Zugl.: Freiburg (Breisgau), Univ., Diss., 2006

Habilitationsschrift--Freiburg i. B. / Includes bibliographical references.

Habilitationsschrift--Freiburg i. B. / Includes bibliographical references.

University, Diss., 2002--Bonn.

University, Diss., 2001--Bonn.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2002--Bonn.

University, Diss., 2002--Bonn.

University, Diss., 2004--Bonn.

University, Diss., 2004--Bonn.

This thesis examines the theology of Aeschylus through a close text-based discussion of the nature and justice of Zeus. This will not be a dogmatic investigation that looks for signs of monotheism or 'proto-monotheism'. Rather, this thesis will examine the presentation of the god in Aeschylus, as he is found in his plays, free from any desire or attempt to form a rounded, comprehensive 'Aeschylean theology'. The first chapter considers the two closely connected divine terms, thetaepsilonozeta and deltaalphaiotamuonu. The clear-cut and easily discernible meaning of thetaepsilonozeta acts as a constant with which the more ambiguous and less determinable word deltaalphaiotamuonu can be compared and contrasted. This chapter discusses both those instances where deltaalphaiotamuonu seems to be synonymous with thetaepsilonozeta and where it does not, where the term seems to possess a meaning close to that of an individual's fortune or destiny in life. This is done in order to conclusively see how Aeschylus uses the word deltaalphaiotamuonu in the Eumenides as part of his characterisation of the Erinyes, which enables us to see more clearly what role divine terminology plays in the presentation of Zeus and the god's justice. The remaining chapters of this thesis examine Zeus in Aeschylus. First, attention is given to the old debates concerning the potential and respective influence of Homeric, Hesiodic and Presocratic conceptions of divinity on the theology of Aeschylus. Then, the final chapter of the thesis looks at the justice of Zeus primarily through a discussion of one question, whether we should understand Agamemnon as guilty in the eyes of Zeus, which it is argued we should not. It is shown that Aeschylus does not present an optimistic idea of Zeus or divine justice, and the god's rule is seen as neither kind nor benevolent. Rather a pragmatic and pessimistic view is presented to us by Aeschylus, one which recognises that Zeus is an all-powerful being in need of respect and honour and whose will must be carefully observed.