Disorder, Punishment, and Grace: The Harmonization of Divine Will and Fate in the Prometheus Trilogy

Abstract

In the Prometheus trilogy, fate dictates critical actions taken by Prometheus, such as forming alliances, stealing fire, facing punishment, and eventual liberation. This trajectory gradually aligns with the divine will of Zeus, reflecting the theological framework of early Greek religion. Within the play, Prometheus’s rebellion against the established order of distribution determines his “unlawful act”, which brings about retributive justice—a theological necessity for restoring the balance between human advancement and divine sovereignty. In essence, Prometheus’s punishment results from the interplay between fate and Zeus’s rule, yet this suffering is essential for the harmonization of the cosmic order. Consequently, throughout this process, Zeus’s divine justice undergoes continuous evolution, ultimately establishing the foundation for the legitimacy of civic ethics and providing a theological justification for the justice of human suffering. Ultimately, Aeschylus traces civic ethical norms to Zeus’s justice, demonstrating how democracy gains legitimacy through theological discourse, which highlights the intricate connections among Greek religion, democracy, and tragedy.

1. Introduction

“Fate” (Mοῖρα) is portrayed as a powerful force that governs both individuals and the cosmic order, representing the allocation of the cosmos’s structure. This “‘ordained Apportionment’ is the primaeval allocation of powers and spheres to gods, men, and all physical things” (Hammond 1965, p. 50). From this perspective, fate determines the positions and roles of all entities in the cosmic order, assigning rights and responsibilities as deemed appropriate. When this distribution is disturbed by individual actions or wills, it leads to one of the central conflicts of Greek tragedy: “The heroes cannot escape their fate either, so this superhuman power prevents them from directing their lives with freedom” (Torrijos-Castrillejo 2024, p. 2). This suggests that whether gods, heroes, or mortals, no being can escape the inevitable course of events dictated by fate, and all are bound by this natural power. Consequently, fate reveals itself as a ruthless and indifferent cosmic force, reflecting humanity’s and divinity’s vulnerability. Meanwhile, it “may be understood as a punishment for violation of moral, religious or simply natural harmony” (Zakrzewska 2019, p. 64).

Considering these viewpoints, the workings of fate appear to be connected to Zeus’s justice in Aeschylus’s tragedies. This justice, frequently referred to as divine justice, is initially marked by its severity and ruthlessness, demanding retribution that adheres to the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Humans frequently commit new sins in these situations while attempting to avenge their perceived injustices. Moreover, “the punishment will be transmitted to the descendants of the sinners if they do not receive deserved retribution in their lifetime” (Nie 2023, p. 2). Zeus himself serves as the executor of justice, and one may observe that his concepts of justice and fate exhibit certain similarities in their function of punishment. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that Zeus, as a deity, is inevitably constrained by fate. The interplay between Zeus’s justice and fate forms a remarkable symbiosis: Zeus’s justice restores cosmic order through punishment, an order intricately established by fate. Justice and fate work together to foster harmony within the universe’s greater framework, while their fusion simultaneously signifies the evolution of Zeus’s concept of justice. Through a collection of tragic ancient narratives, Aeschylus depicts the gradual emergence of a flourishing family and an overall vision of meticulously crafted harmony (Owen 1952, p. 1). Consequently, the essence of divine justice transitions from severity and fear to a state of blessing, grace, and reason, ultimately expressing itself as law in the daily life of the Athenian polis.

This paper focuses on the Prometheus trilogy1 as the textual basis for exploring Zeus’s justice. Throughout the trilogy, one can observe the evolution of Zeus’s will towards benevolence, alongside the transformation of divine justice. This shift often serves as evidence of attributing the plays to Aeschylus, a point supported by various scholars. Lloyd-Jones (1971, p. 75) argues that the linguistic, stylistic, and dramatic differences seen in Prometheus Bound, in contrast to Aeschylus’s earlier works, do not undermine the play’s authenticity. He argues that most doubts about the trilogy arise from theological issues rather than textual inconsistencies. Prometheus’s accusations, while seemingly defiant, subtly hint at eventual reconciliation with Zeus, portraying all suffering and violence as part of a divine plan. This interpretation aligns Zeus with the archetypal role of the defender of justice, a hallmark of Aeschylean tragedy. Hall (2010, p. 230) identifies a chronological inconsistency with the previous conclusion, suggesting that Prometheus Bound could be a fourth-century BCE adaptation by another playwright. Nonetheless, she recognizes that the play’s cosmological framework, elevated imagery, and serious language closely resemble those in Aeschylus’s Oresteia, thus indirectly reinforcing the theological unity of the trilogy. Sommerstein (2010, pp. 228–32) supports this view and argues that the play’s structural, thematic, and philosophical dimensions remain consistent with Aeschylus’s corpus. From the above analysis, it is evident that while the authorship of the Prometheus trilogy remains a matter of scholarly debate,2 its theological characteristics are fundamentally aligned with the themes of Aeschylean drama. Based on this, this paper takes the theological themes present in the trilogy as its central focus of study.

In what ways does Zeus’s concept of justice develop throughout the play? This question has attracted significant scholarly attention. Podlecki (1966, pp. 103–5) views Zeus’s actions as characteristic of a tyrant. Similarly, Yu (1971, p. 31) echoes this viewpoint, depicting Zeus as a tyrannical figure and highlighting the harshness and brutality of his punishments. Meeter (1972, p. 33) also depicts Zeus as a harsh figure, linking his righteous fury to human transgressions. In contrast, dissenting voices like Dissen (Lloyd-Jones 1956, p. 56) argue that Zeus’s character evolves throughout the trilogy, transforming from a youthful tyrant to a compassionate ruler by its end. Smyth (1924, pp. 120–21) provides a nuanced examination of Zeus, suggesting that while his brutality remains, it is somewhat mitigated by his mercy and fairness, acknowledging the inherent justice in human dignity.

These scholars analyze the punishment in the Prometheus trilogy from the perspective of Zeus’s harsh justice and evolution. Yet, they overlook a crucial factor: the reasons and purposes behind Prometheus’s suffering and Zeus’s punishments, which are intricately intertwined with the design of fate. In light of this, the present paper aims to use the Prometheus trilogy as a text to study the relationship between Zeus’s justice and fate, thereby exploring the religious views of the ancient Greeks around the 5th century BCE. This study explores Prometheus’s theft of fire, the gifts he provided to humanity, and the punishment that followed. It aims to demonstrate that Prometheus’s suffering and Zeus’s retribution are not merely narrative events, but illustrate the complex relationship between fate and divine will. In this dynamic narrative, fate guides the actions of both Zeus and Prometheus, leading them into a preordained design. Throughout this process, Zeus’s justice gradually transforms into a cosmic order that aligns with fate, ultimately forming the sacred basis of civic ethics. This article explores ancient Greek insights on justice, fate, and democracy. Additionally, it reveals how Aeschylus employed mythological frameworks to address pressing issues of his time and provide perspectives relevant to the creation of modern theater practices.

2. The Imbalance of Distribution: Prometheus’s Challenge to the Established Order

From the trilogy’s narrative viewpoint, the first play, Prometheus Bound,3 serves as the starting point of the entire story. In this play, Prometheus challenges the established order by giving fire and essential skills to humanity, which are crucial for civilization’s advancement. As a result, Zeus commands the gods Power and Force to capture him and bind him on Mount Caucasus. The play clarifies why Prometheus stole fire. This act stems chiefly from the conflict between the Titans, led by Cronus, and the Olympian gods, directed by Zeus, his son. During this battle, Prometheus chose to side with Zeus, guided by the prophecy from his mother, Themis, and aided the Olympians against their relatives. Consequently, Cronus and the Titans were confined deep within the earth. Yet, after Zeus became the supreme god, “he wanted to obliterate the race altogether and create another new” (234–35). This prospect enraged Prometheus, leading him to challenge the existing distribution system. Prometheus decided to steal fire and bestow crafts upon humanity in this context. This act raises humanity to a level comparable to the gods, allowing them to employ wisdom to enhance their circumstances. In other words, “The fire intelligently used, namely, technology, is precisely what can potentially make the humans god-like, or even gods themselves” (Chiodo 2020, p. 212). This particular aspect of human fire is further affirmed in the writings of the Romantics, where it “symbolizes the raising of the human state to a quasi-divine destiny” (Bachelard 1964, p. viii).

Additionally, Prometheus equips humanity with essential life skills, including the complex rules that dictate the movements of the sun, moon, and stars; the importance of numbers as a form of craft; the art of writing through the combination of letters; the domestication of wild animals; and the ability to navigate the seas, among others (450–71). Meanwhile, in his discourse on higher crafts—prophecy and sacrifice—Prometheus details how he taught humans to interpret the characteristics of internal organs to win divine favor (493–95) and “wrapped the thigh-bones and the long chine in fat and burnt them, guiding mortals towards a skill of making difficult inferences, and opening their eyes to the signs (σήματα) the flames gave, which till then had been dark to them” (496–500).4 The passage shows that Prometheus’s contributions to humanity pertain to the domain of practical knowledge vital for daily life. As Chiodo (2020, p. 212) notes, “Through the fire, jointly with the other Prometheus’s gift to humans, namely, the intelligence, they can survive animals and atmospheric agents, live under the sun, and even rule the earth”. This emphasizes the significant role of fire and the technology it represents.

However, he overlooked that, as a deity, he was also bound to respect his own limitations. In this context, in his defiance of the established order, he was driven by excessive “spirit” (θυμός). By exceeding his limits and violating the principle of nothing in excess (Μηδὲν ἄγαν),5 he failed to act within the bounds of propriety. Generally, “spirit” is a spiritual force that maintains order, but it can result in disorder when taken to excess. Therefore, the qualified Guardians in the polis “should be affectionate to their friends but fierce towards strangers—it is spirit that causes affectionateness, for spirit is the capacity of the soul whereby we love” (Aristotle, Rackham 1944). Prometheus, as a subject under the dominion of Zeus, may, to a certain extent, be regarded as assuming a role akin to that of the Guardians in Aristotle’s Politics. Yet, it is clear that Prometheus falls into a state of hybris6 during his rebellion, losing balance between his desires and the community he belongs to, which ultimately draws the attention of the divine retribution. Meanwhile, in his narrative about giving crafts to humanity, Prometheus reveals a strong contempt for human ignorance, weakness, and powerlessness. These conflicting attitudes serve to further underscore the hybris inherent in his character. According to North (1966, p. 43), Prometheus’s arrogant pride and contempt for restraint lead him to refuse to acknowledge the reality of his situation. As the chorus, Oceanus, and Hermes suggest, he must learn to control his excesses and achieve sound judgment and moderation. The play illustrates Prometheus’s weaknesses through the tragic struggles he encounters. These weaknesses also reflect those of contemporary humanity, who “envisages him as the Promethean earthly creature who has rebelled against Heaven and tried to misappropriate the role of the Divinity for himself (Nasr 1989, p. 144). In this context, the tragic hero’s inability to escape his inherent human flaws ultimately foreshadows his doom (Mokani 2021, p. 85).

The analysis reveals that Prometheus’s character plays a crucial role in his act of stealing fire. More importantly, his alliance with Zeus is intertwined with the framework of fate, supported by his mother Themis’s prophecy. Since Prometheus’s loyalty to Zeus aligns with fate’s inevitability, both his theft of fire and the subsequent conflict with Zeus must be seen within this larger context. Consequently, Prometheus’s gifts to humanity are not mere acts of rebellion; they signify an essential moment in the overarching design of fate. The rebellion initiated by Prometheus is closely tied to an inevitable punishment woven into the divine will of Zeus.

3. The Inevitability of Suffering: Crafts as a Transgression Against the Divine Sovereignty

As discussed in the preceding section, Prometheus’s acquisition of fire constitutes a component of fate’s design, and the subsequent punishment is also an essential aspect of fate’s workings, of which Prometheus is already cognizant. Consequently, when he faces retribution for the theft of fire, he asserts his capability to anticipate all future occurrences and understands that no calamity could take him by surprise (100–3). This is because all of this is predetermined by fate, as Prometheus says: “I must bear my destined fate as easily as may be, knowing that the power of Necessity is unchallengeable” (104–5). Clearly, as a tragic hero, Prometheus “has no control over his fate, and under such circumstances, he struggles in vain, dealing with his fate” (Mokani 2021, p. 82). In fact, the fate of Prometheus is similar to that of philosophers, and both must suffer for the sake of their own exploration (Pomponazzi 1567, p. 709). For Prometheus, this suffering arises from the design of fate. While he is conscious of the events bound to occur, this awareness does not entirely enable him to understand the necessity of these occurrences in the evolution of the cosmic order. This tension embodies the core of Prometheus’s tragedy: his limited foresight leads him to make careful decisions, yet his partial comprehension of the cosmos’ laws heightens his suffering and internal struggle. Prometheus’s foresight of fate did not grant him liberation; instead, it intensified his inherent suffering. As an individual, Prometheus remains trapped in a network of predetermined events that cannot be altered, reflecting the fate-related dilemma faced by characters in Greek tragedy.

In addition to the role of fate, another reason for Prometheus’s inevitable punishment is tied to Zeus’s justice. As previously discussed, within the framework of Zeus, every entity in the cosmos is assigned a specific role and domain. This allocation encompasses the authority of the gods, the limitations of humanity, and the boundaries between the two. Fire and crafts, as attributes unique to the gods, represent the power of wisdom and creation. At the same time, in Zeus’s apportionment, humans are seen as fragile and skill-less beings subject to the forces of nature. Therefore, Prometheus’s granting of crafts to humanity represents a transgression against this preordained order, inevitably inviting punishment. As Nietzsche observed:

“The myth of Prometheus presupposes the unbounded value which naïve humanity placed on fire as the true palladium of every rising culture; but it struck those contemplative original men as a crime, a theft perpetrated on divine nature, to believe that man commanded fire freely, rather than receiving it as a gift from heaven, as a bolt of lightning which could start a blaze, or as the warming fire of the sun”.

(Nietzsche 1999, p. 49)

Clearly, from the perspective of the ancient Greeks, Prometheus’s theft of fire implicitly signified a violation of divine authority. Consequently, the accusation made by the Powers against Prometheus emphasizes this idea:

“For it was your glory, the gleam of fire that makes all skills attainable (παντέχνου), that he stole and gave to mortals. For such an offence he must assuredly pay his penalty to the gods, to teach him that he must accept the autocracy of Zeus and abandon his human-loving (φιλανθρώπου) ways”.

(7–11)

Power’s statement carries a dual implication. First, it presents Prometheus as the Titan who granted humanity the source of all skills and who represents a philanthropic spirit. Second, it depicts Prometheus as a traitor to the gods since all the power mortals have acquired involves the sacred crafts of Zeus and his Olympian kin. Fire, the source of all crafts, is part of Hephaestus’s divine glory. Sharing it with humanity diminishes the divine nature. In its bestowal and application, humans lack reverence and gratitude for this divine grace and generosity.

Power further mocks Prometheus by contemptuously referring to him as a “Sophistes” (σοφιστὴς) (63). In early Greek contexts, the term referred broadly to poets, philosophers, experts in specific crafts, and individuals who prided themselves on cleverness or cunning. More generally, however, “σοφιστὴς” refers to the Sophists, the early professional educators in Athens who provided advanced knowledge (Conacher 1998, pp. 7–8). By employing the term “σοφιστὴς” in a mocking manner, Power belittles Prometheus’s actions and subsequently asserts Zeus’s far greater wisdom, reinforcing the dominance of divine law over human ingenuity. Power’s accusations underscore Aeschylus’s critical perspective on the emerging Sophists within the polis, as their rhetoric significantly threatens traditional ethical values upheld by Aeschylus cherishes.

Additionally, Prometheus’s speech emphasizes the skills he bestowed upon humanity, such as shelter, astrology, mathematics, writing, animal taming (462), navigation, trade (467–8), and medical treatments (481–2). He portrays these mortal powers as derived from the sacred honors of Zeus and the Olympian gods. These divine contributions encompass Hephaestus’s mastery of fire and metallurgy, Zeus’s storms, the fruits of Demeter and Athena, the Muses’ artistic talents, Hermes’s livestock, Poseidon’s expertise in horses and navigation, Apollo’s healing practices, and the prophetic gifts of both Zeus and Apollo, along with potential weaving techniques from Athena (White 2001, p. 114). However, Prometheus fails to recognize the honor associated with these gods, diminishing their divine gifts to mere knowledge and artisan skills.

This suggests that the crafts granted to humanity by Prometheus are far from perfect. Since fire and sacred crafts are honors reserved for the gods, Prometheus’s act of “theft” represents a violation of divine honor and a form of religious desecration. Having received these divine crafts, humans showed no reverence or piety, allowing hybris to flourish amid false prosperity. This transgression suggests that Prometheus’s actions were inevitably subject to Zeus’s punishment, which largely aligns with the design of fate. Additionally, the implicit prophecy of reconciliation between Prometheus and Zeus in Prometheus Bound suggests the potential evolution of Zeus’s justice, a transformation that becomes evident in Prometheus Unbound.

4. The Formation of Reconciliation: The Completion of the Divine Plan

As divine beings, Prometheus and Zeus are subject to the authority of fate; their conflict and ultimate reconciliation are part of fate’s overarching plan—a plan that develops and reaches fulfillment over the course of the trilogy. In the earlier analysis, this paper contends that the Prometheus trilogy consists of three plays, with the first primarily focusing on the conflict between Prometheus and Zeus. This conflict reaches a turning point in the second play, Prometheus Unbound. Ultimately, Zeus frees Prometheus, signaling a shift in divine will from severe retribution to forgiveness. As for the third play, “it is likely that the poet dealt with the introduction into the Attic cult of the festival of Prometheus, as a fire god” (Greene 1944, p. 117). Regarding their reconciliation, Nietzsche considers it as “Aeschylean tendency to justice”:

“The limitless suffering of the bold ‘individual’ on the one hand, and the extreme plight of the gods, indeed a premonition of the twilight of the gods, on the other; the power of both these worlds of suffering to enforce reconciliation, metaphysical oneness—all this recalls in the strongest possible way the centre and principal tenet of the Aeschylean view of the world, which sees moira, as eternal justice, throned above gods and men”.

(Nietzsche 1999, pp. 48–9)

In other words, the reconciliation of these two worlds of suffering mentioned by Nietzsche refers to the Promethean struggle of the Titan. This struggle is fundamentally marked by sacrilege and conflict with the gods, ultimately resulting in unity. As Sommerstein (2010, p. 227) highlights, both Prometheus Bound and Prometheus Unbound share significant similarities in their content, themes, and techniques, indicating that these plays are intertwined components of a trilogy. The extant fragments of Prometheus Unbound help piece together the overarching narrative, leading to the ultimate reconciliation between Zeus and Prometheus.

At the beginning of Prometheus Unbound, a chorus of released Titans appear before Prometheus (frr. 190–3). Heracles arrives and defeats the eagle (fr. 200); however, possibly fearing his father Zeus’s power, he does not completely free Prometheus. The conflict between Prometheus and Zeus continues (fr. 201) until they eventually reconcile.7 And this revelation, perhaps facilitated by Themis herself, paves the way for their agreement.8 In fact, this reconciliation was initially established in the first play, where Prometheus holds the key to Zeus’s downfall (910), a secret that is essential for the potential of reconciliation. As a result, once Zeus learns the secret, he frees Prometheus, bestows religious honors upon him, and declares that from now on, humanity will wear wreaths during all festive occasions to honor him (Sommerstein 2010, p. 226).

Additionally, as a form of compromise, Zeus offers a “gift” to humanity and Prometheus. To some degree, this gift serves as compensation for Prometheus’s previous “failure” to incorporate ethical norms alongside the technical abilities he bestowed upon humanity. From the extant fragments, it can be deduced that this “gift” likely pertains to ethical virtues. In Prometheus Unbound, there are two groups that exemplify these social virtues: the “righteous and hospitable” Gabii (fr. 196) and the “law-abiding” Scythians (fr. 198) (Sommerstein 2010, p. 227).

To explore the ethical norms that Zeus imparted to humanity, we can find insights in Plato’s works. The virtues given by Zeus may resonate with the ideas presented in Protagoras. In this dialogue, particularly in the story of Prometheus, Plato concludes by highlighting the concepts of “shame” (αἰδώς) and “justice” (δίκη) (Plato 1903, 320d–322c). Regarding the reason that Zeus’s gift to humanity is termed “shame”, North (1966, p. 7) has suggested that it is because “shame” embodies an ethical emotion encompassing respect, awe, self-worth, and honor. Heroes who lack this feeling of shame frequently become consumed by resentment and insults, which can obscure their judgment through pride and anger to cloud their judgment. Consequently, they may lose their self-control and give in to rage during crucial moments. Prometheus’s revolt against Zeus’s supposed unfair distribution clearly illustrates this, culminating in his punishment. As for “justice”, it is closely associated with retribution and embodies a dual significance. It represents both a universal force—justice in a general sense—and the traditional ethical norms guided by Zeus. In essence, “shame” and “justice” are crucial in promoting harmony within the polis and guaranteeing that violations of divine and civic laws receive appropriate attention and punishment.

In addition to Plato’s relevant texts, Sophocles’s Antigone9 mentions nine key human achievements in the “Ode to Man”: seafaring, farming, hunting, taming animals, speech, thought, civic customs, housebuilding, and medicine (Bernardete 1999, p. 42). Beyond these crafts, however, the ode emphasizes the foundational role of “wisdom” in civic life, namely “the laws of the earth and the justice of the gods”.10 This is precisely what is missing in Prometheus Bound. Given that the crafts described in the play coincide with the nine achievements in the “Ode to Man”, this parallel reflects a common mode of expression in ancient Greek texts.

Through the above analysis, we observe that throughout the entire process—from Prometheus’s theft of fire to Zeus’s punishment and their reconciliation—human society acquires not only the technological advancements necessary for civilization but also the corresponding ethical rules. This transformation yields a beneficial outcome, reflecting the complex interaction between Zeus’s justice and fate. In this process, Aeschylus “purifies the conception of the Olympian gods, subordinating them to Zeus, who is, or becomes, all-wise and all-powerful, the embodiment of justice; his will is fused with Fate, which now is seen to be not only irresistible but good” (Greene 1944, p. 110).

5. The Gods of the Polis: The Theological Origins of Civic Ethics

The changing dynamics of Zeus’s justice and fate illustrate that fate is not just a terrifying power, nor is Zeus’s justice the sole metric for assessing right and wrong in ancient Greek thought. Instead, humanity actively engages in self-discipline, governance, and judgment using appropriate institutional frameworks. As Zakrzewska (2019, pp. 67–68) notes, “The precursors of the genre, Aeschylus and Sophocles, were the first to try to resolve the problem of fate, which is to realise catharsis and, in consequence, bring about consolation in a world deprived of gods”.

The phrase “a world deprived of gods” highlights the reasons why Zeus enforces ethical standards among humans. It represents a time when divinity diminishes, allowing human consciousness to develop and progress. This shift aligns with the historical context of fifth-century BCE Athens, renowned for the emergence of democratic institutions and significant political advancements transformations.11 As Goldhill (2004, p. 2) noted, “Ancient commentators describe a series of violent shifts of constitution—between oligarchy (rule by a few), tyranny (rule by one man), and democracy (rule by the many)”. During the late 6th century BCE, Athens was governed by the tyrant Peisistratus and then his son Hippias. Later, in 507 BCE, Cleisthenes enacted reforms that laid the foundation for the first democratic system. This era signified the rise of democratic authority—the conviction that the Athenians were shaping their own fate. Metaphysically, Greek tragedy often conveys a pessimistic view of human existence. Yet, on a socio-political standpoint, it reflects the confidence, optimism, and moral independence tied to the emerging democratic awareness in Athens (Hall 2010, p. 69). Vernant and Vidal-Naquet (1990, p. 27) observe that this era was marked by two opposing views on humanity’s role in the world: the political system of laws and heroic mythology. Tragic consciousness arose during a time when the relationship between humanity and the divine felt both intertwined and in conflict. This sense of tragedy brought about responsibility as human actions became topics for reflection and discussion, even though they were not seen as fully independent enough to achieve total self-sufficiency.

The political upheavals and the emergence of democracy have instigated substantial transformations, as articulated by Goldhill:

“This competitive self-scrutiny and self-criticism has been convincingly seen as a determining factor in what is known as the fifth-century enlightenment—that extraordinary burgeoning of arts, science, medicine and philosophy in the fifth century, centred on Athens (Lloyd 1987). Indeed, the institution of tragedy, and the Oresteia in particular, as we will see, can be viewed first as part of this continuing public debate on internal political developments”.

(Goldhill 2004, p. 2)

During a time characterized by the growth of democracy, Aeschylus wove themes of democratic institutions into his works. As Mark Griffith notes, among the three major tragedians, Aeschylus most directly and compellingly addressed democracy, the rule of law, legal courts, and the lasting achievements of the polis. Although Sophocles and Euripides also engaged with political themes, Aeschylus’s works were crafted during the prosperous era following the battles of Marathon and Salamis yet before the Peloponnesian War.12 In this context, Aeschylus emerged as a proud advocate for Athens and its democratic system. For example, the portrayal of Pelasgus and his proto-democratic polis of Argos in the Suppliants serves as a microcosm of early Athens. At the same time, the conclusion of the Eumenides largely signifies Aeschylus’s endorsement of Athens and its political institutions (Griffith 1995, pp. 63–64). Baldwin (2014, p. 190) provides a comprehensive analysis of Aeschylus’s tragedies, arguing that Aeschylus’s works primarily focus on the welfare of the polis. He emphasizes the virtues of the warriors of Marathon, the religious devotion to the gods, and the civic duty of protecting the polis.

The above scholars agree that Aeschylus examines democracy prominently in his plays. However, a distinctive feature of his work is the focus on divine justice, reflecting the religious beliefs of earlier tragic poets. In an era of rising democratic awareness and civic dialogue, Aeschylus, as a poet of the polis, responds to emerging intellectual movements and reinterpreting the legitimacy of divine justice. This synthesis comprised both traditional norms and emerging ideals, which sometimes conflicted but also, at other moments, harmonized into a coherent vision. In his study of A.W. Schlegel, Behler (1986, p. 342) notes that Schlegel views Greek tragedy as a continual struggle between fate and human nature, where interpersonal conflicts are resolved through a unique moral beauty that balances fear and compassion. A similar perspective is echoed in Chen and Shui’s (1986, pp. 134–35) study of F. Schlegel, arguing that F. Schlegel regards Aeschylean tragedy as exemplifying the progressive defeat and replacement of ancient deities and Titans by younger, more astute divine beings. This progression symbolizes the gradual diminishment and eventual decline of humanity and nature’s noble and grand elements. Aeschylus’s works embody the memories and illusions of gods while aspiring toward a life defined by rules, harmony, and civilization. His work most strikingly depicts the contrast between the old world and the new. Hegel interpreted the central conflicts in Aeschylus’s tragedies as a confrontation between nature and civilization. Here, “nature” refers to “the relation of children to parents”, while “civilization” denotes “the bond between husband and wife”, i.e., marriage. Therefore, it “does not issue merely from purely natural love or from a natural- and blood-relationship; it springs, on the contrary, from an inclination which is known and therefore from the free ethical life of the self-conscious will” (Hegel 1975, p. 463). Therefore, Aeschylus’s works accurately portray the tension between family ties and legal obligations. Karl Marx views Aeschylus’s tragedy through the lens of the dialectic of world history, recognizing it as the early onset of actions and events before the crucial turning point occurs (Prawer 1976, pp. 197–231).

Schlegel, Hegel, and Marx, recognized the novel elements and resultant complexity inherent in Aeschylean tragedy. This intricacy mirrors Aeschylus’s engagement with contemporary issues and his endeavor to convey these matters to the citizens of the polis through tragedy. Consequently, Aeschylus offered a solution by embracing certain “new” intellectual ideas. His approach, grounded in the welfare of the polis, uses myth along with a series of events, actions, and suffering to convey his worldview (Nietzsche 1997, p. 236). We can observe this in the Prometheus trilogy, where Zeus evolves from a figure of strict punishment to one of reason. His conception of justice evolves from harsh to more benevolent, providing humanity with political virtues and legal frameworks. The nature of divine justice, initially depicted through brutal punishment, shifts to become the cornerstone of civic life and institution.

6. Conclusions

Prometheus’s gifts to humanity are essential to the functioning of the cosmic order. Although these gifts may challenge the gods’ authority, in the long term, they contribute to the ultimate aim of cosmic harmony. Fate dictated Prometheus’s theft of fire and his subsequent punishment; however, it also guaranteed that these conflicts would be resolved through justice, ultimately restoring universal balance and harmony. As Greene (1944, p. 109) noted, “Aeschylus boldly addresses himself to no less a task than the reconciliation of timeless conflicting principles or duties; fate and freedom, justice and mercy, the individual and the universal order, suffering and happiness”.

Within this framework, the conflict between Zeus and Prometheus is resolved through the evolution of Zeus’s character, ultimately culminating in divine grace and the “miracle of persuasion”. This resolution establishes a vision of ideal civic life. While it relies on the scientific skills and material resources supplied by Prometheus, its legitimacy stems from civic order, social ethics, and religious ritual. This vision of the polis embodies three dimensions of Olympian justice: the internal justice within the polis and its families, the kindness extended to friendly outsiders, and the reverence shown to the gods (White 2001, p. 140).

These principles collectively illustrate the interplay between the divine and the human realms, clarifying the intricate dynamics that exist between the sacred and the secular, fate and justice, along technology and divine will. In doing so, Aeschylus establishes a theoretical framework for the harmony of the polis, even though achieving this ideal requires dealing with considerable and complex challenges.