Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
The deus ex machina—literally "god from the machine"—is far more than a convenient plot device. When you encounter this technique on an exam, you're being tested on your understanding of how Greek tragedians used divine intervention to comment on fate, justice, human agency, and the limits of mortal problem-solving. The crane that lowered actors playing gods onto the stage wasn't just theatrical spectacle; it represented a fundamental worldview about the relationship between humans and the divine.
Understanding these examples means grasping why each playwright deployed divine resolution differently. Euripides, who dominates this list, used the device so frequently that scholars debate whether he was sincere or subtly critical of easy divine fixes. When analyzing any deus ex machina, ask yourself: Does this god restore cosmic order, or does the intervention feel arbitrary? Don't just memorize which god appears in which play—know what thematic problem each divine entrance resolves and whether that resolution feels earned or imposed.
Some plays trap characters in circumstances where no human solution exists. The gods intervene not to reward virtue but to cut through knots that mortal hands cannot untie.
Compare: Medea vs. Helen—both feature women escaping through divine family connections, but Medea's exit feels transgressive while Helen's restores her reputation. If an FRQ asks about moral ambiguity in deus ex machina, Medea is your strongest example.
Greek tragedy frequently depicts revenge spiraling out of control. Divine intervention in these plays doesn't just end conflict—it establishes new systems of justice.
Compare: Eumenides vs. Orestes—both resolve cycles of vengeance through Apollo and Athena, but Aeschylus presents genuine transformation while Euripides' resolution feels imposed on irredeemable chaos. Know this distinction for questions about tragic worldview.
Several plays hinge on questions of parentage, recognition, and rightful place. The gods intervene to reveal truths that restore characters to their proper social positions.
Compare: Ion vs. Philoctetes—both feature divine figures resolving identity/destiny questions, but Ion reveals hidden truth while Philoctetes commands future action. Sophocles uses the device far more sparingly than Euripides, making this example particularly significant.
The most spectacular divine interventions reverse death itself. These moments test the boundaries between tragedy and romance.
Compare: Alcestis vs. Andromache—both feature rescues motivated by personal divine relationships rather than abstract justice. Alcestis raises deeper questions about what death and return mean; Andromache provides more straightforward protection of the innocent.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Escape from human justice | Medea, Iphigenia in Tauris, Helen |
| Ending vengeance cycles | Eumenides, Orestes, Hippolytus |
| Identity/lineage revelation | Ion, Philoctetes |
| Death reversed | Alcestis, Andromache |
| Establishing cult/ritual | Eumenides, Hippolytus, Iphigenia in Tauris |
| Family connection to rescuing god | Medea, Ion, Andromache, Helen |
| Morally ambiguous resolution | Medea, Orestes, Philoctetes |
| Civilizational transformation | Eumenides |
Which two plays feature divine intervention that establishes new religious cult practices at Athens, and what does this suggest about the relationship between tragedy and civic religion?
Compare the deus ex machina in Eumenides and Orestes: both involve Apollo and resolution of the house of Atreus's curse, but how do Aeschylus and Euripides differ in their treatment of divine justice?
In which plays does the intervening deity have a family connection to the character being rescued? What pattern does this reveal about how Greek tragedians motivated divine intervention?
If an FRQ asked you to argue that Euripides was skeptical of easy divine solutions, which two examples would best support your argument and why?
Compare Alcestis and Hippolytus: both involve death and divine intervention, but one reverses death while the other cannot. What does this difference suggest about the limits of divine power in Euripidean tragedy?