No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
I make no apologies for devoting the major part of this survey to a discussion of the individual plays, and in consequence limiting the amount of space given to general topics of Aeschylean technique. So disparate are the individual dramas that to do otherwise incurs the risk of either reducing any comment that is made to valueless platitudes by preferring the commonplace to the distinctive, or creating the impression that the playwright’s works constitute but a single enormous play. Concentration upon the individual plays also serves to reflect the continuing emphasis that recent scholarship places upon this aspect of the poet’s work, and to underscore the fact – all too easily forgotten – that Aeschylus was a writer of dramas, not a pedlar of theatrical effects.
Though the earliest extant tragedy, Persae is not an early play in terms of Aeschylus’ literary career; a simple, even ‘primitive’ play in its progression from prosperity to adversity and its emphatic clarity in depicting divine retribution following human pride, yet the successful conversion of historical fact into morally significant drama provides telling evidence of the playwright’s ability to control his material and exploit it for his own purposes that is not without importance for those plays founded on myth. Historical tragedy, however, presents its own peculiar difficulties: the need to balance retention of credibility by not straying too far from objective truth before an audience intimately involved in the events portrayed, with the equally potent need to emphasize, alter, distort, or repress those factors that run counter to the dramatic purpose of the play. In Persae we see this most graphically in the prominence given to Psytalleia as the counterpart to Salamis, the sparse attention to Darius’ own European campaigns, the implication of total Persian retreat immediately after Salamis, and the episode on the Strymon. No less important was the need to avoid converting the action into a celebration of Greek, or more specifically Athenian, victory - an inevitable factor (pace Kitto) in any depiction of Persian defeat, but by the same token one essentially inimical to the spirit of tragedy. That the playwright succeeded most commentators readily admit. Phrynichus had already shown the way in 476 B.c. by setting his own version of the war, Phoenissai, at the Persian capital of Susa, thus ensuring concentration on the Persian point of view.
1. Conacher, Cf.D.J., ‘Aeschylusȉ Persae: A Literary Commentary’, in Serta Turyniana: Studies in Greek Literature and Palaeography in Honor of Alexander Turyn (Urbana, 1974), pp. 148ffGoogle Scholar.
2. Quincey, J. H., ‘Notes on the Persae℉, CQ 12 (1962), 184 Google Scholar; Conacher (1974), pp. 143ff.; Podlecki (1966), pp. 8f.
3. Kitto (1966), pp. 76ff. Kino’s concern to rebut Lattimore, R., ‘Aeschylus on the Defeat of Xerxes’, in Classical Studies in Honor of W. A. Oldfather (Urbana, 1943)Google Scholar, led him to reject altogether the implications of Greek victory, despite his milder verdict (1961), p. 36. Contrast Gagarin (1976), pp. 31ff., 51ff.
4. See Kitto (1961), pp. 33ff.
5. Ireland, S., ‘Dramatic Structure in the Persae and Prometheus of Aeschylus’, G&R 20 (1973), 162–8 Google Scholar; Kitto (1961), pp. 40ff.; Adams, S. M., ‘Salamis Symphony: The Persae of Aeschylus’, in Studies in Honour of Gilbert Norwood, ed. White, M. (Toronto, 1952), pp. 46–54 Google Scholar = Segal (1983), pp. 34-41.
6. Op. cit. (1976), pp. 33ff.
7. Conacher (1974), p. 157, n. 25.
8. Thus Podlecki (1966), pp. 15ff.; contrast Kitto (1966), pp. 89f.; Conacher (1974), pp. 145f.
9. Lucas (1959), pp. 69ff.; Kitto (1961), p. 39; Winnington-Ingram (1983), pp. lOff. In contrast Gagarin (1976), pp. 46ff., discounts impiety as an important factor in the divinely inspired downfall of Xerxes, arguing that the charge emanates solely from Darius. In this, however, he fails to appreciate the unique position the dead king holds as interpreter.
10. Kitto (1966), p. 96; Alexanderson, B., ‘Darius in the Persians’, Eranos 65 (1967), 1–11 Google Scholar; Conacher (1974), pp. 160ff.
11. Tradition and Dramatic Form in the Persians of Aeschylus (Leiden, 1982), pp. 27ffGoogle Scholar.; cf. Taplin (1977), p. 87.
12. Op. cit. (1977), pp. 98ff. Taplin returns to the theme of mirror scenes in Greek Tragedy in Action (London, 1978), pp. 122ff.
13. Op. cit. (1977), pp. 92ff. Contrast Michelini (1982), pp. 134ff., who sees the exit of Atossa as deliberately contrived to produce a contrast with her later exit near the end of the play.
14. Op. cit. (1963), 27.
15. Op. cit. (1960), p. xxxvii.
16. Dworacki, S., ‘Atossa’s Absence in the Final Sequence of the Persae of Aeschylus’, in Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to Bernard M. W. Knox, ed. Bowerstock, G.W. (Berlin, 1979), pp. 101–8 Google Scholar.
17. Gagarin (1976), pp. 41f. Alexanderson (1967), 8f., points out how by making Darius instruct Atossa to reclothe Xerxes Aeschylus is able to forge a link between the Darius scene and the appearance of Xerxes on the stage.
18. Useful bibliographical material is provided by Thalmann, W. G., Dramatic Art in Aeschylus’s Seven Against Thebes (Yale, 1978)Google Scholar; Winnington-Ingram (1983), pp. 16-54; Dawson (1970), pp. 125-7.
19. Often referred to by the German term Opfertod. See Patzer, H., ‘Die dramatische Handlung der Sieben gegen Theben’, HSPh 63 (1958), 116, n. 3Google Scholar; Brown, A. L., ‘Eteocles and the Chorus in the Seven Against Thebes’, Phoenix 31 (1977), 31 1fGoogle Scholar. Attempts to revive or modify the Opfertod theory have been made by Kirkwood, G. M., ‘Eteocles Oiakostrophos’, Phoenix 23 (1969), 9–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Fritz (1962), pp. 212f.; Dawe (1963), 37ff., but tend to confuse intention with result: see Podlecki, A. J., ‘The Character of Eteocles in Aeschylus’ Septem’, TAPhA 95 (1964), 295ffGoogle Scholar.; Smith (1969), 39ff.; Ferrari, F., ‘La decisione di Eteocle e il tragico dei Sette contro Tebe’, ASNP 3.2 (1972), 144ffGoogle Scholar.
20. A reaction to the danger the women’s ill-omened hysteria poses to the city’s morale: Gagarin (1976), p. 153; Brown (1977), 301; the danger of ill-omened words per se when directed to the gods: Cameron, H. D., ‘The Power of Words in the Seven Against Thebes’, TAPhA 101(1970), 98ffGoogle Scholar.; consciousness of his incestuous origins: Méautis, G., Eschyle et la Trilogie (Paris, 1936), pp. 108f.Google Scholar; Dawson (1970), p. 48; cf. Winnington-Ingram (1983), p. 27.
21. The veiled reference at 727ff. to inheritance divided by the sword indicates that this lay at the heart of the matter, though which, if any, of the mythological versions Aeschylus followed remains elusive. See Winnington-Ingram (1983), pp. 42f.; Cameron, H. D., ‘“Epigoni” and the Law of Inheritance in Aeschylus’ Septem’, GRBS 9 (1968), 252ff.Google Scholar; id., Studies on the Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylus (The Hague, 1971), pp. 26ff.; Thalmann (1978), pp. 20ff.; Patzer (1958), 106; Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘The End of the Seven Against Thebes’, CQ 9 (1959), 84fGoogle Scholar.
22. The idea of the dedicated patriot was largely a product of the Opfertod theory. Contrast Golden, L., ‘The Character of Eteocles and the Meaning of the Septem’, CPh 59 (1964), 79ffGoogle Scholar. On Eteocles’ view of the gods see further Dawson (1970), p. 7; Podlecki (1964), 286ff.; Gagarin (1976), pp. 152f.
23. On the nature of the curse see Thalmann (1978), pp. 17ff.; Burnett, A., ‘Curse and Dream in Aeschylus’ Septem’, GRBS 14 (1973), 343-68Google Scholar; Winnington-Ingram (1983), p. 42, n. 64; Manton, G.R. ‘The Second Stasimon of the Seven against Thebes’, BICS 8 (1961), 77–84 Google Scholar.
24. Somewhat similar is the question of exactly when Eteocles fully realizes the meaning of the curse, if he ever does. Cameron (1971), pp. 32ff., following Patzer (1958), argues that initially Eteocles interprets the curse simply in terms of the attack on Thebes, and even after realizing he must fight Polyneices, he expects to survive; cf. Burnett (1973), 352ff.; Otis, ‘The Unity of the Seven Against Thebes’, GRBS 3 (1960), 157ff. To Lesky on the other hand, ‘Eteokles in den Sieben gegen Theben’, WS 74 (1961), 11, any sudden realization of the curse’s true import would require a statement to that effect in the text; contrast Lenz, L., ‘Zur Aischylos’ Septem’, Hermes 109 (1981), 415ffGoogle Scholar. Resumes of the dispute in general are given by Kirkwood (1969); Podlecki (1964); Otis (1960); Smith (1969); cf. Thalmann (1978), pp. 146-9. That the particle γϵ upon which the edifice of Necessity is largely built can apply to the whole sentence, not just the word 'city', was suggested by Tucker in 1908, The Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylus (Cambridge) ad loc. The contrast then becomes not ‘Destroy me but not the city’ but ‘The city may be damaged in the coming attack but do not at least destroy it totally’, cf. Lenz (1981), 418ff., which would certainly be more in keeping with the emphasis consistently placed upon Eteocles' defence of the city in the first part of the play as distinct from his personal fate which later takes over, as hatred, honour, and the curse converge; cf. Winnington-Ingram (1983), pp. 38ff.
25. Thus Smith (1969), 33, sees the exaltation of Necessity as productive of little more than melodrama and the curse as no more than Eteocles’ subjective interpretation of events; cf. Golden (1964); von Fritz (1962), pp. 205f.
26. For the theme of possession see Solmsen, F., ‘The Erinys in Aischylos’ Septem’, TAPhA 68 (1937), 197ffGoogle Scholar. Contrast Kirkwood (1969), 14f.; Brown (1977), 309ff.; Dawson (1970), pp. llf.
27. Taplin (1977), pp. 153ff.; cf. Kirkwood (1969), 12ff.; von Fritz (1962), pp. 201ft., who suggests that while the defenders as a group are chosen during the first stasimon, their individual posting only occurs during the Sieben Redepaare. Further heightening of the dramatic effect is suggested by those who would have the six Theban champions present on stage and sent off at appropriate moments, so emphasizing Eteocles’ gradual isolation. Taplin rightly observes, however, pp. 149ff., that there is insufficient evidence in the text to justify their inclusion, cf. Thalmann (1978), p. 124.
28. Wolff, E., ‘Die Entscheidung des Eteokles in den Sieben gegen Theben’, HSPh 63 (1958), 89–95 Google Scholar; Cameron (1971), pp. 38ff.; Otis (1960), 160; Burnett (1973), 346ff. See further Brown (1977), 307; Taplin (1977), 143ff.
29. For interrupted posting see Lesky (1961), 6ff., following Wilamowitz, , Aischylos Interpretationen (Berlin, 1914), p. 76 Google Scholar. The tenses are discussed by Dawe (1963), 33ff.; Winnington-Ingram (1983), p. 24; Thalmann (1978), pp. 125ff.
30. Op. cit. (1959). Other resumés in Winnington-Ingram (1983), pp. 18f., esp. p. 19, n. 6; Cameron (1971), pp. 49 ff.; Taplin (1977), pp. 169ff.; Thalmann (1978), pp. 137ff. Slight variations on the ‘orthodox’ view are suggested by Lloyd-Jones (1959), 107f., and Page (OCT ad loc), who regard 961-1004 as written specifically for the sisters, and by Brown, A. L., ‘The End of the Seven Against Thebes’, CQ 26 (1976), 206-19Google Scholar, who argues for accepting 1005-25 and 1054-78 as genuine.
31. The papyrus is most fully discussed in Garvie (1969), pp. 1-28; cf. Friis Johansen & Whittle (1980), vol. I, pp. 21ff. Garvie in fact must be the starting point for any modern study of the play.
32. For the criteria of early dating see Garvie, H. Lloyd-Jones (1964). Taplin’s observation (1977), p. 195, that ‘scholars who used to date Hik early were not building their case on nothing’ serves instead to underline the dangers of employing style etc. as a criterion for dating.
33. These and other suggestions are well discussed by Garvie (1969), pp. 12ff.;cf. Lloyd-Jones (1964), 356.
34. 150 according to Murray, G., Aeschylus, The Creator of Tragedy (Oxford, 1940), p. 49 Google Scholar; 200 according to Page in Denniston & Page (1957), p. xxx. See further Garvie (1969), pp. 192ff., 207, n. 9; Lloyd-Jones (1964), 365ff., who observes it is no more startling for a group of 50 Danaids postulated by the myth to be represented by a chorus of twelve than for the chorus of Euripides Supplices to represent a group of seven mothers.
35. A return to archaic technique according to Taplin (1977), pp. 206ff.; a bold experiment according to Garvie (1969), pp. 106-20, 138f.
36. Op. cit. (1969), pp. 126-38; cf. Taplin (1977), pp. 204ff.; Lloyd-Jones (1964), 363f., who question whether a more extensive role for Danaus would add anything to the dramatic effect. Friis Johansen & Whittle, however, (1980), vol. I, p. 27, regard the handling of Danaus as a technical weakness, albeit understandable if the play is seen as an experiment.
37. Gantz, T. N., ‘Love and Death in the Suppliants of Aischylos’, Phoenix 32 (1978), 279-87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38. Discussion and bibliographic details in Garvie (1969), pp. 215ff.; Ireland, S., ‘The Problem of Motivation in the Supplices of Aeschylus’, RhM 117 (1974), 14–29 Google Scholar; MacKinnon, J.K., ‘The Reason for the Danaids’ Flight’, CQ 28 (1978), 74–82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ferrari, F., ‘La Misandria delle Danaidi’, ASNP 7 (1977), 1303–21 Google Scholar. For an analysis on psychoanalytical principles see Caldwell (1974).
39. The relevant passages have been most recently examined by Friis Johansen & Whittle (1980), vol. I, pp. 29ff., who conclude that a general aversion to marriage cannot properly be extracted from the play.
40. Reasserted by Thomson, G., ‘The Suppliants of Aeschylus’, Eirene 9 (1971), 25–30 Google Scholar.
41. Lattimore, R., The Poetry of Greek Tragedy (Baltimore, 1958), p. 17 Google Scholar: ‘The girls are fleeing from marriage. That they are fleeing is more important than why*#x2019;; cf. A. Lesky (1965), p. 69; Winnington-Ingram (1983), p. 60; Friis Johansen & Whittle (1980), vol. I, p. 37.
42. Murray, R. D., The Motif of Io in Aeschylus’ Suppliants (Princeton, 1958), pp. 82ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ferrari, F., ‘Il coro delle ancelle nell’ esodo delle Supplici di Eschilo’, Maia 24 (1972), 353–6 Google Scholar; Carrière, J., Le Choeur secondaire dans le drame grec (Paris, 1977), pp. 50f.Google Scholar; McCall, M., ‘The Secondary Choruses in Aeschylus’ Supplices', CSCA 9 (1976), 117-31Google Scholar.
43. The relative merits of each are well discussed by Friis Johansen & Whittle (1980), vol. Ill, pp. 306ff.; Taplin (1977), pp. 230ff.; Sommerstein, A. H., ’Notes on Aeschylus' Suppliants’, BICS 24 (1977), 76–9 Google Scholar; McCall (1976).