the ancient τιμή of the Erinyes, who pursue the slayers of their own kin” (H. Lloyd-Jones, “Zeus in Aeschylus,” JHS 76 (1956): 64). Cf. J. D. Denniston and D. Page, eds, Aeschylus Ag- amemnon (Oxford, 1957), xivf, who argue that for Aesch. “the ministers of the divine will are a diverse and jealous brood, and Zeus appears indifferent to the conflict of their claims. The crime of Orestes was enjoined by Apollo at the command of Zeus; who nevertheless authorized the Furies to exact retribution.”
9. H. H. Bacon, “The Furies Homecoming,” Classical Philology 96.1 (2001): 50, argues still more strongly: “The Furies are neither anarchic, primitive spirits of violence nor servants of Zeus, but Zeus’ unseen collaborators as guardians and enforcers of those laws that are an essential part of the cosmic order that the father of gods and men administers.”
10. During the trial the Erinyes blame Apollo for the loss of their prerogatives (Eum. 715–16). After the verdict, they blame the younger gods, including Athena due to her tie-breaking vote against them (Eum. 778–79). On Athena’s tie-breaking vote, see R. Seaford, “Historicising Tragic Ambilvalence: the Vote of Athena” in History, Tragedy, Theory, ed. B. Goff (Austin, 1995).
11. ‘Learn how strong this justice is, and I declare that you attend to the plan of the father, for in no way does an oath exert strength more than Zeus’ (τὸ μὲν δίκαιον τοῦθ᾽ ὅσον σθένει μαθεῖν,/ βουλῇ πιφαύσκω δ᾽ ὔμμ᾽ ἐπισπέσθαι πατρός·/ ὅρκος γὰρ οὔτι Ζηνὸς ἰσχύει πλέον, Eum. 619–21).
12. C. Collard, Aeschylus Oresteia (Oxford, 2002), 217.
13. You heard as you heard, strangers, and in your heart respect the oath as you bear your vote-stone’ (ἠκούσαθ᾽ ὧν ἠκούσατ,᾽ ἐν δὲ καρδίᾳ/ ψῆφον φέροντες ὅρκον αἰδεῖσθε, ξένοι, Eum. 679–80).
14. Lloyd-Jones, Zeus in Aeschylus, 64.
15. Lloyd-Jones, ibid. H. Lloyd-Jones (The Justice of Zeus, Berkeley, 1983) mischaracterizes Athena’s efforts at appeasement, calling them a “tactful mixture of threats and bribery” (92). Cf. G. M. A. Grube, “Zeus in Aeschylus,” American Journal of Philology 91.1 (1970): 44, who argues that Athena’s threats are minimal, whereas the bulk of 780–1045 is filled with Athena’s persuasion.
16. On the force of συγκατέβα, see Brown, “Zeus and Moira: Aeschylus, Eu- menides 1045–46,” LCM 11.6 (1986): 92.
17. On the resolution of opposites in Eumenides, see R. Seaford, “Aeschylus and the Unity of Opposites,” JHS 123 (2003): 157–59. Aeschylus resolves the conflict of the chthonian Erinyes and Olympian gods. Seaford argues that Aeschylus is perhaps following a Pythagorean model, in which opposites retain their identity (i.e., they remain opposites) but become an ordered whole.
18. For the geography and qualities of Hades, see Marinatos in this volume. Perhaps ‘night’ and ‘Hades’ are interchangeable terms. At Theogony 788, ‘through night’ describes both the quality of Styx’s course—darkness—and its route—through Hades.
19. Following C. J. Rowe, “Archaic Thought in Hesiod,” JHS 103 (1983): 131–35, one can allegorize these children, as many scholars have done, and view them as but one way Hesiod uses to describe Zeus’ rise to power. Nevertheless, Hesiod presents them as children of Styx. He connects (and explains) Styx’s honors to the rise of Zeus, neatly incorporating into the narrative of Styx’s journey to Olympus and her resulting honors those figures essential for Zeus to prevail against the Titans.
20. D. R. Blickman, “Styx and the Justice of Zeus in Hesiod’s Theogony,” Phoenix 41.4 (1987): 350, notes that an oath is the foundation of all civil society, the divine order included.
21. ‘For so Styx, imperishable daughter of Oceanus, resolved on that day, when the Olympian lightener called all the deathless gods to tall Olympus, and said that whoever of the gods would fight along with him against the Titans would not be bereaved of his privileges and that each would hold the same honor as before among the deathless gods, and he said that whoever was not honored and was without privileges at the hands of Kronos, would enter upon honor and privileges, as was just’ (ὣς γὰρ ἐβούλευσε Στὺξ ἄφθιτος Ὠκεανίνη/ ἤματι τῷ, ὅτε πάντας Ὀλύμπιος ἀστεροπητὴς/ ἀθανάτους ἐκάλεσσε θεοὺς ἐς μακρὸν Ὄλυμπον,/ εἶπε δ᾽, ὃς ἂν μετὰ εἷο θεῶν Τιτῆσι μάχοιτο,/ μή τιν᾽ ἀπορραίσειν γεράων, τιμὴν δὲ ἕκαστον/ ἑξέμεν, ἣν τὸ πάρος γε μετ᾽ ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν/ τὸν δ᾽ ἔφαθ᾽, ὅστις ἄτιμος ὑπὸ Κρόνου ἠδ᾽ ἀγέραστος,/ τιμῆς καὶ γεράων ἐπιβησέμεν, ἣ θέμις ἐστίν, Th. 389–96).
22. W. Bukert (Greek Religion. Archaic and Classical, transl. by J. Raffan, Cambridge, Mass., 1985, 251) cites Iliad 15.36–8, where Hera takes an oath before Zeus by Earth and Ouranos, in addition to the waters of Styx, to demonstrate that Styx is given undue place by modern scholars as the oath of the gods. However, Theogony 399–400, not to mention the lengthy description of the Stygian oath and the penalty imposed on an oath-breaking god at Theogony 775–806, seems rather to indicate a special emphasis on Styx as the basis for the oath sworn by the gods. Moreover, in the passage cited by Burkert, at Iliad 15.37–38, “and the downward-flowing water of Styx, which is the greatest and most terrible oath for the blessed gods” (καὶ τὸ κατειβόμενον Στυγὸς ὕδωρ, ὅς τε μέγιστος/ ὅρκος δεινότατός τε πέλει μακάρεσσι θεοῖσι), Styx is clearly singled out as the greatest oath a god can take, especially in an oath to Zeus, as is the case in Iliad 15.36–38. Hera may also swear by Earth and Ouranos (15.36), but the water of Styx provides the true guarantee of fulfillment behind the oath.
23. W. Burkert, Creation of the Sacred (Cambridge, Mass., 1996), 171–72.
24. Note too the connection between Styx’s home and sky: although she lives apart from the gods (Th. 777), her house is propped up with silver pillars to sky (Th. 779).
25. She is a misery because she bears the power to enforce oaths. The suffering that is described as punishment for an oath-breaking god is certainly not slight (Th. 793–806), reasonably making Styx a potential source of misery.
26. Solmsen, Hesiod and Aeschylus, 72. Compare Homer, Iliad 4.57–58, where Hera beseeches Zeus, in vain, to accede to her demand for the sack of Troy. She appeals to her position as a god, and even as of the same birth as Zeus. Such an argument holds no sway with Zeus, however. The honor he affords to Hera cannot be based on her birth because she would be of equal rank with him by such a standard of measurement.
27. See Blickman, “Styx”: 348ff.
28. Hecate receives numerous honors from Kronos (Th. 423–52) before receiving further honor under Zeus (Th. 411–22). D. Boedeker, “Hecate: A Transfunctional Goddess in the Theogony?” TAPA 113, (1983): 81, notes how Hecate’s honors involve the three spheres visible to man: earth, sky, and sea. Interestingly, however, Hecate’s usual ‘chthonic’ characteristics, known from other sources, are absent in the Theogony (Boedeker, ibid, 83–84). Hecate does not make a journey comparable to those of Styx or the Hundred-Handers. In Hesiod she is not a creature of darkness, and so makes no journey to the light in order to acquire her additional honors under Zeus. Boedeker (ibid, 90) even speculates that Zeus has more to gain than Hecate from the conferment of honors on her in that the act allows Zeus to be viewed as a magnanimous ruler. See also J. S. Clay, “The Hecate of the Theogony,” GRBS 25 (1984): 24–38.
29. M. L. West, Hesiod Theogony: Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, (Oxford, 1966), 338, comments: “What Hesiod tells us of the place where they were bound indicates that it was Tartarus, but he avoids saying so outright (620–22, 652–53, 658–60, 669): Tartarus is reserved for Zeus’ enemies.” The bondage of the Hundred-Handers (and other children of Earth and Ouranos) occurs at Theogony 157.
30. R. Mondi, “Tradition and Innovation in the Hesiodic Titanomachy,” TAPA 116 (1986): 30–32, argues that the Hundred-Handers are in fact essential for the success of Zeus in the Titanomachy; their physical design indicates they are no Hesiodic innovation, but that their sole function in pre-Hesiodic myth is in the Titanomachy.
31. Briareos is given a different honor in this passage; he is wed to a daughter of Poseidon (Th. 817–19).
32. West, Hesiod Theogony, 363.
33. West, ibid.
34. Lloyd-Jones, Zeus in Aeschylus, 62.
35. Seaford, “Aeschylus and the Unity of Opposites”: 161.
Bacon, H. H. “The Furies’ Homecoming,” Classical Philology 96.1 (2001): 48–59.
Blickman, D. R. “Styx and the Justice of Zeus in Hesiod’s ‘Theogony,’” Phoenix 41.4 (1987): 341–355.
Boedeker, D. “Hecate: A Transfunctional Goddess in the Theogony?,” TAPA 113 (1983): 79–93
Brown, A. L. “The Erinyes in the Oresteia: Real Life, the Supernatural, and the Stage,” JHS 103 (1983): 13–34.
———. “Eumenides in Greek Tragedy,” CQ 34.2 (1984): 260–81.
———. “Zeus and Moira: Aeschylus, Eumenides 1045–46,” LCM 11.6 (1986): 92.
Burkert, W. Creation of the Sacred. Cambridge, Mass., 1996.
———. Greek Religion, transl. by J. Raffan. Cambridge, Mass, 1985.
Clay, J. S. “The Hecate of the Theogony,” GRBS 25 (1984): 24–38.
Collard, C., transl. Aeschylus Oresteia. Oxford, 2002.
Denniston, J. D. and D. Page, eds. Aeschylus Agamemnon. Oxford, 1957.
Grube, G. M. A. “Zeus in Aeschylus,” American Journal of Philology 91.1 (1970): 43–51.
Lloyd-Jones, H. The Justice of Zeus. Berkeley, 1983.
———. “Zeus in Aeschylus,” JHS 76 (1956): 55–67.
Mondi, R. “Tradition and Innovation in the Hesiodic Titanomachy,” TAPA 116 (1986): 25–48.
Rowe, C. J. “‘Archaic Thought’ in Hesiod,” JHS 103 (1983): 124–35.
Seaford, R. “Aeschylus and the Unity of Opposites,” JHS 123 (2003): 141–63.
———.“Historicising Tragic Ambivalence: The Vote of Athena” in B. Goff, ed. His- tory, Tragedy, Theory. Austin, 1995.
Solmsen, F. Hesiod and Aeschylus. Ithaca, 1949.
West, M. L., ed. Hesiod Theogony: Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary. Oxford, 1966.