622
PARTISAN REVIEW
relatively recent development. But its relevance is limited, and some
levels of meaning escape this approach altogether. Take Judas' be–
trayal of Jesus. Scripture offers no psychological explanation but in–
timates the inevitability of predestination; and any effort to explain
this act-whether in terms of jealousy, disappointment, or politics–
trivializes it. Similarly with Aeschylus and Sophocles: again, the in–
exorable, preordained before the hero's birth. No analysis of behavior
can account for the outcome, for it is the poet's very point that the
behavior itself is
accidental
in the sense that it is a mere means to a
predetermined conclusion which would have been inescapable, no
matter what the hero might have done; and the hero's behavior
is
necessary
only insofar as it leads to his undoing. Hence that sus–
pense, on which modern writers rely to such a great extent, is lacking.
The Greek dramatist chose themes which ensured that his audience
would know the outcome in advance-the conclusion was predeter–
mined in this sense, too-but it did not occur either to the poet or
his public that this might in any way detract from the power of his
work. Precisely this was found in the unfolding of what
had
to come
to pass. Nor does our knowledge of the outcome of a drama, or of
the Bible stories, lessen our sense of Jacob's or of David's anguish,
of Jeremiah's agony or Ajax' madness. The majesty of passion here
portrayed is scarcely touched by psychological analyses the relevance
of which almost invites comparison with chemical analyses of paint–
ing: they reveal something about the artist's medium, not his
meaning.
This parallel between Greek tragedy and Scripture is not of the
surface: Aeschylus and Sophocles have what one might call a religious
dimension. They transcend the social sphere and represent something
of cosmic significance, beginning perhaps with divine oracles and
ending in death or madness, as if some vastness from beyond rushed
in, or welled up, to burst into man's pretentious brain. There is the
chorus to remind us constantly of the ritual origin of the drama and
of its function in religious festivals. The dramas became entertain–
ment without ceasing to be revelations. And only in Euripides, where
the attempt to psychologize the characters has taken definite form,
the gods appear
ex machina,
unmotivated and not quite appropri–
ately. For the attempt to motivate the action psychologically leads
us to expect that there will be no supernatural intervention, and the
