Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T13:21:11.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Aeschylus: The Man, his Plays and Times

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

To glimpse the man behind the plays, to set him in his social, political, and theatrical context, to establish in other words a biography for Aeschylus, depends upon a variety of ancient sources in various states of preservation and of varying reliability: 1) the Life found in a number of the medieval manuscripts, 2) inscriptional evidence such as the Marmor Parium, 3) the Hypotheses attached to some of the plays, 4) the Fasti Theatri Atheniensis, 5) anecdotes and details preserved in the works of other ancient authors. Of these the first and last are undoubtedly the least reliable: too often similar or identical experiences are attached to a variety of subjects; details culled from a writer’s works become biographical facts, or scurrilous motivations are attached to otherwise credible actions. The following events, however, have proven generally acceptable:

According to the Life (cf. Scholia to Aristophanes Acharnions 10, Frogs 868) after his death Aeschylus was accorded the unique honour of having his plays restaged. This may account in part for the discrepancy in the number of victories won in the dramatic contests: 13 (Life), 28 (Suda), but further disagreement over the total number of plays produced: 70 tragedies, 5 satyr plays (Life), 73 dramas (Catalogue of Plays), 90 (Suda), suggests other factors at work - the loss of a whole column of titles is one suggestion.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 18: Aeschylus , 1986 , pp. 4 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Most of the ancient evidence is reproduced by Wilamowitz, ed. maj. (Berlin, 1914, reissued 1958), pp. 3-19. The Greek Life itself is most easily accessible in the OCTs of G. Murray (2nd ed. 1955), and Page (1972). For a translation see Lefkowitz, M. R., The Lives of the Greek Poets (London, 1981), pp. 157-60Google Scholar, cf. pp. 67-74. For the Marmor Parium see Murray Ed. p. 373. The most significant of the Fasti Theatri Atheniensis, that concerning Persae (= IG II2 2318) is given by Murray Ed. p. 52, and translated along with the Hypothesis by Podlecki, (1970), pp. 19 Google Scholarf.

2. In one respect the process continues to the present day in the continued debate over the evidence provided by the plays for Aeschylus’ own political and religious views.

3. The events of Aeschylus’ life are well discussed by Podlecki, A. J., The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy (Ann Arbor, 1966), pp. 1–7 Google Scholar. Shorter resumes are given by Lucas, D. W., The Greek Tragic Poets2 (London, 1959), pp. 55-61Google Scholar; Lesky, A., Greek Tragedy (London, 1965), pp. 54ff.Google Scholar; Denniston & Page (1957), pp. ix ff.; Rosenmeyer (1982), pp. 369-76.

4. The Life also places Aeschylus at the battles of Salamis and Plataea. The first of these is credible enough, though the latter, like Pausanias’ reference to Aeschylus’ presence at the battle of Artemisium (1.14.5) is generally regarded more as a function of the ancient desire for completeness.

5. The ostensible reason was to restage Persae. The Life also refers to a visit while Hieron was refounding Aetna (476-5 B.c.), for which Aeschylus produced the Aitnaiai. Whether this represents a separate and earlier visit is questioned by Herington, C. J., ‘Aeschylus in Sicily’, JHS 87 (1967), 74–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, though accepted by Podlecki (1966), pp. 5f., and Griffith, M., ‘Aeschylus, Sicily and Prometheus’, in Dionysiaca, Nine Studies in Greek Poetry by Former Pupils Presented to Sir Denys Page, ed. Dawe, R.D. (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 105f Google Scholar.

6. On the significance of the papyrus for the dating of the play see Garvie, A. F., Aeschylus’ Supplices: Play and Trilogy (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 1–28 Google Scholar.

7. Greek text in Murray Ed. p. 373.

8. Ibid. p. 375; Page Ed. p. 335.

9. Gantz, T. N., ‘Aischylos’ Lost Plays: The Fifth Column’, RhM 123 (1980), 210-22Google Scholar.

10. The relevant passages are discussed by Taplin (1977), pp. 46f.

11. The fullest account of the theatre in Athens continues to be provided by Pickard-Cambridge, A.W., The Theatre of Dionysus in Athens (Oxford, 1946)Google Scholar. More recent useful studies include Hammond, N. G. L., ‘The Conditions of Dramatic Production to the Death of Aeschylus’, GRBS 13 (1972), 38750 Google Scholar; Rosenmeyer (1982), pp. 54ff.

12. Aristophanes, Frogs 830-9, 907-33; cf. Taplin (1977), pp. 42 Google Scholarff. On silences see further Taplin, O., ‘Aeschylean Silences and Silences in Aeschylus’, HSPh 76 (1972), 57–97 Google Scholar.

13. Arnott, P., Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1962), pp. 4 Google Scholarff., 22ff.; Webster, T. B. L., Greek Theatre Production (London, 1956), pp. 7f.Google Scholar; cf. Garvie (1969), pp. 160f. That it was Aeschylus who introduced a stage of some kind is attested by Themistius Or. 26. 316d on the authority of Aristotle, while Aristotle’s own attribution of ‘scene-painting’ to Sophocles (Poetics 1449al8) suggests, if not actually proves, a late dating for any background to the plays.

14. Hammond (1972), pp. 409ff., 416ff.; Taplin (1977) App. B&C; cf., however, Canavan, J. P., Studies in the Staging of Aeschylean Tragedy (Diss. Columbia Univ., 1972), pp. 7ff Google Scholar. Taplin himself does not accept the use of the outcrop to represent Darius’ tomb, but the absence of any backdrop does allow him to speak of scene-changes by the simple expedient of ‘refocusing’ (pp. 103ff.).

15. Dale, A. M., Collected Papers (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 121 Google Scholar, 263ff.; cf. Webster (1956), pp. 8ff.; Taplin (1977), pp. 442ff.

16. ‘Politics and the Oresteia’, JHS 102 (1982), 144 = Collected Essays (Oxford, 1983), p. 40.

17. The ‘radicalist’ view of Aeschylus is advanced by Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden, 1954), IIIb (Suppl.) i, pp. 22–5 Google Scholar; Dover, K. J., ‘The Political Aspect of Aeschylus’s Eumenides’, JHS 77 (1957), 230–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Podlecki (1966), pp. 80ff., who provides a useful resumé of earlier 'views. Aeschylus the ‘conservative’, while more a feature of 19th century scholarship - see, for instance, Sidgwick, A., Aeschylus, Eumenides (Oxford, 1887), p. 25 Google Scholar - may still be glimpsed in Dodds, E. R., ‘Morals and Politics in the Oresteia’, PCPhS 186 (1960), 19–31 Google Scholar; contrast Macleod (1982). For Aeschylus as an advocate of political moderation and compromise, or deliberately ambiguous, see Gagarin, M., Aeschylean Drama (Berkeley, 1976), pp. 116f.Google Scholar; Costa, C. D. N., ‘Plots and Politics in Aeschylus’, G&R 9 (1962), 29f Google Scholar.

18. Cole, J. R., ‘The Oresteia and Cimon’, HSPh 81 (1977), 99–111 Google Scholar.

19. Podlecki (1966), pp. 55f.; cf. ‘Politics in Aeschylus’ Supplices’, CF 26 (1972), 64-71. For an extreme use of Supplices as history see Diamantoupolis, A., ‘The Danaid Tetralogy of Aeschylus’, JHS 77 (1957), 220–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; contrast Garvie (1969), pp. 154ff.

20. Post, L.A. ‘The Seven Against Thebes as Propaganda for Pericles’, CW 44 (1950-1), 49–52 Google Scholar; contrast Podlecki (1966), pp. 31ff.

21. Davison, J. A., ‘The Date of the Prometheia’, TAPhA 80 (1949), 66–93 Google Scholar.

22. Broadhead (1960), pp. xvff.; Winnington-Ingram, R.P., Studies in Aeschylus (Cambridge, 1983), p. 52 Google Scholar; Kitto, H. D. F., Greek Tragedy3 (London, 1961), p. 36 Google Scholar; Macleod (1982), 131; Lucas (1959), p. 65.

23. Thus Diamantoupolis; contrast Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘The Supplices of Aeschylus: The New Date and Old Problems’, AC 33 (1964), 356-74Google Scholar, = Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy, ed. Segal, E. (Oxford, 1983), pp. 42–56 Google Scholar, who questions the whole idea of praise for Argive democracy; Garvie (1969), pp. 150ff.

24. Cf. Costa (1962), 31.

25. Thus Burian, P., ‘Pelasgus and Politics in Aeschylus’ Danaid Trilogy’, WS 8 (1974), 5–14 Google Scholar; cf. Friis Johansen and Whittle (1980), vol. I, pp. 27ff.