The Supernatural in the Tragedies of Euripides 93 



divine powers really are he does not make any positive sugges- 

 tions. He speaks of God and of the Gods promiscuously. The 

 question whether polytheism or monotheism never roused his in- 

 terest. At times his conception of the divine being is that of a 

 pantheist, at times that of an agnostic. But " whoever Zeus may be," 

 6(XTLs 6 Zeus, H. F. 1263 ; fr. 483 ; whether he be Ether, or Neces- 

 sity, or Mind, or Justice, — "whatever Gods be," Or. 418: 6 tl 

 TOT elfflv ol §€01 — there is but one thing which Euripides de- 

 mands as an essential quality in a divinity, namely, that it must 

 be morally blameless and absolutely just. The common people 

 endowed the Gods with all the human passions. This unreason- 

 ableness and immorality of popular beliefs was exceedingly re- 

 pugnant to Euripides. He makes Iphigenia say, I. T. 385 ff. : 



" It cannot be that_ Zeus' bride Leto bare 

 Such folly. Nay, I hold unworthy credence 

 The banquet given of Tantalus to the Gods, — 

 As though the Gods could savour a child's flesh ! 

 Even so, this folk, themselves man-murderers, 

 Charge on their Goddess their own sin, I ween; 

 For I believe that none of Gods is vile! " 



and one of the poet's characters in the " Bellerophontes " de- 

 clares : 



f r. 294, 7 : 



ft ?9eot Tl hpuxsiv alaxpov, ovk eialv -deol. 

 " If the Gods do aught base, then they are not Gods." 



This latter declaration is according to the German scholar, Nestle, 

 the basic principle of Euripides' whole attack upon the Gods of 

 Greek mythology. Over against this verse of Euripides Nestle 

 sets the following verse of Sophocles : 



f r. 226, 4 : 



aiffxpov fJ-ev ov8ev u)v vipriyovvraL dtol, 

 " Nothing to which the Gods lead men is base," 



and points out what both poets have in common with each other 

 and in what they differ from one another. Common to both is 

 the assumption " that God and sin are mutually exclusive terms " ; 



147 



